PDA

View Full Version : F-86 vs. MiG-15 - The performance thread



Pages : [1] 2

MEGILE
05-17-2007, 05:18 AM
Now that it has been confirmed that a Korea sim is in the offing, the Sabre vs. MiG will be the definitive contest.

I know we have some Sabre piltos on the forum, and guys interested in this matchup.

I invite people to post their data (even josf and his EM graph) in this thread, so we can discuss what to expect.
I don't have any data charts etc. so I have no idea how the two planes will matchup.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Breeze147
05-17-2007, 05:42 AM
F-86's have .50 cals.

The End.

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-17-2007, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
F-86's have .50 cals.

The End.

Yes, but their canopies don't fog on a steep dive from 30,000 feet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Breeze147:
F-86's have .50 cals.

The End.

Yes, but their canopies don't fog on a steep dive from 30,000 feet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...broken climate control system in the Mig they tested.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
F-86's have .50 cals.

The End.


Thirty mm cannon, The real END! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Radar controlled gunsite on the F-86.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 05:58 AM
Mig climb... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

mig turn... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


F-86 dive... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

F-86 roll... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Bremspropeller
05-17-2007, 06:05 AM
Sabre being capable of supersonic speeds (in a dive).
MiG being not.

Klemm.co
05-17-2007, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Sabre being capable of supersonic speeds (in a dive).
MiG being not.
... so what was the actual structural breakup speed for the F-86? Definitely not twice the speed of sound.

ploughman
05-17-2007, 06:22 AM
http://www.aviation-history.com/north-american/f86256.jpg

If the F-86s in this screen shot are anything to go by then it's all fub4rp0rkedn3rfed.

WTE_Ibis
05-17-2007, 06:24 AM
Mig climbs Sabre doesn't

.
Well not untill they changed the wing design.

.

Freelancer-1
05-17-2007, 06:33 AM
Don't know, don't care.

KOTS RULZ!1

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
Mig climbs Sabre doesn't

.
Well not untill they changed the wing design.

.


amd much more powerful engine much later on... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 06:53 AM
http://www.migman.com/ref/2000_combat/SabreMiG/pics/USAF01_04_500.jpg



F-86 vs. Mig 15!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
05-17-2007, 06:54 AM
Early Sabres had a much tougher time against the MiGs so period is a concern. I will be enjoy either side with a bias towards the cannon hawg MiG which was nimbler if it stayed within its envelope.

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 06:56 AM
I'm a "mig driver" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif "mig alley"

Bremspropeller
05-17-2007, 07:02 AM
... so what was the actual structural breakup speed for the F-86? Definitely not twice the speed of sound.

Doesn't matter.
The Sabre could dive away to safety, whereas the MiG couldn't follow.

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ... so what was the actual structural breakup speed for the F-86? Definitely not twice the speed of sound.

Doesn't matter.
The Sabre could dive away to safety, whereas the MiG couldn't follow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mig dives to .098 mach. I wouldn't count on diving away all the time. It rolls really slow though... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Danm I gave all the mig's weaknesses away.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-17-2007, 07:13 AM
No need!

A few GAMERS here have determined that performance differences do not mater!

And all those people who risked their lives back than to recover and test enemy aircraft were fools to do so.

Just use the force Luke! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
No need!

A few GAMERS here have determined that performance differences do not mater!

And all those people who risked their lives back than to recover and test enemy aircraft were fools to do so. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You really really have to know the mig's weaknesses to fight it on even terms.

Irish_Rogues
05-17-2007, 07:15 AM
Some where around 10-1 kill ratio....F-86 FTW! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

AKA_TAGERT
05-17-2007, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
No need!

A few GAMERS here have determined that performance differences do not mater!

And all those people who risked their lives back than to recover and test enemy aircraft were fools to do so.

Just use the force Luke! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You really really have to know the mig's weaknesses to fight it on even terms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>USE THE FORCE LUKE!

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
Some where around 10-1 kill ratio....F-86 FTW! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Crappy chinese newbie pilots..

Check out the "Russian Instructor's" numbers. There is quite a difference.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
No need!

A few GAMERS here have determined that performance differences do not mater!

And all those people who risked their lives back than to recover and test enemy aircraft were fools to do so.

Just use the force Luke! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You really really have to know the mig's weaknesses to fight it on even terms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>USE THE FORCE LUKE! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 07:20 AM
http://www.fototime.com/237AAE95ABA0FCB/standard.jpg



Use The Force Luke!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Star Wars!!

Bremspropeller
05-17-2007, 07:24 AM
The Mig dives to .098 mach. I wouldn't count on diving away all the time.

Got a source for that speed?

The Sabre was fully controllable during a power-dive, whereas the MiG could hardly maneuvre.

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 07:28 AM
http://www.kmike.com/KWjpg/sabremigY.jpg



www.acepilots.com/korea_mcconnell.html (http://www.acepilots.com/korea_mcconnell.html)

Captain Joseeph McConnell Top jet ace, USAF F-86 Sabre pilot shot down 16 Soviet MIGS over Korea.

WOLFMondo
05-17-2007, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

The Sabre was fully controllable during a power-dive, whereas the MiG could hardly maneuvre.

From the 'E' onwards I belive.

ploughman
05-17-2007, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ... so what was the actual structural breakup speed for the F-86? Definitely not twice the speed of sound.

Doesn't matter.
The Sabre could dive away to safety, whereas the MiG couldn't follow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mig dives to .098 mach. I wouldn't count on diving away all the time. It rolls really slow though... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Danm I gave all the mig's weaknesses away.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mcah 0.98? Isn't that withing the trans-sonic realm. I'd've thought that would make controlling the aircraft pretty difficult, any more info?

BrewsterPilot
05-17-2007, 07:34 AM
The mig is porked.
Be sure.

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ... so what was the actual structural breakup speed for the F-86? Definitely not twice the speed of sound.

Doesn't matter.
The Sabre could dive away to safety, whereas the MiG couldn't follow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mig dives to .098 mach. I wouldn't count on diving away all the time. It rolls really slow though... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Danm I gave all the mig's weaknesses away.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mcah 0.98? Isn't that withing the trans-sonic realm. I'd've thought that would make controlling the aircraft pretty difficult, any more info? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

.96-98 Not totally sure. I know it was right on the edge.

AKA_TAGERT
05-17-2007, 07:39 AM
Jet Sims Blow!

I would rather Oleg make a WWI sim!

Bi-Planes rock!

http://www.davesbrain.ca/miscpix/blogpix/LJ061027F86.jpg

Best of both worlds?

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 07:41 AM
"It was found the aircraft had an alarming yaw at speeds above Mach 0.9 and it also had a tendency to flip itself out of a high speed turn. This latter problem was common to most early, high speed jet fighters. The yaw problem was never satisfactorily resolved. The craft was simply fitted with speed brakes on each side of the rear fuselage which automatically opened at Mach 0.9. The Soviets were fond of simple, crude fixes such as the speed brakes. When it was found that production standards were being ignored and a resulting problem of unequal lift from the wings occurred, the Russians simply improvised a trim tab to one of the wings to increase or decrease the lift of that wing. However, the trim tab could only be adjusted while the craft was on the ground.. "

http://www.aviation-history.com/mikoyan/mig15.html

AKA_TAGERT
05-17-2007, 07:42 AM
Performance Minded
http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/0690jetwar5.jpg

Not Performance Minded
http://photos17.flickr.com/23395223_88a4e9e3f0_m.jpg

stalkervision
05-17-2007, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Performance Minded
http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/0690jetwar5.jpg

Not Performance Minded
http://photos17.flickr.com/23395223_88a4e9e3f0_m.jpg

Your making me laugh this morning Tagert. Keep it up! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 07:49 AM
http://www.flight1.com/images/mig-15/MiG-153.jpg



http://www.flight1.com/images/mig-15/MiG-159.jpg



http://www.flight1.com/images/mig-15/MiG-152.jpg



http://www.flight1.com/images/mig-15/MiG-154.jpg



http://www.flight1.com/images/mig-15/MiG-155.jpg



Bear Studios MiG-15!!

www.flight1.com/ (http://www.flight1.com/)

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Performance Minded
http://www.afa.org/magazine/1990/0690jetwar5.jpg

Not Performance Minded
http://photos17.flickr.com/23395223_88a4e9e3f0_m.jpg



I am laugh!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif and http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

LStarosta
05-17-2007, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
http://www.fototime.com/237AAE95ABA0FCB/standard.jpg



Use The Force Luke!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Star Wars!!

I am laugh!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LStarosta
05-17-2007, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
http://www.flight1.com/images/mig-15/MiG-153.jpg



http://www.flight1.com/images/mig-15/MiG-159.jpg



http://www.flight1.com/images/mig-15/MiG-152.jpg



http://www.flight1.com/images/mig-15/MiG-154.jpg



http://www.flight1.com/images/mig-15/MiG-155.jpg



Bear Studios MiG-15!!

www.flight1.com/ (http://www.flight1.com/)

LOL what a display of ***otry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 09:01 AM
Greatest Military Clashes- F-86 Sabre Vs Mig-15 1/5


www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU1nCZh4lg8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU1nCZh4lg8)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif just watch!!

MEGILE
05-17-2007, 09:05 AM
Comeon guys don't make me watch the History channel

hejbrigade
05-17-2007, 09:07 AM
The MiG-15 was (slightly) faster, could climb quicker and had a greater ceiling. It was not quite as good in a turning fight. The F-86 had faster firing armament and was better equipped, including good armour protection for the pilot. In fact I think there was little to choose between them, as they were the best 2 fighters in the world when first deployed. The differences in the kill scores in Korea can confidently be put down to the superior training and tactics of the American pilots.
IMO, the MiG was better until the arrival of the F-86F which equalized them. I've seen a ridiculous air-to-air Sabre vs MiG battle on History Channel where a Sabre and his wingman chased a MiG-15 at ridiculously low altitude through a dry river-bed. It was caused when the Sabres got on to the MiGs tail and the MiG tried a Split-S maneuver that almost sent him into the ground. It ended when the Sabres shot down the MiG over his airbase in China, with one Sabre getting damaged to an extent that it couldn't get home. The MiG never got a shot off, the one Sabre lost was hit by anti-aircraft fire from the airbase.

The MiG was a better energy fighter with extreme armament in it's 37mm cannon and high speed, altitude and power. The F-86 was a better turning fighter with a superb gunsight and quick armament, along with better range. The F version took care of the speed and altitude deficiencies to a large extent, while improving maneuverability further with an all-flying tail. I would say F-86F>MiG-15>F-86E>F-86A.

I do not know about the MiG-15Bis, and it may be better than the F-86F. However, results are results, and they say that the Sabre has got the advantage 10 to 1, even if it was because of pilots.

This is a most interesting thread. I would like to see the flight manual of the MiG-15 and MiG-15bis and compare it with the FMs of F-86A, F-86E and F-86F

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/1498/mig15f86qa5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 09:21 AM
Dogfights: Mig Alley: Robbie Risner

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBBz4Eo4Gak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBBz4Eo4Gak)

HayateAce
05-17-2007, 09:23 AM
bunch of ***ots

Dtools4fools
05-17-2007, 09:24 AM
nd they say that the Sabre has got the advantage 10 to 1

I wonder how those numbers were tweaked...

Read the book 'over the beach' or something like that, Vietnam war book. There's a case mentioned in there where a F-86 was lost due to *battle damage*. It was damaged by a MIG and ditched into the sea however it was purposedly written off as *due to battle damaged* to keep the Viet-US score better...

Statistics... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
****

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 09:35 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Lavochkin_La-15.jpg



Lavochkin La-15!!!



http://www.billythekidsnewmexico.com/Themes/Banner.jpg

Philipscdrw
05-17-2007, 10:00 AM
Perhaps there should be a system for playing online: the game logs your flight hours, and when you join a server you get sent to the USAF if your total time is in the top 33%, else you fly for the Communist forces... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hejbrigade
05-17-2007, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
Dogfights: Mig Alley: Robbie Risner

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBBz4Eo4Gak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBBz4Eo4Gak)

Another thing is don't discredit communist migs. they may have been infeior compared to there western counterparts in many ways but were still deadly in the right hands. The russians actually built very capable jets. The best example being the flanker a deadly close ranged dogfighter that could easily outmenuver many western fighters including beloved eagle .

I wonder why I never see any American's get burned in the air by those crepy MiG's? Probably feeding people with patriotism **** since first TV signal in the USA. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 10:39 AM
VC View f86 Sabre:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFUEtMiOs7A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFUEtMiOs7A)


F-86 Sabre:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T1DzpEDKrg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T1DzpEDKrg)

Jaws2002
05-17-2007, 10:54 AM
In Target Korea only the experienced pilots can effectively fight against the Mig. In the early stages of the war is really hard to find people to fly Sabre A. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif You have to stay very fast to fight the Mig.

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:

Captain Joseeph McConnell Top jet ace, USAF F-86 Sabre pilot shot down 16 Soviet MIGS over Korea.
Hmm... Pepelyaev and Sutyagin rings the bell?

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:
The MiG-15 was (slightly) faster, could climb quicker and had a greater ceiling. It was not quite as good in a turning fight. The F-86 had faster firing armament and was better equipped, including good armour protection for the pilot. In fact I think there was little to choose between them, as they were the best 2 fighters in the world when first deployed. The differences in the kill scores in Korea can confidently be put down to the superior training and tactics of the American pilots.
IMO, the MiG was better until the arrival of the F-86F which equalized them. I've seen a ridiculous air-to-air Sabre vs MiG battle on History Channel where a Sabre and his wingman chased a MiG-15 at ridiculously low altitude through a dry river-bed. It was caused when the Sabres got on to the MiGs tail and the MiG tried a Split-S maneuver that almost sent him into the ground. It ended when the Sabres shot down the MiG over his airbase in China, with one Sabre getting damaged to an extent that it couldn't get home. The MiG never got a shot off, the one Sabre lost was hit by anti-aircraft fire from the airbase.

The MiG was a better energy fighter with extreme armament in it's 37mm cannon and high speed, altitude and power. The F-86 was a better turning fighter with a superb gunsight and quick armament, along with better range. The F version took care of the speed and altitude deficiencies to a large extent, while improving maneuverability further with an all-flying tail. I would say F-86F>MiG-15>F-86E>F-86A.

I do not know about the MiG-15Bis, and it may be better than the F-86F. However, results are results, and they say that the Sabre has got the advantage 10 to 1, even if it was because of pilots.

This is a most interesting thread. I would like to see the flight manual of the MiG-15 and MiG-15bis and compare it with the FMs of F-86A, F-86E and F-86F


Let's say that american claim of 10:1 is a little... Hmmm.... Exhagerated.... It is closer to 3:1 - 4:1 still in USAF favour calculating all MiGs that actually flew combat missions in Korea, but do not forget that MiGs were the only really acting soviet built plane in the area, while their opponents were F-86, F-84, F-80, Meteor, B-29... Should i go on?

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:

Captain Joseeph McConnell Top jet ace, USAF F-86 Sabre pilot shot down 16 Soviet MIGS over Korea.
Hmm... Pepelyaev and Sutyagin rings the bell? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/gifs/pepely1.jpg



http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/gifs/pepelyv5.jpg



Colonal Pepelyaev

www.acepilots.com (http://www.acepilots.com)

LStarosta
05-17-2007, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hejbrigade:
The MiG-15 was (slightly) faster, could climb quicker and had a greater ceiling. It was not quite as good in a turning fight. The F-86 had faster firing armament and was better equipped, including good armour protection for the pilot. In fact I think there was little to choose between them, as they were the best 2 fighters in the world when first deployed. The differences in the kill scores in Korea can confidently be put down to the superior training and tactics of the American pilots.
IMO, the MiG was better until the arrival of the F-86F which equalized them. I've seen a ridiculous air-to-air Sabre vs MiG battle on History Channel where a Sabre and his wingman chased a MiG-15 at ridiculously low altitude through a dry river-bed. It was caused when the Sabres got on to the MiGs tail and the MiG tried a Split-S maneuver that almost sent him into the ground. It ended when the Sabres shot down the MiG over his airbase in China, with one Sabre getting damaged to an extent that it couldn't get home. The MiG never got a shot off, the one Sabre lost was hit by anti-aircraft fire from the airbase.

The MiG was a better energy fighter with extreme armament in it's 37mm cannon and high speed, altitude and power. The F-86 was a better turning fighter with a superb gunsight and quick armament, along with better range. The F version took care of the speed and altitude deficiencies to a large extent, while improving maneuverability further with an all-flying tail. I would say F-86F>MiG-15>F-86E>F-86A.

I do not know about the MiG-15Bis, and it may be better than the F-86F. However, results are results, and they say that the Sabre has got the advantage 10 to 1, even if it was because of pilots.

This is a most interesting thread. I would like to see the flight manual of the MiG-15 and MiG-15bis and compare it with the FMs of F-86A, F-86E and F-86F


Let's say that american claim of 10:1 is a little... Hmmm.... Exhagerated.... It is closer to 3:1 - 4:1 still in USAF favour calculating all MiGs that actually flew combat missions in Korea, but do not forget that MiGs were the only really acting soviet built plane in the area, while their opponents were F-86, F-84, F-80, Meteor, B-29... Should i go on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are wrong.

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:

Captain Joseeph McConnell <span class="ev_code_RED">Top jet ace, USAF F-86 Sabre pilot shot down 16 Soviet MIGS over Korea</span>.
Hmm... Pepelyaev and Sutyagin rings the bell? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/gifs/pepely1.jpg



http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/gifs/pepelyv5.jpg



Colonal Pepelyaev </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

W.Wayne Patton "Aces"
Squadron/Signal Publication, 1998

Two best aces in Korea were Evgenii Pepelyaev (23 kills) and Nikolay Sutyagin (21). Americans Joseph McConnell (16 kills) and James Jabara (15) were best allied aces.

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:

You are wrong.

Prove it...

LStarosta
05-17-2007, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:

You are wrong.

Prove it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. You disprove the 10-1 ratio with valid sources. Until then, you're just another bitter revisionist.

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:

Captain Joseeph McConnell <span class="ev_code_RED">Top jet ace, USAF F-86 Sabre pilot shot down 16 Soviet MIGS over Korea</span>.
Hmm... Pepelyaev and Sutyagin rings the bell? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/gifs/pepely1.jpg



http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/gifs/pepelyv5.jpg



Colonal Pepelyaev </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

W.Wayne Patton "Aces"
Squadron/Signal Publication, 1998

Two best aces in Korea were Evgenii Pepelyaev (23 kills) and Nikolay Sutyagin (21). Americans Joseph McConnell (16 kills) and James Jabara (15) were best allied aces. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



www.acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html (http://www.acepilots.com/russian/rus_aces.html)



All right!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I know!!

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:

No. You disprove the 10-1 ratio with valid sources. Until then, you're just another bitter revisionist.
W.Wayne Patton "Aces"
Squadron/Signal Publication, 1998

Welcome to TsAMO... All you need is there...

And by the way - Korea is not my area of research, you have to discuss this time with Yurii Tepsurkaev or Igor Seidov at VIF

LStarosta
05-17-2007, 11:49 AM
Crimson Sky: The Air Battle for Korea
-John R Bruning

Potomac Books; New Ed edition (July 30, 2005)
ISBN: 1574888412


By the end of hostilities, it [the Sabre] had shot down 792 MiGs at a loss of only 76 Sabres, a victory ratio of 10 to 1. In the hands of skillful pilots, the Sabre's 10-1 Kill ratio over the MiG-15 was the best achieved in any sustained fighter campaign.


I accept your apology.

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Crimson Sky: The Air Battle for Korea
-John R Bruning

Potomac Books; New Ed edition (July 30, 2005)
ISBN: 1574888412

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the end of hostilities, it [the Sabre] had shot down 792 MiGs at a loss of only 76 Sabres, a victory ratio of 10 to 1. In the hands of skillful pilots, the Sabre's 10-1 Kill ratio over the MiG-15 was the best achieved in any sustained fighter campaign. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great... Lets say that thay managed to kill more planes that were available. What you are saying - its 10:1 CLAIM ratio (about the same for russians 1:10), what I'm saying is 3:1 KILL ratio... Feel the difference...

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517215924)_kamikadze1_1_.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517220111)_vykusi.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517220338)_index.jpg

LStarosta
05-17-2007, 12:02 PM
I see that English is not your first language, so let me paraphrase this into words you can understand.

Shot down means shot down.

Shot down does not mean claimed.

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Crimson Sky: The Air Battle for Korea
-John R Bruning

Potomac Books; New Ed edition (July 30, 2005)
ISBN: 1574888412


I accept your apology.
I was not apologising. Is there a TsAMO at the sources of information? If no - this book is load of ****.

JG7_Rall
05-17-2007, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
I see that English is not your first language, so let me paraphrase this into words you can understand.

Shot down means shot down.

Shot down does not mean claimed.

English isn't his problem; a lack of an IQ above mentally handicapped status is the real issue here.

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Crimson Sky: The Air Battle for Korea
-John R Bruning

Potomac Books; New Ed edition (July 30, 2005)
ISBN: 1574888412


I accept your apology.
I was not apologising. Is there a TsAMO at the sources of information? If no - this book is load of ****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not worry!! ok!! I am laugh!!! F-86 pilot aces and Mig-15 pilot aces is very good!! Cool!!

JG7_Rall
05-17-2007, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Crimson Sky: The Air Battle for Korea
-John R Bruning

Potomac Books; New Ed edition (July 30, 2005)
ISBN: 1574888412

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the end of hostilities, it [the Sabre] had shot down 792 MiGs at a loss of only 76 Sabres, a victory ratio of 10 to 1. In the hands of skillful pilots, the Sabre's 10-1 Kill ratio over the MiG-15 was the best achieved in any sustained fighter campaign. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great... Lets say that thay managed to kill more planes that were available. What you are saying - its 10:1 CLAIM ratio (about the same for russians 1:10), what I'm saying is 3:1 KILL ratio... Feel the difference...

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517215924)_kamikadze1_1_.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517220111)_vykusi.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517220338)_index.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I bet those pictures really get you off huh.

Quick question: How many fellow Russians did your butt buddy there have to kill to be awarded his "Hero of the Soviet Union" (ooo!!!) status?

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
I see that English is not your first language, so let me paraphrase this into words you can understand.

Shot down means shot down.

Shot down does not mean claimed.
Ok... History Channel did the work... Each plane shot down has WNr... Which are well known for USAF... Give me list of 700+ WNr's for MiGs please... If people who spent several years at Central Archive of Ministry of Defence (TsAMO) say that 300 MiGs were lost? It means 300 planes lost... FINAL. Lets say Chinese lost another 100... Which is not well known since their archives are not opened so far, but they fielded about 100 MiGs, it still makes 400, not 700! While claims of soviet pilots were greatly exhagerated in battle reports, losses were extremely carefully recorded.

Oh, yes, no need to become agressive... I'm sorry that results may change when one looks from the other point of view...

LStarosta
05-17-2007, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Crimson Sky: The Air Battle for Korea
-John R Bruning

Potomac Books; New Ed edition (July 30, 2005)
ISBN: 1574888412

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the end of hostilities, it [the Sabre] had shot down 792 MiGs at a loss of only 76 Sabres, a victory ratio of 10 to 1. In the hands of skillful pilots, the Sabre's 10-1 Kill ratio over the MiG-15 was the best achieved in any sustained fighter campaign. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great... Lets say that thay managed to kill more planes that were available. What you are saying - its 10:1 CLAIM ratio (about the same for russians 1:10), what I'm saying is 3:1 KILL ratio... Feel the difference...

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517215924)_kamikadze1_1_.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517220111)_vykusi.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517220338)_index.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I bet those pictures really get you off huh.

Quick question: How many fellow Russians did your butt buddy there have to kill to be awarded his "Hero of the Soviet Union" (ooo!!!) status? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL! Don't take away his fantasy of world grandeur. It's all he has left!

JG7_Rall
05-17-2007, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I see that English is not your first language, so let me paraphrase this into words you can understand.

Shot down means shot down.

Shot down does not mean claimed.
Ok... History Channel did the work... Each plane shot down has WNr... Which are well known for USAF... Give me list of 700+ WNr's for MiGs please... If people who spent several years at Central Archive of Ministry of Defence (TsAMO) say that 300 MiGs were lost? It means 300 planes lost... FINAL. Lets say Chinese lost another 100... Which is not well known since their archives are not opened so far, but they fielded about 100 MiGs, it still makes 400, not 700! While claims of soviet pilots were greatly exhagerated in battle reports, losses were extremely carefully recorded.

Oh, yes, no need to become agressive... I'm sorry that results may change when one looks from the other point of view... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, we all know how reliable those Soviet records are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif. Get off your high communist horse.

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:

LOL! Don't take away his fantasy of world grandeur. It's all he has left!

Good sign that there is nothing to discuss with you...

Freelancer-1
05-17-2007, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I see that English is not your first language, so let me paraphrase this into words you can understand.

Shot down means shot down.

Shot down does not mean claimed.
Ok... History Channel did the work... Each plane shot down has WNr... Which are well known for USAF... Give me list of 700+ WNr's for MiGs please... If people who spent several years at Central Archive of Ministry of Defence (TsAMO) say that 300 MiGs were lost? It means 300 planes lost... FINAL. Lets say Chinese lost another 100... Which is not well known since their archives are not opened so far, but they fielded about 100 MiGs, it still makes 400, not 700! While claims of soviet pilots were greatly exhagerated in battle reports, losses were extremely carefully recorded.

Oh, yes, no need to become agressive... I'm sorry that results may change when one looks from the other point of view... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


IIRC, the Chinese sold a couple of dozen after the conflict so you can prolly revise the losses accordingly.

JG7_Rall
05-17-2007, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Crimson Sky: The Air Battle for Korea
-John R Bruning

Potomac Books; New Ed edition (July 30, 2005)
ISBN: 1574888412

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the end of hostilities, it [the Sabre] had shot down 792 MiGs at a loss of only 76 Sabres, a victory ratio of 10 to 1. In the hands of skillful pilots, the Sabre's 10-1 Kill ratio over the MiG-15 was the best achieved in any sustained fighter campaign. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great... Lets say that thay managed to kill more planes that were available. What you are saying - its 10:1 CLAIM ratio (about the same for russians 1:10), what I'm saying is 3:1 KILL ratio... Feel the difference...

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517215924)_kamikadze1_1_.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517220111)_vykusi.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517220338)_index.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I bet those pictures really get you off huh.

Quick question: How many fellow Russians did your butt buddy there have to kill to be awarded his "Hero of the Soviet Union" (ooo!!!) status? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL! Don't take away his fantasy of world grandeur. It's all he has left! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.oph.gov.au/frith/images/pictures/heraldD.jpg

LStarosta
05-17-2007, 12:25 PM
LOL because Russian Ministry of Defense files are accurate? How long did it take for TsAMO to confirm atrocities like Katyn, Lidice, Bialystok, Lvov, Pinsk? I'm sorry, but the Russian government isn't exactly known to be very forthcoming with information that doesn't put itself in a nice light.

Regardless, the author does cross reference his sources, using both USAF and Chinese, USSR, and what little North Korean information he could find. I gave you the ISBN. Look it up yourself.

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 12:27 PM
I know well, My deaf friend name is Borislav from Russian!! Cool!! My deaf friend Borisslav moved in Oklahoma. City, Oklahoma. Borislav's Dad and Mother live in Russia.

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:

IIRC, the Chinese sold a couple of dozen after the conflict so you can prolly revise the losses accordingly.

Thay had some more MiGs in the rear units, and I do not know how many for sure... So 24 from what original number? Besides, they had some Bis versions... Once again - not sure how many of those.

JG7_Rall
05-17-2007, 12:28 PM
Oh, and here's my response for what's undoubtedly the topic for your next response: the war in Iraq and other topics of anti-American sentiment. How's this for preemptive!?!

http://iowalibertarian.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/islm_cartoon_6-701917.jpg

KrasniyYastreb
05-17-2007, 12:29 PM
First of all, there is no reason to insult someone just because you don't agree with them. Second, Lietenant General (ret.) G. Lobov, commander of the 64th IAK in Korea, in an interview in 1991, provided the total number of MiGs lost in Korea by Soviet Forces as 345. This includes losses of all types, but does not include losses by Chinese and Korean forces.

Here is the link:
http://www.airforce.ru/history/korea/index.htm
though I doubt it will do you much good.

AKA_TAGERT
05-17-2007, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Oh, and here's my response for what's undoubtedly the topic for your next response: the war in Iraq and other topics of anti-American sentiment. How's this for preemptive!?!

http://iowalibertarian.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/islm_cartoon_6-701917.jpg ROTFL

LStarosta
05-17-2007, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freelancer-1:

IIRC, the Chinese sold a couple of dozen after the conflict so you can prolly revise the losses accordingly.

Thay had some more MiGs in the rear units, and I do not know how many for sure... So 24 from what original number? Besides, they had some Bis versions... Once again - not sure how many of those. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fully accept your apology. Now we can finally get back into doing something more civil like sending foreign aid to poor starving Russian children.

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
LOL because Russian Ministry of Defense files are accurate? How long did it take for TsAMO to confirm atrocities like Katyn, Lidice, Bialystok, Lvov, Pinsk? C'mon, quit jerkin off. What it has to do with the ARMY? You are mixing a lot of things... About which you actually have no idea. This link may give you some idea... Or it may not give...

http://www.obd-memorial.ru/Memorial/Memorial.html

JG7_Rall
05-17-2007, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
First of all, there is no reason to insult someone just because you don't agree with them. Second, Lietenant General (ret.) G. Lobov, commander of the 64th IAK in Korea, in an interview in 1991, provided the total number of MiGs lost in Korea by Soviet Forces as 345. This includes losses of all types, but does not include losses by Chinese and Korean forces.

Here is the link:
http://www.airforce.ru/history/korea/index.htm
though I doubt it will do you much good.

Thank you sir for the educational material. However, when I put it into microsoft word, everything was underlined in red. I think it needs some proofreading.

HayateAce
05-17-2007, 12:33 PM
Doesn't matter comrades. F86 should have G-Suit, longer and more accurate firing range, tighter turn down low and better visibility ALL THE WAY AROUND.

It will be negated for G A M E P L A Y .

FPSOLKOR
05-17-2007, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Oh, and here's my response for what's undoubtedly the topic for your next response: the war in Iraq and other topics of anti-American sentiment. How's this for preemptive!?!

http://iowalibertarian.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/islm_cartoon_6-701917.jpg
And what if I say that I'm a muslim and you just offended my religious feelings?

HayateAce
05-17-2007, 12:35 PM
For your entertainment ONLY:

Part 1 of MiG vs F86 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU1nCZh4lg8&mode=related&search=)

IIJG69_Kartofe
05-17-2007, 12:35 PM
Back to topic...

F86 has Slats ... Like a 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , mig don't.

F86 has nice yellow paintjobs on it (like german planes), mig don't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

F86 like the mig 15 will probably have poor rear view due to a huge armor plate behind the pilot and the impossibility to lean the head due to game limitations... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
First of all, there is no reason to insult someone just because you don't agree with them. Second, Lietenant General (ret.) G. Lobov, commander of the 64th IAK in Korea, in an interview in 1991, provided the total number of MiGs lost in Korea by Soviet Forces as 345. This includes losses of all types, but does not include losses by Chinese and Korean forces.

Here is the link:
http://www.airforce.ru/history/korea/index.htm
though I doubt it will do you much good.

Thank you sir for the educational material. However, when I put it into microsoft word, everything was underlined in red. I think it needs some proofreading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Borislav will visit come my house. Borislav will read Russian language and Amercian and Russian Sign Language!! I am laugh!! Not worry!! I can do Russian Sign Language !!! Borislav can read Russian language and Borislav will http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif tell me.!! no plm !!

crazyivan1970
05-17-2007, 12:37 PM
Rall, suspended 4 weeks for insults, Starosta 3 days for trolling.

Any questions, my PM is open.

LStarosta
05-17-2007, 12:39 PM
IATB!!!

JG7_Rall
05-17-2007, 12:39 PM
bann test

JG7_Rall
05-17-2007, 12:40 PM
IBTB

JG7_Rall
05-17-2007, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
Oh, and here's my response for what's undoubtedly the topic for your next response: the war in Iraq and other topics of anti-American sentiment. How's this for preemptive!?!

http://iowalibertarian.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/islm_cartoon_6-701917.jpg
And what if I say that I'm a muslim and you just offended my religious feelings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I call shenanigans

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
For your entertainment ONLY:

Part 1 of MiG vs F86 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU1nCZh4lg8&mode=related&search=)



http://frontpage.nmia.com/~btkog/BTK_rubbing_horse.gif



I am laugh!!!

JG7_Rall
05-17-2007, 12:41 PM
IBTB?

crazyivan1970
05-17-2007, 12:44 PM
you got that right. Enjoy the vacation! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG14_Josf
05-17-2007, 12:45 PM
The MiG was a better energy fighter with extreme armament in it's 37mm cannon and high speed, altitude and power. The F-86 was a better turning fighter with a superb gunsight and quick armament, along with better range.

The Mig, according to the EM chart, dominated the F-86 in 'sustained' turn performance at slow speed. Does that not prove that the Mig15 was the superior stall/angles fighter?

The F-86, according to the EM chart, had the lower corner velocity and a slight edge in high speed ˜sustained' turn performance. Does that not indicate superiority for energy tactics?

How about historical tactics employed by the pilots flying the F-86?

Bud Mahurin & Boots Blesse (http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html)


Mahurin: It depends on the circumstances of the combat. On several occasions, I dogfought, like World War I, with a MiG. Once we started fighting about 37,000 feet, went around and around down to the ground and back up to about 26,000, before I shot him down. So that hadn't changed much since World Wars One and Two. It was very exciting and a lot of fun. On a couple of other occasions, we caught them when they didn't know we were there. That was just a matter of going in and shooting down an unaware pilot. But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker. We didn't try to climb with them, because they could climb higher than we could. We tried to keep the combat on those elements where we had an advantage. Whenever they were gaining an advantage, we could always leave, we could always turn around and dive away.

Energy fighting tactics include diving extension, zoom climbs, and pitch backs – true or false?


But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker.

Turning faster does not necessarily mean "sustained turn advantage while maintaining altitude".

Turning faster can mean "pull out quicker".


Blesse: Air-to-air fight was like a game. You had to know the rules. You had to know what you could do and what he could do. We had pretty good information on the MiG. It was a point defense airplane, smaller and lighter than the Sabre; it didn't carry as much fuel. Consequently it could out-climb us at any altitude and had more than double our rate of climb above 25,000 feet. It could outrun us at any altitude. So a MiG pilot had a lot to work with. But if you're an F-86 pilot you had a couple of things you could try with this gopher, and one of them is turn. You don't want to try to outclimb him if he's behind you. So you measure these things into the fact. When you first sight him you hope to get an advantage by getting in his rear quarter. You know that he's immediately gonna turn into you, and you need to know how to respond. You close in as close as you can. With fifty caliber machine guns you gotta get within 1200 feet to do any good. Most of the airplanes I shot down were within 400 to 1000 feet.

It's a matter of training and practice. What if he turns into you and gets too close, and you can't make that turn? You gotta know what to do. You gotta know that the nose goes up, and let him come down, and then when you come around you'll still be behind him. If you try to stay on his plane, you're gonna stall your aircraft. Pretty soon you're in trouble because he's gonna reverse his turn, and you're gonna be on the outside going away from him, and you're going to have him behind you. That's what we tried to teach. We tried to make sure that our people didn't unnecessarily expose themselves to a disadvantageous position in combat.



But if you're an F-86 pilot you had a couple of things you could try with this gopher, and one of them is turn.


Turn does not necessarily mean "sustain a level turn while maintaining altitude".


If you try to stay on his plane, you're gonna stall your aircraft.


The MiG pilot fired several rounds, and my wingman broke without telling me. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Now the first two MiGs are coming around to cut off my wingman. I checked my fuel gauge and said to myself, "Oh man, this is one thing I don't need." I came back down, sandwiching the two MiGs between my wingman and myself. I could see the number three and four MiGs trying to cut me off, trying to come in behind me. This fight had started about 23,000 feet; we still had lots of altitude. I told him, "Put your nose down and keep four "G's" on that thing and we'll be okay. So he did, he was pulling it around and going down, the MiGs were trying to get on him, and finally I got in position on the number two man, and I hit him. Sparks flew and pieces of his tail came off. He broke off right away, then the leader broke off, and the two of them left. I called my wingman and said, "Okay, you're clear, roll it out, heading such and such and keep going. Climb to 32,000 feet and you'll be okay." He did that and got home fine.

But I still had two MiGs behind me. Two had gone home, but I still had two behind me. We went a couple more turns, I got down to 7,000 feet, gobbling fuel like mad, keeping the MiGs to the outside. They were not turning quite as tight as I was. I rolled over the top, went around, and got behind them. They took off, and the minute they did I was so glad. I didn't have enough fuel to chase them. I was just trying to get away from them. They went back across the Yalu River, and I went off the other direction to go home.


Turning nose level or nose up will certainly favor the Angles Fighter no?

The light weight fighter with the sustained climb advantage can ˜sustain' a tighter turn and stall fight better with angles tactics no?

Yes – no?

Which is it?


I told him, "Put your nose down and keep four "G's" on that thing and we'll be okay.



They were not turning quite as tight as I was.

If you look at the EM chart that is available on the John Boyd site, then, you can see where 4 g is on the chart. Both planes can sustain more than 4 g in level flight.

The pilot's can sustain more than 4 g for an amount of time. The force required to pull the stick back to maintain 4 g is possible for both planes and a pilot – perhaps. The EM chart records over 7 g for both planes. Assuming the chart was plotting actual flight test data, then, either plane and at least one pilot is capable of generating 7 g.

On the chart the Mig is plotted with a higher maximum g capability than the F-86.

There is no question as to which plane is the better ˜sustained' turn fighter.

The Mig-15 dominates the F-86 is sustained turn fighting (stall fighting) and angles tactics (one circle geometry or nose to nose turns).

The F-86 has the lower corner velocity, and, corner velocity can be maintained in nose low turns; therefore – the F-86 can not only dive away going straight (and gain more energy faster) it can also spiral down in a tighter turn.

It is, perhaps, silly to imagine the F-86 turning a tighter turn while gaining or maintaining altitude over the Mig-15.

I can only form my opinion based upon the available information.

Having an accurate EM chart (even if it doesn't have constant lines of Ps) is a lot more information than having only the recorded experiences of the pilots who use the tactics that work.

hejbrigade
05-17-2007, 12:47 PM
Are you referring to Korea when inferior American Sabres went against superior Soviet-flown Migs and scored a kill ratio of 10:1(a little high) or a more realistic 3:1? And the low number is assuming Soviet pilots shot down every F-86, and if we were referring to only Soviet piloted Migs, and not including Chinese.

Or are you going by the Soviet 2:1 that when combined with the Chinese claim more than twice the amount of Sabre's shot down than were ever in theater?

crazyivan1970
05-17-2007, 12:53 PM
Topic was about performance, not about kill claims. Stick to it. oh wait... it`s not how it works around here.....hmmmm

hejbrigade
05-17-2007, 12:54 PM
Turning back to the Korean Air War: I agree with you that there were periods were the US pilots took the best in the aerial combats. But in the period April 1951-January 1952 were the Soviet MiG-15 pilots from the elite 303 and 324 divisions who won the upper hand - please remember that in such period happened the worst slaughters of the B-29 bombers (April 12 and October 23 1951)- and they shot down more UN planes than their own losses. They even had an 1:1 kill ratio with the F-86s, and as I said before, there were days where fell more Sabres than MiGs.

On April 7 1953 a MiG-15 pilot who would be credited with 5
kills, Sr.Lt. Grigorii N. Berelidze, shot down the F-86E of Harold Fischer
(10 MiG kills), forcing him to eject and being captured. Few days later -on
April 12- another MiG-15 Ace credited with 8 Sabre kills, Semyen A.
Fedorets, could put himself behind and bellow of the F-86E of Joseph
McConnell and shot-up the Sabre so badly that McConnell had to bail out and
carried by helicopter to K-13 (OK, it is far to be told, before to bail out,
McConnell managed to avoid Fedorets and striked back, riddling the MiG with
0.50 bullets and forcing Fedorets to eject too). I want to mean that, even
in the last months of war, Korea was not a ´piece of cake´ for the US
pilots, and the US edge sometimes reduced to none.

50 12 22

Vorobyev/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-86 Bach/4th (KIA)
Fomin/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-86
Tishchenko/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-86
Ryabov/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-86
Agureyev/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-80
Meleshkin/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-80
Pugh/4th USN F-86A 1 x MiG-15 1
Eagleston/4th USAF F-86A 1 x MiG-15 (Zub - wounded)
Meyer/4th USAF F-86A 1 x MiG-15 (Barsegyan - KIA)
Odiborne/4th USAF F-86A 1 x MiG-15
Roberts/4th USAF F-86A 1 x MiG-15
O'Connor/4th USAF F-86A 1 x MiG-15

51 04 12

- V-VS MiG-15 12 x B-29 44 MiGs involved; no losses (Lobov)
4 x F-84
324 IAD V-VS MiG-15 10 x B-29 30 MiGs involved; no losses (Golotyuk)
4 x F-80
- USAF B-29 7 x MiG-15 3 x B-29
6 x MiG-15 (P)
7 x B-29 (D)
Jabara/4th USAF F-86 1 x MiG-15 3
Hinton USAF F-86 1 x MiG-15 2
Meyer USAF F-86 1 x MiG-15 2
Lane USAF F-86 1 x MiG-15

53 07 19
16th Air Division PLAAF MiG-15 1 x F-86
Fedorets/913 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-86 7
Curtin/4th USAF F-86 1 x MiG-15 5 (38th Ace)
Glenn USMC F-86F 1 x MiG-15 2

53 07 20
Sellers USMC F-86 2 x MiG-15
PLAAF MiG-15 1 x F-86F (Sellers - KIA)
V-VS AAA 1 x F-86F (Knott - crashed)

etc. etc.

Let's exclude Chinse and Korean pilots from discussion (i don't care about their performance). Soviet pilots reported their own losses as 1:10 against UN planes in 1951 and 1:2 to 1:1 in 1953

The world 1st jet-vs-jet kill. On November 1st, 1950 was the encounter of MiG-15 and F80. The Soviet pilot Khominyh shot down one of the Shooting Stars. The Americans hide this loss, and did so in future. Many shot down planes were writen-off as "not-combat losses".

So you count bombers and antiquated planes in your kill ratios? A real kill ratio comes from dogfights with the two planes close in technology. The American F-86 Sabre and the Soviet-flown Migs. Bombers are no match for any fighter jet. If you can't shoot down a bomber, or worse, get shot down by one, you have no place flying a fighter.

Fact:
119 Sabres were lost. This is verified. Tail numbers, condition, all recorded. All but 5 lost in air to air engagement.

Fact:
The Soviets admitted 345 Migs lost in Mig Alley.

Simple math and it comes out to around 3:1. Now, if you want to include every bomber and substandard plane, go ahead. But the fact is when almost equal jets fought in dogfighting, with technological advantage going to the Soviets, the kill ratio became uneven in favor of the Americans.

Of course, it's interesting the Russian sources accuse Americans of hiding losses, when they themselves do it, as well as pad numbers and declare kills if a plane simply passes through their crosshairs(or whatever aiming point).

During these times kill can be confirmed only if someone excluding pilot also can confirm this kill. That why some soviet aces have two number of kills: confirmed and unconfirmed.

Yes, we confirmed loss of 345 aircrafts but this number include all losses of Soviet, Chinese and Korean planes like antiquated Il-10, La-9, La-11, Il-2M, Po-2. You "forget" that these also were used.

USA confirmed combat loss of 119 (103) Sabres and 17 B-29. Very funny because according to official rescue teams report they flew 1000+ rescue missions into enemy territory.

According to official US report overall losses of American planes equal to 2837 aircrafts (combat and non-combat). Please explain this number, if combat losses in total according US sources is below 200.

Soviet Union claimed that Soviet pilots downed 1097 enemy planes and this number seems to be more realistic.

In soviet archives every kill accomplished with gun camera photos. But these archives never been transfered to Internet so only few available. Like that:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7930/koreanwar038f86ivanovtg8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:
Turning back to the Korean Air War: I agree with you that there were periods were the US pilots took the best in the aerial combats. But in the period April 1951-January 1952 were the Soviet MiG-15 pilots from the elite 303 and 324 divisions who won the upper hand - please remember that in such period happened the worst slaughters of the B-29 bombers (April 12 and October 23 1951)- and they shot down more UN planes than their own losses. They even had an 1:1 kill ratio with the F-86s, and as I said before, there were days where fell more Sabres than MiGs.

On April 7 1953 a MiG-15 pilot who would be credited with 5
kills, Sr.Lt. Grigorii N. Berelidze, shot down the F-86E of Harold Fischer
(10 MiG kills), forcing him to eject and being captured. Few days later -on
April 12- another MiG-15 Ace credited with 8 Sabre kills, Semyen A.
Fedorets, could put himself behind and bellow of the F-86E of Joseph
McConnell and shot-up the Sabre so badly that McConnell had to bail out and
carried by helicopter to K-13 (OK, it is far to be told, before to bail out,
McConnell managed to avoid Fedorets and striked back, riddling the MiG with
0.50 bullets and forcing Fedorets to eject too). I want to mean that, even
in the last months of war, Korea was not a ´piece of cake´ for the US
pilots, and the US edge sometimes reduced to none.

50 12 22

Vorobyev/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-86 Bach/4th (KIA)
Fomin/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-86
Tishchenko/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-86
Ryabov/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-86
Agureyev/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-80
Meleshkin/177 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-80
Pugh/4th USN F-86A 1 x MiG-15 1
Eagleston/4th USAF F-86A 1 x MiG-15 (Zub - wounded)
Meyer/4th USAF F-86A 1 x MiG-15 (Barsegyan - KIA)
Odiborne/4th USAF F-86A 1 x MiG-15
Roberts/4th USAF F-86A 1 x MiG-15
O'Connor/4th USAF F-86A 1 x MiG-15

51 04 12

- V-VS MiG-15 12 x B-29 44 MiGs involved; no losses (Lobov)
4 x F-84
324 IAD V-VS MiG-15 10 x B-29 30 MiGs involved; no losses (Golotyuk)
4 x F-80
- USAF B-29 7 x MiG-15 3 x B-29
6 x MiG-15 (P)
7 x B-29 (D)
Jabara/4th USAF F-86 1 x MiG-15 3
Hinton USAF F-86 1 x MiG-15 2
Meyer USAF F-86 1 x MiG-15 2
Lane USAF F-86 1 x MiG-15

53 07 19
16th Air Division PLAAF MiG-15 1 x F-86
Fedorets/913 IAP V-VS MiG-15 1 x F-86 7
Curtin/4th USAF F-86 1 x MiG-15 5 (38th Ace)
Glenn USMC F-86F 1 x MiG-15 2

53 07 20
Sellers USMC F-86 2 x MiG-15
PLAAF MiG-15 1 x F-86F (Sellers - KIA)
V-VS AAA 1 x F-86F (Knott - crashed)

etc. etc.

Let's exclude Chinse and Korean pilots from discussion (i don't care about their performance). Soviet pilots reported their own losses as 1:10 against UN planes in 1951 and 1:2 to 1:1 in 1953

The world 1st jet-vs-jet kill. On November 1st, 1950 was the encounter of MiG-15 and F80. The Soviet pilot Khominyh shot down one of the Shooting Stars. The Americans hide this loss, and did so in future. Many shot down planes were writen-off as "not-combat losses".

So you count bombers and antiquated planes in your kill ratios? A real kill ratio comes from dogfights with the two planes close in technology. The American F-86 Sabre and the Soviet-flown Migs. Bombers are no match for any fighter jet. If you can't shoot down a bomber, or worse, get shot down by one, you have no place flying a fighter.

Fact:
119 Sabres were lost. This is verified. Tail numbers, condition, all recorded. All but 5 lost in air to air engagement.

Fact:
The Soviets admitted 345 Migs lost in Mig Alley.

Simple math and it comes out to around 3:1. Now, if you want to include every bomber and substandard plane, go ahead. But the fact is when almost equal jets fought in dogfighting, with technological advantage going to the Soviets, the kill ratio became uneven in favor of the Americans.

Of course, it's interesting the Russian sources accuse Americans of hiding losses, when they themselves do it, as well as pad numbers and declare kills if a plane simply passes through their crosshairs(or whatever aiming point).

During these times kill can be confirmed only if someone excluding pilot also can confirm this kill. That why some soviet aces have two number of kills: confirmed and unconfirmed.

Yes, we confirmed loss of 345 aircrafts but this number include all losses of Soviet, Chinese and Korean planes like antiquated Il-10, La-9, La-11, Il-2M, Po-2. You "forget" that these also were used.

USA confirmed combat loss of 119 (103) Sabres and 17 B-29. Very funny because according to official rescue teams report they flew 1000+ rescue missions into enemy territory.

According to official US report overall losses of American planes equal to 2837 aircrafts (combat and non-combat). Please explain this number, if combat losses in total according US sources is below 200.

Soviet Union claimed that Soviet pilots downed 1097 enemy planes and this number seems to be more realistic.

In soviet archives every kill accomplished with gun camera photos. But these archives never been transfered to Internet so only few available. Like that:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/7930/koreanwar038f86ivanovtg8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)



wow!! I did read it!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HayateAce
05-17-2007, 01:22 PM
I am Laugh!

Ivan, you can change my text to F86 is NERFED! President.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

http://www.amtjets.com/f86_trim_gallery.jpg

ultraHun
05-17-2007, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:
...
Fact:
The Soviets admitted 345 Migs lost in Mig Alley.
...
Yes, we confirmed loss of 345 aircrafts but this number include all losses of Soviet, Chinese and Korean planes like antiquated Il-10, La-9, La-11, Il-2M, Po-2. You "forget" that these also were used.
...


Interesting post. But one of these two statements must be a typo, I guess?

hejbrigade
05-17-2007, 01:56 PM
This is not a typo! Book MiG-15 and Korean War published by Osprey generally, the Osprey books are accurate and have some good infos. I am historian geek can't help my self. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I think It was enough said. Performance bars are in the pilots heads who flew those planes around the world under different colors.

Irish_Rogues
05-17-2007, 01:59 PM
Let's exclude Chinse and Korean pilots from discussion (i don't care about their performance).

But if they were flying Migs then they count toward US claims as all Migs flew under those banners. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Monguse
05-17-2007, 02:41 PM
Warning, this falls within the category of performance!

Ammunition:

What will this sim offer as far as 50 cal ammo?

1. Ball, Ball, Ball, Ball, Tracer, APIT
2. API , API, API, API, ... APIT

I'm sure we have some F86 armorers in this forum. Ya'll have docs on the belt makeup?


Thanks

XyZspineZyX
05-17-2007, 03:27 PM
MiG-15 was an exemplary are robust aircraft

F-86 was an exemplary and robust aircraft

In any Mig 15 vs F-86 encounter in a simulation, until actual tactics, training doctrine, construction quality, and pilot psychology are modelled, we will, just like in this sim, see unrealistical and totally unhistorical results from the match up

Numbers on paper are not the story behind combat aircraft; their use is. It has been proven time and time again that theory and implementation are not the same thing for combat aircraft

Both the Mig 15 and the F-86 have strong and weak points. Both have optimum performance altitudes and speeds. Both have pluses and minuses in regard to weaponry and construction methods techniques and materials, as well as technology and pilot training on the National level

BillyTheKid_22
05-17-2007, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
I am Laugh!

Ivan, you can change my text to F86 is NERFED! President.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

http://www.amtjets.com/f86_trim_gallery.jpg



http://www.aero-pix.com/qp02/f86/f86-b.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



http://www.billythekidsnewmexico.com/Themes/Banner.jpg

carguy_
05-17-2007, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
Back to topic...

F86 has Slats ... Like a 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , mig don't.

F86 has nice yellow paintjobs on it (like german planes), mig don't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

F86 like the mig 15 will probably have poor rear view due to a huge armor plate behind the pilot and the impossibility to lean the head due to game limitations... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


Poor rear view sounds German-ish.

Big guns sound German-ish.

And most of all,the F86 is not the bad guy`s plane.

As a Korean war n00b I can see the numbers are most interesting.If Migs could just intercept IL2 109 pilots,I wager it would look anything else than Korea Mig losses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MrMojok
05-17-2007, 08:21 PM
Holy Sh1t.

You guys never cease to amaze me. You are actually having a pre-emptive argument for a game that won't see the light of day until at least 2008!

This is going to put a whole new slant on the old "Red vs Blue" debate. At least we'll have just two basic plane types to argue about.

I shudder to think of what the boards might be like when this game comes out. let alone BoB.

Josf, please get the doghouse graph in here.

JG14_Josf
05-17-2007, 09:05 PM
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Energy%20Bleed.jpg

That one is edited by me to highlight the difference between ˜sustained' performances at specific speeds compared to ˜dynamic' performances at the same speeds.

The dot on the upper left is the F-86 corner speed. That flight condition is the end result of either a Loaded Deceleration test or a Wind Up Turn where the F-86 is decelerated from high speed to the stall line at a specific altitude and the speed where the stall buffet begins is recorded along with the g load and then those two numbers are plotted on the graph as Corner Speed.

F-86 = 7.2 g /.5 Mach = Corner Speed

The dot under the arrow on the left is the F-86 ˜sustained' turn performance at the same speed (corner speed under a different flight condition).

F-86 = 4.5 g / .5 Mach

I did not add what the Mig can do at .5 Mach, instead, I added the Mig-15 corner speed and the Mig -15 ˜sustained' performance at the Mig-15 corner speed.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

That was edited by me to show the superiority of the F-86 in dynamic maneuvering (loaded decelerations, wind up turns, and nose low maximum performance turns). The white area is where the F-86 can fly and the Mig-15 cannot fly. The Mig-15 stalls under the flight conditions where the F-86 really shines as an energy fighter. The only advantage, again, is during expenditures of velocity or altitude or both. The advantage can be understood when considering what happens if both planes are turning a downward spiral at maximum g force. The F-86 can maintain 7.2 g / .5 Mach. The Mig-15 cannot.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Energ%20Time.jpg

That one highlights what happens when the flight conditions required for corner speed are spent. Imagine being at corner speed in a diving turn and then try to level off and maintain altitude – what happens? If the pilot rolls out and rides the stall, then, speed will decrease to a minimum until the plane stalls.

Note: The Mig-15 has a ˜sustained' stall line that intersects the accelerated stall line at almost right angles. I'm not sure what that means without knowing if the plots are ONLY flight tests or a combination of flight tests and calculations, or even if the flight tests were Wind Up Turns, Loaded Decelerations, and other flight tests that could easily end up plotting that nearly right angle intersection of the sustained and the accelerated stall lines.

Imagine being at the Mig-15 ˜sustained' minimum speed and imagine trying to go slower. What happens? Does the plane abruptly stall?
The F-86 ˜sustained' stall line is gradual and not abrupt as it intersects the accelerated stall line.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Wing%20Loading.jpg

That one highlights where the Mig-15 is KING. The Mig-15 can ˜sustain' level flight at just over .4 Mach AND generate 4.5 g! That is 18 degrees per second sustained. It is a relatively larger turn radius by WWII standards but much smaller compared to the smallest ˜sustained' turn the F-86 can muster. The peak turn rate "sustained" for the F-86 is 15 decrees per second. There is no contest here in stall fighting – none.

HellToupee
05-17-2007, 10:35 PM
the charts it was only a matter of time

heywooood
05-17-2007, 10:57 PM
this is awesome! exactally what I come back here for...l o f'n l

just wait until the Korea sim is actually released...oh the hugemanatee.

F-86 Sabre is P O R K E D !1111

I have proofs Oleg is teh biased see my looong chart tatoo on my dingus...most graphic proofs with cialis curve.

Mig is teh U B E R without heavy controls like real life pilot accounts 111!!! out diving and then turning like Spit to stay on my 6 why OleG??!!

its like an airaid sireeen that is just begining to get CRANKED by the forum experten

eeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRR|||||\\\\\\\!!!!!!!

MrMojok
05-17-2007, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
the charts it was only a matter of time

But, his charts are TOTALLY pertinent to the matter at hand in this thread.

Korolov1986
05-17-2007, 11:02 PM
The name of the thread is "F-86 vs. MiG-15 - The performance thread", is it not?

Charts are a key feature when it comes to performance. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MrMojok
05-17-2007, 11:23 PM
Agree 100%.

gkll
05-17-2007, 11:23 PM
The Sabre can exercise aggressive angles tactics after the merge for a time, maybe enough to win the fight, considering the chart. A fast headon co-e merge, say, and the Sabre can really gain some angles, is this the late Sabre with the modern tail? How and to what effect did the slats work on the Sabre, anyone know? That ship really owns the Mig for the first e-bleeding turns, something wrong with the Mig elevators?

Anyways the Sabre probably has 3 hard turns with an advantage over the Mig, add in a high speed roll advantage and you have some real opportunities to dictate the fight, early.

However if the Mig driver is alive after those 3 turns the Sabre is really in trouble. Less turn, roll similar(?), poorer climb, time to dive away, eh? Dive advantage Sabre...

My goodness this sounds like a matchup I know already... I forsee trouble. Except it is perhaps more extreme than the 190 Spitfire matchup that always gets the old debates happening... the Mig is easily double superior and is <faster> too... ouch. Those Yanks must have been pretty hot pilots, overall.

Those Yanks should have been using our Canadian Sabres with the hot engines, wonder how that would match up eh? Any around in the war, or at that time even?

Anyways if what I hear is true that the Mig is faster, has higher T/W, lower wingloading, distinctly better climb, in fact only roll, dive and instantaneous turn go to the Sabre.... the sim world will make this brutal, brutal... those Sabres are gonna be so owned. You think our boys can't shake off a bit of aggressive angles stuff from the Sabre boys, just wait them out a couple of turns and they have to dive away ha ha... it'll be murder. Our sim world will amplify every difference, via long practise, study of modern BFM, consider that 'pilot' quality will be superb, the better sim drivers are fully informed, fully relaxed, fully practised. No fog of war, no misunderstood or unknown BFM principles, no maintenance issues, no pilot quality variance (on average..) no weather, accident, act of God nor coincidence will mar the experience, just the brutal raw physics and all the time in the world.... Im gonna fly a Mig, when you fly as little as I do the motto is 'Why fly junk?' ha ha..

Oleg will have to pork the Mig or something, that would hurt his feelings but geez.... those numbers are bad.

This thread hasn't generated the real info I was hoping for, the above is just general stuff based on limited knowledge of these planes, what is wrong with teh above?

That em chart, which models...? The F Sabre had which tail? Which wing? Is it moderately reliable, a 'real' source?

S!all and good luck to my American cousins.... personally I want a Canadian Sabre thanks

EDIT< I forgot the guns, ouch double ouch.... as I say good luck lads and nothing personal but that Mig looks pretty good to me...>

MrMojok
05-17-2007, 11:38 PM
What I wonder is:

1) are the MiG pilots going to be blacking out constantly while US pilots do not, due to their G-suits?

2) will the MiG absorb many more .50 shells than the Sabre will cannon shells?

majnos64
05-17-2007, 11:48 PM
main differences between these two jets are radar gunsight,G-suit and better canopy in F-86. That makes F-86 a lot better dogfighter.

However it is true Migs were attacked mostly in superior numbers, from sun, or with altutude advantage.

ad supersonic F-86:
Welch flew two of these possible supersonic flights before the X-1 officially broke the sound barrier, one on 1 October 1947 and the other on 14 October, mere minutes before Yeager achieved Mach 1.06. Unfortunately for Welch, his aircraft was not equipped with instrumentation to determine conclusively just how fast he had gone. It was not until 13 November that ground stations were used to measure the speed of the XP-86 in a dive, during which the aircraft was clocked at Mach 1.02 and 1.04 on two separate attempts.

this speed is called transsonic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gkll
05-18-2007, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by majnos64:
main differences between these two jets are radar gunsight,G-suit and better canopy in F-86. That makes F-86 a lot better dogfighter.

However it is true Migs were attacked mostly in superior numbers, from sun, or with altutude advantage.

ad supersonic F-86:
Welch flew two of these possible supersonic flights before the X-1 officially broke the sound barrier, one on 1 October 1947 and the other on 14 October, mere minutes before Yeager achieved Mach 1.06. Unfortunately for Welch, his aircraft was not equipped with instrumentation to determine conclusively just how fast he had gone. It was not until 13 November that ground stations were used to measure the speed of the XP-86 in a dive, during which the aircraft was clocked at Mach 1.02 and 1.04 on two separate attempts.

this speed is called transsonic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think I read somewhere that lots of people were hearing unauthorized sonic booms around that time, it was more than a couple of times, he was out playing in the desert, those were the ratshack days....

No G-suits for the Russkies, no elite Russians EVER tried them out? Factor in that and you have a far more equal combat for sure, that would be <key> to balancing the sim. Might give the Sabre drivers 5 turns to play with... EDIT <NOT - better turns, not more... maybe even less turns. Duh!> however still no energy tactics for the Sabre boys, not coe, they are gonna have to crank those g's and USE that suit. It will be challenging... time limited angle tactics, win quick or die/dive away... different.. do we have that matchup anywhere in il2?

Oleg will have to implement the suit difference. Otherwise I stand by my previous post about the relative advantages in favor of the Migs...

Real world, canopies and gunsight are an advantage, not sure they translate to simulator advantage though

fordfan25
05-18-2007, 12:43 AM
yes it will be interasting to see how well thay implament...... if at all G suets. and by the way i dont think oleg has anything to do with this game i think its Illeyeas "spelling" project.....

Badsight-
05-18-2007, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The Mig, according to the EM chart, dominated the F-86 in 'sustained' turn performance at slow speed. Does that not prove that the Mig15 was the superior stall/angles fighter?

The F-86, according to the EM chart, had the lower corner velocity and a slight edge in high speed ˜sustained' turn performance. Does that not indicate superiority for energy tactics?
this is all you need to know to answer peeps expectations for the coming game

that & the Saber was the much faster roller

& that the Saber was a smoother ride (stable , less twitchy during aiming)

edit : & a surprising thank you to BillyTheKid_22 for the youtube link
Sabre Vs Mig doco video link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU1nCZh4lg8&mode=related&search=)

Badsight-
05-18-2007, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
You are wrong. sorry Starosta , you have reading to do in your future

for the kill claims debate , forum members here have gone thru the kill claims for both sides as well as accepted loss lists in the past - in _detail_

Skychimp in particular

best , most accurate numbers you can prove is a 4.5 - 1 ratio in favour of the Saber for the whole war

Badsight-
05-18-2007, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Two best aces in Korea were Evgenii Pepelyaev (23 kills) when you cross reference against confirmed losses , Pepelyaev remains the highest scoring pilot of that war , but with a 16 kill record

Originally posted by hejbrigade:
The world 1st jet-vs-jet kill. On November 1st, 1950 was the encounter of MiG-15 and F80. The Soviet pilot Khominyh shot down one of the Shooting Stars. there is some proof to this as the reverse claim by the UN pilot is not backed up by any recorded loss for that day , but there is a recorded loss on the UN side for a F-80 when the other fight took place


Originally posted by hejbrigade:
Fact:
119 Sabres were lost. This is verified. Tail numbers, condition, all recorded. All but 5 lost in air to air engagement. thats verifiable from the Korwald record

Originally posted by hejbrigade:
Fact:
The Soviets admitted 345 Migs lost in Mig Alley. more than just the Soviets flew the Mig-15 .

factor in all the mig losses & you end up with a 4.5 - 1 ratio in favour of the Saber

M_Gunz
05-18-2007, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Two best aces in Korea were Evgenii Pepelyaev (23 kills) and Nikolay Sutyagin (21). Americans Joseph McConnell (16 kills) and James Jabara (15) were best allied aces.

As you point out though, the MiG pilots had a much wider choice of obsolete targets.
All kills count, even recon planes.

But when you count kills by Sabres, did you count the non-MiG-15's that did enter and were
shot down? There were Yak-9's for instance and I don't know what else. I learned that from
Rowan who made the excellent Mig Alley game in IIRC, 1999. Were all 792 claims MiG's only?

I have a feeling that the upcoming MiG-15's will be a surprise in how well they handle.
Will the Sabres have advantage of powered controls or will it be game disadvantage... US
pilot with small twitch gets full deflection since pilot strength will move hydraulic
stick full deflection at 10% strength?

In any case, most players will not be able to score in F-86's. They won't have the patience
or the skill. They will try and they will complain bitterly even with full fairness and then
some extra for the Sabre. The biggest factor of safety then was Chi-Com pilot training vs
US pilot training of the time, with so many WWII veterans which won't apply online at all.
BOTH sides will have mostly poor pilots as well as deadly ones. Many US players will not be
able to fly 'Red' at all so I don't see all the bad pilots taking the easier by far MiGs at
all. And the whining will include online scores not matching history, nothing is new!


is not going to app

J.M.LLOYD
05-18-2007, 01:52 AM
The F86 and the Mig15 seen in the skies over Korea, was made possible because of British technology. the Migs engine and the F86 tail section

M_Gunz
05-18-2007, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:
So you count bombers and antiquated planes in your kill ratios? A real kill ratio comes from dogfights with the two planes close in technology. The American F-86 Sabre and the Soviet-flown Migs. Bombers are no match for any fighter jet. If you can't shoot down a bomber, or worse, get shot down by one, you have no place flying a fighter.

And your position on 2:1 and higher odds those planes often faced or fuel states requiring
Sabres no time to stay over the Yalu?


Fact:
119 Sabres were lost. This is verified. Tail numbers, condition, all recorded. All but 5 lost in air to air engagement.

Fact:
The Soviets admitted 345 Migs lost in Mig Alley.

Simple math and it comes out to around 3:1. Now, if you want to include every bomber and substandard plane, go ahead. But the fact is when almost equal jets fought in dogfighting, with technological advantage going to the Soviets, the kill ratio became uneven in favor of the Americans.

Your second FACT says 345 Migs, not 345 planes of all types.


Yes, we confirmed loss of 345 aircrafts but this number include all losses of Soviet, Chinese and Korean planes like antiquated Il-10, La-9, La-11, Il-2M, Po-2. You "forget" that these also were used.

Who is forgetting what?


USA confirmed combat loss of 119 (103) Sabres and 17 B-29. Very funny because according to official rescue teams report they flew 1000+ rescue missions into enemy territory.

Were these rescue missions only for Sabre pilots? If one plane goes down and 4 rescue craft
are sent out then that is 4 rescue missions. What is it you want to make of that?

I will leave the rest out and ask about one thing --- the air battle zone over Korea.

How far into Korea were MiG's penetrating regularly?
Why did the Sabres have to cross the Yalu to get more fights?
Why wasn't the Communists able to defend their own ground troops?

For a short while the battle was not locked deep in the North but not for long.
You can quote about claims and kills all you want but who controlled out to where says who
was not able to dictate the aerial fight for most of that war.

I put it down to training, doctrine and the pilots themselves much more than the planes.
I know that with such short time over the Yalu that the US was not able to keep high numbers
of Sabres at that place. They could have run 20:1 sorties and still had no great numbers
in the zone over and across the Yalu so please tell me why the MiG's never stopped the
Sabres from crossing so deeply into their territory.

M_Gunz
05-18-2007, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Energy%20Bleed.jpg


You wouldn't happen to know THE ALTITUDE this chart is good for?
Because expecting that one chart to hold at all alts is saying you don't know as much about
E-M charts as you pretend.

To ALL:

MiG-15 wings and controls made those 6-G corners shown a matter of ACE pilot abilities.
If the sim carries how whippy the wings really were then you won't find many players able to
pull hard turns in them off. But then given how easy it is to stall those jets, either of
them, I doubt that many players will be doing much but complaining unless the sim gets DUMBED
DOWN rather than lose sales.

You all want a taste, go find a copy of Rowans Mig Alley somewhere. It's a 1999 sim, btw
so less eye candy. There is a private group that has worked on the bugs and did make a
patch since 2001 (the campaign was buggy) and it might even play on a newer PC -- there is
a forum just for that sim over at SimHQ.com. Learning to deal with the swept wing stalls
is worth the price (if you can find it, it will be cheap) and your time IF you can get it
to run. First place to check would be the forum, naturally.

The excellent review of that sim on SimHQ is being reformatted at this time. The review
does have much of the info that went into the making so keep an eye out for it if you want
good data.

Tipo_Man
05-18-2007, 02:54 AM
Very interesting:

http://www.acepilots.com/korea/yevgeny.html

Tipo_Man
05-18-2007, 03:01 AM
And about kill ratio performance there... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

USAF admits 217 F-86 were lost in Korea. but only 80 of them are listed as Combat losses! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Looks like US had the terrible habit of reporting F-86 losses as landing incidents, engine failures etc...

Now let's pay closer attention to the Pepelyaev kills.
Almost half of the planes shot down by Pepelyaev were reported as non A2A kill, so they do not take part into this so beloved ratio.
It turns out that US had the bad habit of misreporting shot down planes as "non-combat losses", or non-A2A kills.
No army would accept a plane into service when it will lose two thirds of it in non-comabt accidents.
If we take into account Pepelyaev's case, we see that actually US confirmed only half of the Sabres he shot down.
If we accept the fact that US reported half of shot down planes like A2A losses,
the number of non-combat losses for Sabres becomes somewhat more aceptable i.e about 60 out of 217. Which is still high, but is more probabable..

MrMojok
05-18-2007, 03:12 AM
I've got a copy of Mig Alley. I could never get it to recognize my joystick on either of the two computers I tried it on. Make me an offer on it, and I'll send it to you.

FPSOLKOR
05-18-2007, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
As you point out though, the MiG pilots had a much wider choice of obsolete targets.
All kills count, even recon planes.

But when you count kills by Sabres, did you count the non-MiG-15's that did enter and were
shot down? There were Yak-9's for instance and I don't know what else. I learned that from
Rowan who made the excellent Mig Alley game in IIRC, 1999. Were all 792 claims MiG's only?

I have a feeling that the upcoming MiG-15's will be a surprise in how well they handle.
Will the Sabres have advantage of powered controls or will it be game disadvantage... US
pilot with small twitch gets full deflection since pilot strength will move hydraulic
stick full deflection at 10% strength?

In any case, most players will not be able to score in F-86's. They won't have the patience
or the skill. They will try and they will complain bitterly even with full fairness and then
some extra for the Sabre. The biggest factor of safety then was Chi-Com pilot training vs
US pilot training of the time, with so many WWII veterans which won't apply online at all.
BOTH sides will have mostly poor pilots as well as deadly ones. Many US players will not be
able to fly 'Red' at all so I don't see all the bad pilots taking the easier by far MiGs at
all. And the whining will include online scores not matching history, nothing is new!


is not going to app
Best jet ace for me means an ace who flew jets regardless of targets - and so far it's Pepelyaev. All sides had a chance to shoot at obsolete planes (which were made obsolete with the arrival of MiG and F-86 really). Now - to the reality of claims - difficuylt question, really. I had spoken with pilots of Korean war and not uncommon situation they describe is when MiG was damaged (which was really common - Sabres armament was not that great in reality, and this is another topic for discussion, since russian armament had it's own drawbacks) 6-7 Sabres would line up and shoot a small burst at it - for a picture in a guncam, and use it as a reason for claims. For some reason http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I believe that VVS pilots were no angels either. 700 MiGs is not my number - it is simply rediculous... Numbers confirmed by US are not really that trustworthy as usual, espetially those after 1952.

For Russian speakers and readers I would recomend:

isbn 5-699-14274-6 Pepelyaev
isbn 5-699-17123-1 Kramarenko
isbn 5-699-16166-X Sutyagin

Besides of that my interview with Korean war pilot is going to be published in english in the near future.

Ratsack
05-18-2007, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
....

its like an airaid sireeen that is just begining to get CRANKED by the forum experten

eeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRR|||||\\\\\\\!!!!!!!


That is just soooo right.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

FPSOLKOR
05-18-2007, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I will leave the rest out and ask about one thing --- the air battle zone over Korea.

How far into Korea were MiG's penetrating regularly?
Why did the Sabres have to cross the Yalu to get more fights?
Why wasn't the Communists able to defend their own ground troops?

For a short while the battle was not locked deep in the North but not for long.
You can quote about claims and kills all you want but who controlled out to where says who
was not able to dictate the aerial fight for most of that war.

I put it down to training, doctrine and the pilots themselves much more than the planes.
I know that with such short time over the Yalu that the US was not able to keep high numbers
of Sabres at that place. They could have run 20:1 sorties and still had no great numbers
in the zone over and across the Yalu so please tell me why the MiG's never stopped the
Sabres from crossing so deeply into their territory.

Stopping Sabres from entering Korean airspace was not MiGs task - they were there for driving american bombers out of NK airspace - and they did it well.

MiG pilots were FORBIDEN to go over sea and battle front, with severe punishment to those who did it.

What i would say you are right about - it's all about pilots.

tigertalon
05-18-2007, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Besides of that my interview with Korean war pilot is going to be published in english in the near future.

Looking forward for this! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Clipper_51
05-18-2007, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Crimson Sky: The Air Battle for Korea
-John R Bruning

Potomac Books; New Ed edition (July 30, 2005)
ISBN: 1574888412

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By the end of hostilities, it [the Sabre] had shot down 792 MiGs at a loss of only 76 Sabres, a victory ratio of 10 to 1. In the hands of skillful pilots, the Sabre's 10-1 Kill ratio over the MiG-15 was the best achieved in any sustained fighter campaign. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great... Lets say that thay managed to kill more planes that were available. What you are saying - its 10:1 CLAIM ratio (about the same for russians 1:10), what I'm saying is 3:1 KILL ratio... Feel the difference...

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517215924)_kamikadze1_1_.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517220111)_vykusi.jpg

http://vif2ne.ru/nvi/forum/files/Olkor/(070517220338)_index.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes 3-1/4-1 - a good old a$$-kicking if i ever saw one vs. a plane that climbed better, was faster and flew higher. Those two Russian aces are lucky to have survived.

hejbrigade
05-18-2007, 05:54 AM
Stalin said : "What fool will sell us his secrets?"
And British selled them Rolls-Royce Nene,
and VK-1 was soon born to produce aviation legend.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2431/vk1mig1501kg3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Blutarski2004
05-18-2007, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:
According to official US report overall losses of American planes equal to 2837 aircrafts (combat and non-combat). Please explain this number, if combat losses in total according US sources is below 200.


..... I'm not sure how the US loss figures which you give were exactly calculated - i.e. air-to-air combat versus air-to-air plus flak losses. But large numbers of other US a/c types besides F86s were flown over N Korea - F80's, F84's, F4U's, F9F's, A-26's, Skyraiders, etc. A LOT of these a/c fell to flak and ground fire. That might explain the difference in the US loss numbers you cite.

ploughman
05-18-2007, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:
Stalin said : "What fool will sell us his secrets?"
And British selled them Rolls-Royce Nene,
and VK-1 was soon born to produce aviation legend.

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/2431/vk1mig1501kg3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I heard a story about a Soviet technical mission at the RR factory. They didn't know what the alloy was the British were using so one of the Soviets stuck glue on the soles of his shoes when they went into where the parts where being machined and collected metal shavings off the floor. The shavings were analysed to find out what the alloy was. Cunning, very cunning.

hejbrigade
05-18-2007, 06:48 AM
The best thing is to see Modern Marvels MiG-15 video on History Channel. Or here on Youtube;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_UzN9_e_sI

Enjoy! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HuninMunin
05-18-2007, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
Back to topic...

F86 has Slats ... Like a 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , mig don't.

F86 has nice yellow paintjobs on it (like german planes), mig don't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

F86 like the mig 15 will probably have poor rear view due to a huge armor plate behind the pilot and the impossibility to lean the head due to game limitations... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

And teh Sabre was flown by the Luftwaffe; it has to be superior see? (http://www.bw-flyer.de/neu/start.html)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

http://www.bw-flyer.de/neu/flugzeuge/sabre/sabre3_jg71.jpg

luftluuver
05-18-2007, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
And teh Sabre was flown by the Luftwaffe; it has to be superior http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

This should be interesting. What will our resident German is superior fanatic do now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG14_Josf
05-18-2007, 07:55 AM
You wouldn't happen to know THE ALTITUDE this chart is good for?
Because expecting that one chart to hold at all alts is saying you don't know as much about
E-M charts as you pretend.

Neal,

Why do you continue to spread these lies? I am not pretending to know anything. Why lie?

What is your pay off for continuing to lie about me? Jollies?

Can you leave me out of your posts? If you have something to say can you simply say it without injecting your venom?

What you are doing is creating a Straw-Man who is sooooo stupid that the Straw-Man expects the EM chart to ˜hold' for all altitudes. Then after you create your stupid Straw-Man completely out of thin air you go on to attach my name to your imaginary enemy or friend (I can't say since it is YOUR Straw-Man).

Did you get confused about what I wrote and from your confusion you began to think that your confusion was my fault?

A. You made a Straw-Man and put my name on it.
B. You are simply confused and you blame me for your confusion.
C. Something other than A or B that isn't confirmed until you confess.

Why involve me?

If your point is to point out that EM turn performance charts like the one from John Boyd's site is specific to a specific altitude, then, why involve me in your communication. I already know this fact. You do not need to volunteer your services as my teacher concerning this fact. I already know this fact. Your Straw-Man (imaginary friend or foe) may not know this fact. I know that Turn Performance EM charts are made for specific altitudes. I even know a few facts concerning how those charts can be plotted based upon specific flight tests like Wind Up Turns and Loaded Decelerations. I do not know any specifics concerning that F-86 versus Mig-15 chart. The Chart speaks for itself.

If you want to know any specifics concerning that chart (like the altitude for which the chart ˜holds'), then, you or anyone will have to do some research or speak up if they already know specifics. I don't.

John Boyd (http://www.sci.fi/%7Efta/JohnBoyd.htm)

That is where I found the Chart. My guess, and this guess is based upon my reading up to date on the subject, is that the Chart is probably an internet copy of the original results of the tests done by Chuck Yeager and John Boyd. I have yet to confirm this as a fact. I may be mistaken. Any help in confirming the accuracy of the chart is appreciated by anyone (except Straw-Men) having an interest in knowing the facts.

Straw-Men can only know what their creators inject into them. Usually the Straw-Man is filled with Straw.

I am not your Straw-Man. I can think for myself. If you make your Straw-Man talk as you sit your Straw-Man on your lap and you continue to call your Straw-Man me; and the words you attribute to me continue to be false, then, expect me to point out this fact.

You can certainly make your Straw-Man (with my name on it) say anything you want (as long as the moderators allow you to continue these lies). You cannot make me say anything. You can quote me if you want. My words are published here on this forum. Your Straw-Man's words are published by you here on this forum.


You wouldn't happen to know THE ALTITUDE this chart is good for?
Because expecting that one chart to hold at all alts is saying you don't know as much about
E-M charts as you pretend.

I do not know anything more about that specific chart other than the origin of it (posted) and the information on the web site where I found it. The information on the chart is on the chart.

Expecting that one turn performance EM chart (that doesn't have lines of constant Ps) to ˜hold' for "ALL ALTITUDES" is ignorant. I get that part. I got that part a decade ago. Saying I don't know as much about E-M charts as you think I pretend to know is pathetic. Why do it?

What is your pay-off?

Why start messing up this perfectly good thread? Why repost the EM chart? Why pick that one to repost? If you are going to repost the chart, that specific one, and if you are to prove how little I know, then, comment on the chart and all the things I wrote on the chart – no?

Are you grasping for straws to fill your straw man?

When I suggest imagining a downward spiral turn I do so to communicate a method of understanding the concept of Corner Speed. That is not to suggest that the EM chart can ˜hold' for ˜all altitudes'. Did you confuse the one to mean the other?

See how I ask before concluding that you have confused the one to mean the other?

You have jumped to a conclusion that I ˜hold' that the EM chart can ˜hold' for ˜all altitudes, otherwise, you would have asked if I do rather than stuff your Straw-Man with that ignorance and then suggest that your Straw-Man is me.

Please stop offering your services as my interpreter. If you have a question concerning what I know or don't know, then, ask. I can speak for myself. You don't have to work so hard as a ventriloquist for me. Don't get upset. Just stop. Please stop.

How many years have you been on this crusade? When will you learn that I am not going to be your willing victim?

If you want to discuss EM charts, then, that subject is precisely relevant to this topic and others know this fact – not just us two. We are not surrounded by ignorant trolls. This discussion can be civil and educational for everyone who can manage to contribute some valid and accurate information – to be confirmed or denied by anyone else – as the pool of data becomes more expansive and more accurate.

Lighting flames expecting to destroy another person's credibility is futile. It only works on those who are reaching for straws to support their pre-determined rationalizations and prejudices. It is a huge step backwards that can exponentially grow into nothing more than childish argument – like a snow ball rolling down hill. Please respect the moderators more and try harder to avoid starting these charades or parades of falsehood.

I think it is a very good turn of focus to point out the limitation of an altitude specific EM turn performance chart; because – the EM Altitude Mach chart is at least as instructive for communicating accurate performance data as the EM turn performance chart especially when the EM turn performance chart does not have lines of constant Ps.

When the EM Altitude Mach chart has lines of constant Ps and that information is combined with an EM turn performance chart with lines of constant Ps, then, the ability to see which fighter dominates under specific flight conditions, and at which altitudes, becomes much more possible, certainly, compared to having no EM data whatsoever.

Knowing is certainly better than pretending. I am not pretending. Please stop your false claims.

horseback
05-18-2007, 08:03 AM
re: total Sabre losses vs combat losses in Korea, I have to point out that those early jets had a very poor record for safety. I was a USAF 'brat' in the 1950s and 1960s, and I averaged 1 or 2 classmates a year whose pilot father was killed, injured, or had to bail out of his jet. When you consider that the vast majority of Air Force kids had fathers in non flying roles, that's a significant number.

When you add in the poor conditions found at the bases in Korea, the fact that the Sabre was even newer technology back then, operating at the extremes of its range and and the far end of a logistics line stretching literally half way around the planet, it is no wonder that a large fraction of its losses would be either operational or unknown.

You also have to factor in the increasing use of the Sabre as a ground attack weapon as the war ground on, which made it an easier target for ambush from above, not to mention being subject to groundfire. A rifle bullet in the right place can ruin you whole day, and there was no shortage of rifle bullets in those conditions.

What kind of records do the Soviets/Chinese/N. Koreans show for the MiG's operational losses? I haven't found anything yet, beyond the usual "rugged Soviet design" phrases...

cheers

horseback

hejbrigade
05-18-2007, 08:32 AM
West Germany was forced to use American airplanes and east Germany was forced to use USSR airplanes during "Cold War"
And BTW I don't want to get http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

HuninMunin
05-18-2007, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
And teh Sabre was flown by the Luftwaffe; it has to be superior http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

This should be interesting. What will our resident German is superior fanatic do now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He'll dig in, think about life and god and then realise that it's not about nationalities but about love for aircraft and their beauty - who ever has build or used them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Man; am I nice today or not? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-18-2007, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:
West Germany was forced to use American airplanes and east Germany was forced to use USSR airplanes during "Cold War"
And BTW I don't want to get http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

well, actually , West Germany was "forced" to use "western" build planes........... just having in mind that its Navy flew british planes, Gannets and Seahawks, at its start http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

i dont think that MiGs and Suchois were "available" for a NATO member http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
05-18-2007, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:
West Germany was forced to use American airplanes and east Germany was forced to use USSR airplanes during "Cold War"
And BTW I don't want to get http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif
Didn't West Germany not also fly an Italian a/c made by Fiat?

So that makes airplanes from Italy, Great Britain, Canada besides American produced airplanes that were flown by West Germany.

ploughman
05-18-2007, 08:49 AM
Not to mention the Tornado, which is as much W. German as it is British or Italian.

HuninMunin
05-18-2007, 09:02 AM
Makes me think of the strange fact that the Typhoon is build by the companys that once build Spitfire and 109s...
Pretty cool somehow.

fordfan25
05-18-2007, 03:57 PM
iv heard and read multi times that the f86 was a much more stable gun platform than the mig15 do in part to it higher weight. here is one vid that mentunes it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf30AGDUUKc&mode=related&search=

M_Gunz
05-18-2007, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You wouldn't happen to know THE ALTITUDE this chart is good for?
Because expecting that one chart to hold at all alts is saying you don't know as much about
E-M charts as you pretend.

Neal,

Why do you continue to spread these lies? I am not pretending to know anything. Why lie? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOU are the one that keeps dragging up the chart and saying where the MiG and where the F-86
must have the advantage without EVER saying a word about altitude even though the chart is
only good at and close to one altitude and varies at others.


Knowing is certainly better than pretending. I am not pretending. Please stop your false claims.

YOU are the one making false claims. You are the one pretending to know. YOU are the one
making the statements.

Turning 6 G's in the MiG-15 is not a given even to very good pilots. What did Yeager call
the one he flew?
Boots Blesse when his wingman broke and became a target ordered him to go into a 4 G turn
and keep it there. His wingman did so in a descending spiral. The MiGs were unable to
get to the wingman, Blesse came in after the first two and got rid of them. All in a
sustained turnfight.

Now what was that you posted about the MiG's having the advantage of the sustained turn?

Funny how the reality doesn't match your chart. Funny how you used to quote a certain
USAF general about charts not telling the whole story. But that was before you got your
own favorite chart to use and abuse as you deem fit.

Screw your idea that I should not report whatever mistakes and gross reinterpretations you
make just because it's you. You call me a liar when I show your usual BS to be just that
then keep on, it's just more smokescreen BS from The Joke.

hejbrigade
05-18-2007, 05:00 PM
The most funny thing is that Americans alway's try to prove someting with performance charts + documentary's how good their plane/s was. I wonder why Russians never compete in making documentary's about their planes how good they were? Who knows why...

Korolov1986
05-18-2007, 05:03 PM
Because taking pictures of military aircraft (was) prohibited in the USSR?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

fordfan25
05-18-2007, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:
The most funny thing is that Americans alway's try to prove someting with performance charts + documentary's how good their plane/s was. I wonder why Russians never compete in making documentary's about their planes how good they were? Who knows why... because you need to turn around and stop looking in one direction

fordfan25
05-18-2007, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Korolov1986:
Because taking pictures of military aircraft (was) prohibited in the USSR?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif along with most everything else lol

Korolov1986
05-18-2007, 05:17 PM
At the risk of going off topic, there's been a few documentaries of the MiG-15 made in the west, which included interviews with VVS pilots who flew for the PLAAF and PRKAF - so I'm not sure where this "F-86 gets all attention, MiG-15 gets none" is coming from.

JG14_Josf
05-18-2007, 05:22 PM
Screw your idea that I should not report whatever mistakes and gross reinterpretations you
make just because it's you. You call me a liar when I show your usual BS to be just that
then keep on, it's just more smokescreen BS from The Joke.

Neal,

Calm down dude. If you continue to suggest that I do not know that a turn performance EM chart is specific to one target altitude, then, you continue to propagate a lie about me.

Why is that difficult to grasp?

If you continue to suggest that I think that turning 6 g is easy for anyone, then, you continue to propagate a lie about me. Again – what is difficult about understanding this as a fact?

A. I did not suggest that the EM chart is not specific to a specific altitude.
B. You continue to claim that I do suggest that the EM chart is not specific to altitude.
C. No matter how many times I point out that you are misrepresenting what I wrote you continue to misrepresent what I write.

We can try again?

I know that the EM chart is specific to altitude.

Can you understand the sentence above?


YOU are the one that keeps dragging up the chart and saying where the MiG and where the F-86
must have the advantage without EVER saying a word about altitude even though the chart is
only good at and close to one altitude and varies at others.

I did not DRAG up the chart. Someone asked me to post it.

Do you understand the difference between honoring a request and ˜dragging up'?

A. Honoring a polite request is one thing. It is not a bad thing.
B. ˜Dragging up' is a bad thing.

Which one are you suggesting I did?

Why must you continually twist what I do around into something bad?

I do not have to say anything about the chart that I think is self-evident such as how self-evident a turn performance EM chart is specific to altitude. If you think someone doesn't know how self-evident an EM chart for turn performance is specific to altitude, then, why not just report that fact to the people you think don't know it? Why make me out to be the bad guy?

What is your pay off here?

What will satisfy you enough to leave me alone?

Do you think that your continued harassment will somehow discourage me from honoring someone's polite request for me to participate in a public discussion?

I'm guessing because you won't tell the truth. Why do you continue to harass me?

Why?

Please; if you don't answer the question then just leave me alone – PLEASE.

M_Gunz
05-18-2007, 05:29 PM
Your post, Joke-boy. Your conclusions. Where is the part about altitude of performance?

Your words: "That one highlights where the Mig-15 is KING. The Mig-15 can ˜sustain' level flight at just over .4 Mach AND generate 4.5 g!"

Which if true the Boots Blesse's wingman would have been toast.

Keep calling me the liar, Joke.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Energy%20Bleed.jpg

That one is edited by me to highlight the difference between ˜sustained' performances at specific speeds compared to ˜dynamic' performances at the same speeds.

The dot on the upper left is the F-86 corner speed. That flight condition is the end result of either a Loaded Deceleration test or a Wind Up Turn where the F-86 is decelerated from high speed to the stall line at a specific altitude and the speed where the stall buffet begins is recorded along with the g load and then those two numbers are plotted on the graph as Corner Speed.

F-86 = 7.2 g /.5 Mach = Corner Speed

The dot under the arrow on the left is the F-86 ˜sustained' turn performance at the same speed (corner speed under a different flight condition).

F-86 = 4.5 g / .5 Mach

I did not add what the Mig can do at .5 Mach, instead, I added the Mig-15 corner speed and the Mig -15 ˜sustained' performance at the Mig-15 corner speed.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Corner%20time.jpg

That was edited by me to show the superiority of the F-86 in dynamic maneuvering (loaded decelerations, wind up turns, and nose low maximum performance turns). The white area is where the F-86 can fly and the Mig-15 cannot fly. The Mig-15 stalls under the flight conditions where the F-86 really shines as an energy fighter. The only advantage, again, is during expenditures of velocity or altitude or both. The advantage can be understood when considering what happens if both planes are turning a downward spiral at maximum g force. The F-86 can maintain 7.2 g / .5 Mach. The Mig-15 cannot.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Energ%20Time.jpg

That one highlights what happens when the flight conditions required for corner speed are spent. Imagine being at corner speed in a diving turn and then try to level off and maintain altitude – what happens? If the pilot rolls out and rides the stall, then, speed will decrease to a minimum until the plane stalls.

Note: The Mig-15 has a ˜sustained' stall line that intersects the accelerated stall line at almost right angles. I'm not sure what that means without knowing if the plots are ONLY flight tests or a combination of flight tests and calculations, or even if the flight tests were Wind Up Turns, Loaded Decelerations, and other flight tests that could easily end up plotting that nearly right angle intersection of the sustained and the accelerated stall lines.

Imagine being at the Mig-15 ˜sustained' minimum speed and imagine trying to go slower. What happens? Does the plane abruptly stall?
The F-86 ˜sustained' stall line is gradual and not abrupt as it intersects the accelerated stall line.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Wing%20Loading.jpg

That one highlights where the Mig-15 is KING. The Mig-15 can ˜sustain' level flight at just over .4 Mach AND generate 4.5 g! That is 18 degrees per second sustained. It is a relatively larger turn radius by WWII standards but much smaller compared to the smallest ˜sustained' turn the F-86 can muster. The peak turn rate "sustained" for the F-86 is 15 decrees per second. There is no contest here in stall fighting – none.

Badsight-
05-18-2007, 05:38 PM
max , josef - quit with the "im so personally insulted" replies

your ***ging up the thread & its going to spill over to the rest of the internet

M_Gunz
05-18-2007, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What will satisfy you enough to leave me alone?

Quit posting volumes of BS ought to do fine.

You have posted that joke-edited chart many many times and continually used it to push false
ideas that very educated people in aerodynamics have AGAIN and AGAIN told you and shown you
were wrong even to posting scans from pertinent aerodynamics texts and yet what do you do?
You call them names, insult them and continue posting your BS as facts.


Do you think that your continued harassment will somehow discourage me from honoring someone's polite request for me to participate in a public discussion?

Not a chance. I point out your screwups for the people who don't see them. And yes Joke,
I have gotten a few to actually read through your BS and they have gone from half-fast
supporting you to pointing out your errors and continued attempts to push BS here.


Do you think that your continued harassment will somehow discourage me from honoring someone's polite request for me to participate in a public discussion?

Beside what someone politely requested you also somehow managed to throw in your usual load
of UNREQUESTED BS as well.


I'm guessing because you won't tell the truth.

EXCUSE ME? Are you trying to transfer your BS to me? Yuck Fou.


Why do you continue to harass me?

Why?

Why do you continue to post BS that has been pointed out as wrong multiple times?

WHY?


Please; if you don't answer the question then just leave me alone – PLEASE.

Don't stand on the corner shouting if you don't want people to shout back.

If you can't handle that then get yourself a shrink.

ploughman
05-18-2007, 05:44 PM
And that chart, arrrgh. My eyes! Enough already, what is that the 1497th time it's been posted? You'd think, given the context of the other 1496 times it's been posted an F-86 v Mig-15 thread would be the one place you'd least expect to see it.

Peace be upon you, etc., blah, blah, blah.

M_Gunz
05-18-2007, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
max , josef - quit with the "im so personally insulted" replies

your ***ging up the thread & its going to spill over to the rest of the internet

I'm not personally insulted any more than usual. And how dare you call me a ******!

LEXX_Luthor
05-18-2007, 06:13 PM
hejbrigade (page 7)::
If you can't shoot down a bomber, or worse, get shot down by one, you have no place flying a fighter.
Saburo couldn't shoot down a simple carrier bomber, and it (in formation) basically shot him down by taking him out of WW2 for over a year and ended his early high climbing scoring Ace career.

Other counter-examples anyone?

JG14_Josf
05-18-2007, 06:25 PM
max , josef - quit with the "im so personally insulted" replies

your ***ging up the thread & its going to spill over to the rest of the internet

OK then:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Got%20Energy.jpg

Any comments?

The F-86 dominates in energy fighting.

The Mig-15 diminates in stall fighting (angles tactics too).

tigertalon
05-18-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
hejbrigade (page 7):: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you can't shoot down a bomber, or worse, get shot down by one, you have no place flying a fighter.
Saburo couldn't shoot down a simple carrier bomber, and it (in formation) basically shot him down by taking him out of WW2 for over a year and ended his early high climbing scoring Ace career.

Other counter-examples anyone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sakai actually took out two of those bombers.

LEXX_Luthor
05-18-2007, 10:57 PM
Wow, I don't recall reading that, but it was a long time ago since I cracked that book. But, brigade left us a way out here -- some bomber got Saburo, so Saburo had no place flying a fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You know, I always thought that day (almost) everything went bad for Saburo: his sticky pop exploding at high altitude, letting himself get bounced out of the sun by WildCats, assuming the unkown aircraft he was attacking were fighters closing up (why?). The one thing to go right was his fortunate spotting of that green banana shape island after takeoff which let him recognize the way home.

M_Gunz
05-19-2007, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
I've got a copy of Mig Alley. I could never get it to recognize my joystick on either of the two computers I tried it on. Make me an offer on it, and I'll send it to you.

Have you looked for a patch from the BDG that also did MA?
I haven't loaded mine in 4-5 years so I can't say.

M_Gunz
05-19-2007, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
hejbrigade (page 7):: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you can't shoot down a bomber, or worse, get shot down by one, you have no place flying a fighter.
Saburo couldn't shoot down a simple carrier bomber, and it (in formation) basically shot him down by taking him out of WW2 for over a year and ended his early high climbing scoring Ace career.

Other counter-examples anyone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're going to quote someone:
"Bombers are no match for any fighter jet. If you can't shoot down a bomber, or worse, get shot down by one, you have no place flying a fighter."

So what jet fighter was Saburo Sakai flying that day?

hejbrigade
05-19-2007, 01:44 AM
Saburo Sakai flew only A5M Type 96 and A6M2 Reisen, making him better ace than any pilot with jet powered plane.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/2966/zeroea1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

AnaK774
05-19-2007, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:


According to official US report overall losses of American planes equal to 2837 aircrafts (combat and non-combat). Please explain this number, if combat losses in total according US sources is below 200.



Non combat loss = loss to any cause without presence of uncencored media/instance that could cause propaganda to backfire when claimed as such

combat loss = when previous conditions don't fill up or when loss is caused by total stupidity where claiming it to be caused by hostile force will be less demoralizing

mainly kidding btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
05-19-2007, 08:18 AM
If the plane makes it back and lands but gets written off, bet it gets into non-combat on
EITHER side. And BTW, I know it's not just the US that only permits so many losses recorded
just as soon as loses do mount up. No government or military is run by angels.

How far did shot up MiG have to go to get home? From Yalu to home for the US, only a few
hundred miles!

Non-combat loss; hanger queen plane stripped for spare parts. Given the number of WWII
surplus planes used, figure there were a lot of those.

Is losing a plane that ran out of fuel on the way back a combat loss? Some would say that
if it's on a combat mission and does not come back then it is a combat loss and I cannot
fully disagree nor fully agree with that.

Copperhead310th
05-19-2007, 10:22 AM
I have it on good authourty that the amrement station for the F-86's @ Osan were pointed in the general direction of the officers mess.
(lol Thanks Gramps)

Copperhead310th
05-19-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
And teh Sabre was flown by the Luftwaffe; it has to be superior http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

This should be interesting. What will our resident German is superior fanatic do now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most likley go hide in his closet and masturbate over his collection of nude pictures of Eva Braun & Geli Raubal while he waits for BoB.

fordfan25
05-19-2007, 11:45 AM
LMMFAOWROTF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Freelancer-1
05-19-2007, 11:52 AM
Nude pictures of Eva?

PM me!

stalkervision
05-19-2007, 01:21 PM
ahhh got out my old mig alley game and flew it..it was sweet! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Can't wait for the maddox version now!!!

funny thing is I accidently set my microsoft pro stick up wrong and my rudder was on the throttle. Everytime I went to increase power I did a roll! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

hejbrigade
05-19-2007, 02:53 PM
You can also use TrackIR4 with full 6DOF support ingame, but you need a small patch to get this bonus in Mig Alley. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
05-19-2007, 03:20 PM
IBTL... or before whatever Ivan does to Copperhead!

M_Gunz
05-19-2007, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by hejbrigade:
You can also use TrackIR4 with full 6DOF support ingame, but you need a small patch to get this bonus in Mig Alley. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Say more please. I don't have TIR but some others do.

You guys see what I mean by easy to stall the delta wing planes?

hejbrigade
05-19-2007, 03:37 PM
Here is the bone for Mig Alley and trackIR4 users;

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/03-enhanced-games/game-mig-alley.html

Copperhead310th
05-19-2007, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IBTL... or before whatever Ivan does to Copperhead!

Naaa i'll just bribe my way out of it with a cooler full of fresh crawfish & shrimps & a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon.

and if that doesnt work there always black mail.
i still have that footage that someone emailed me of Ivan and Baldie Jr together. Raunchy. i'm guessing Ivan was date number 4. lol

BillyTheKid_22
05-19-2007, 07:25 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

www.rb-29.net/index.htm (http://www.rb-29.net/index.htm)



http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/04.PAAvtnArt/PAShowScans/LateAdditions5/MinusOneMiG.gif



http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/04.PAAvtnArt/PAShowScans/LateAdditions9/MiGPatrol7Alt.gif



http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/04.PAAvtnArt/PAShowScans/LateAdditions10/MiGKill.gif



http://migalley.shamikaserver.com/modules/My_eGallery/gallery/mig/renders/shop_truck.jpg



Mig Alley Racing!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Copperhead310th
05-20-2007, 07:11 AM
I just got to wondering what aircraft we could possibly expect form a Korean Sim. well here's my list feel free to add to it. Som e of these are quite surpising.



DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
USN and USMC Tactical Aircraft Operating in the Korean Theater During the Korean Conflict
.
AD/A-1 Skyraider (AD-4)
AD-5 Skyraider
AF Guardian (AF-2S)
F2H Banshee
F3D Skynight
F4U Corsair
F6F-5K Hellcat
F7F-3N/P Tigercat
F9F Panther
HO3S
HO3S-1
HO4S-2 (HO5S-1 (HRS-1 HRS-2 HTL-4
(OE-1 (OE-1 redesignated O-1B, similar to OE-2/O-1C)
OY-2 P2V (P-2) Neptune
P2V-5 (P-2) Neptune
PB4Y-2 Privateer
PBM Mariner
TBM-3S Avenger

Well now this is intersting. even has LOSS RECORDS PER AIRCRAFT. FEAF/UN Aircraft Used in Korea and Losses by Type (http://korean-war.com/AirWar/AircraftType-LossList.html)

dugong
05-20-2007, 11:10 AM
The planes were very similar in performance, with the edge going to the Mig. However, it boiled down to pilot skill. I just read a story regarding the success of the Sabres against the Migs that according to the story, were piloted much more frequently by skilled Russians than was originally thought. The pilots and command were surprised at the success of the Sabre against a plane that was as evenly matched. It basically stated that pilot skill was the determining factor.

JG14_Josf
05-20-2007, 02:18 PM
Example: F-86 vs Mig-15 (http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/pdf/fast_transients.pdf)


Idea of FAST TRANSIENTS suggests that – in order to win or gain superiority – we should operate at a FASTER TEMPO than our adversaries or inside our adversaries TIME SCALES

Why? Such activity will make us appear AMBIGUOUS (NON-PREDICTABLE) thereby generate CONFUSION and DISORDER among our adversaries – in accordance with GODDEL'S PROOF, the HEISEMGERG PRINCIPLE and THE SECOND LAW of THERMODYNAMICS.

Examples
0 Blitzkrieg vs Magnot Line Mentality (1940_
0 F-86 VS Mig-15 (1951 – 53)
0 Israeli Raid (1976)


What is meant by Fast Transient?


In other words, suggests a fighter that can be used to initiate and control engagement opportunities – yet has A FAST TRANSIENT ("Natural HOOK") that can be used to either force an overshoot by an attacker or to stay inside a hard turning defender.

When a Natural Hook is used to ˜force an overshoot' the plane following cannot slow down as fast and cannot turn as tight during the Loaded Deceleration or Wind Up Turn. The plane that bleeds energy faster wins because the bleeding is turning. The plane that cannot dump the energy BY TURNING will overshoot.

When a Natural Hook is used to ˜stay inside a hard turning defender' the plane that BLEEDS ENERGY FASTER wins because the bleeding is accomplished BY TURNING. The plane that can dump the energy faster BY TURNING will stay inside the hard turning (NOT SUSTAINED TURNING) opponent.

It is all on the chart.

The art of war (http://www.sci.fi/%7Efta/JohnBoyd.htm)


From Korea John Boyd was transferred to Nellis AFB, which was at that time the busiest fighter base in the world, but very low on the USAF pecking order because of the emphasis on strategic bombing. The air-to-air portion of the 3597th Flying Training Squadron curriculum had dwindled to almost nothing. There was not even a manual for tactics and the training was focused in live air-to-air gunnery against a banner towed by another aircraft. Boyd was accepted as a student at the Fighter Weapons School for the three month FWS course. The FWS was formed at Nellis in 1949 and was a predecessor for the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School, better known as "Top Gun" because of the 1986 hit movie. Navy Top Gun was formed twenty years later as a result of the Vietnam air war experiences.

In the February 1956 issue of the Fighter Weapons Newsletter Boyd published on of his rare writings. The title was "A Proposed Plan for Ftr. Vs. Ftr. Training". Boyd wrote about different tactical maneuvers and how to lead with the rudder in turning fight. The most important point Boyd was trying to make was a new way of thinking; the pilots should not just concentrate on the move they are performing, but also the affects on speed and what countermoves the enemy could make after the maneuver was complete.


The F-86 versus Mig-15 is SPECIFICALLY mentioned as an example of FAST TRANSIENTS. The PLANE (F-86) had a Natural Hook (Fast Transient) that could be used against the Mig-15 to force an overshoot or get inside the hard turning opponent.

It is on the chart as a lower corner velocity. That is not the same thing as a sustained turn performance advantage, where, the Mig-15 was obviously much better in sustaining and gaining energy going UP. Dumping energy and gaining energy going down was where the F-86 dominated (along with the lower corner speed, Fast Transient, Natural Hook, decreasing radius energy bleeding turn).

Dumping and Pumping (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1997/articles/jul_97/july2a_97.html)


Boyd, as a combat pilot in Korea and as a tactics instructor at Nellis AFB in the Nevada desert, observed, analyzed, and assimilated the relative energy states of his aircraft and those of his opponent's during air combat engagements. For nearly five years at Nellis, he flew two to three times a day against other fighters, mostly F-100 SuperSabres. He found that he could gain the advantage under one set of maneuvering conditions and that his opponent could gain the advantage under another set of maneuvering conditions.

That says; "mostly F-100".

Boyd's own document says:

Example:


F-86 VS Mig-15 (1951 – 53)

The F-86 was the Energy Fighter of the two planes.

The Mig-15 was the stall fighter.

That is practically self-evident on the EM chart.

That is confirmed with pilot accounts (anecdotes?).

What is an anecdote? Is that meant to suggest the following:

Anecdote: nonsense concerning some vague memory of an old guy who used to fly airplanes once upon a time long ago.

The reference to the F-86 versus the Mig-15 was current at the time Boyd developed and found the limitations of EM theory.

Anecdotes confirm how the F-86 was the superior energy fighter. The two planes were single superior / single inferior. One was the energy fighter the other was the stall fighter and the MIG was the light weight low wing-loaded, higher power-loaded, higher climb rate, stall fighter.

The F-86 could dive faster and pull out faster than the Mig.

The F-86 could PUMP in the dive and Dump in the climb faster (pull-out, transition from dive, to level, to vertical zoom climb, faster).

The F-86 could not dive, level out, then slowly pitch up to best climb speed and expect to win a fight with the Mig 15.

The game may model the Mig-15 as the double superior plane with a low terminal velocity.

That would figure.

The game may model the Mig-15 with the lower corner velocity.

That can easily be tested.

The actual tests, according to ONE EM chart, only one, the F-86 in the test had the lower corner velocity.

The game may model something quite different than what is shown on that EM chart.

The game certainly models something quite different than all the tests done with the Fw190 versus the Spitfires in June 1942.

The game is particularly off concerning dive acceleration, pull out, and deceleration in vertical unloaded zoom climbs.

The game may not have the corner speed right.
The corner speeds for the F-86 and the Mig-15 exist on an EM chart.

The corners speeds for a 109E and a Spitfire I exist on an EM chart (where the 109 plots may have been calculated or tested without using leading edge slats).

Not one single person has ˜authorized' an accurate corner speed for any WWII plane to date (if one has, then, please quote it).

The F-86 versus Mig-15 EM chart, from the Boyd site, lists corner speeds.

That is a documented fact.

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Well now this is intersting. even has LOSS RECORDS PER AIRCRAFT. FEAF/UN Aircraft Used in Korea and Losses by Type (http://korean-war.com/AirWar/AircraftType-LossList.html) heres the full list , its the Korwald record

http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_afct.htm

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 03:05 PM
ps , not only was the F4U-4 in Korea , but also the F4U-5


The F4U-5 was the ultimate Navy development of the Corsair series as a fleet defense fighter. The first prototype took to the skies December 21, 1945. It differed from previous Corsairs by having an even longer nose, a raised cockpit, and all-metal wings. Powered by a Pratt and Whitney R-2800-32W providing 2,450 h.p., the F4U-5 was the fastest piston-engine aircraft to ever operate from a USN aircraft carrier: 462 mph at 31,400 ft. Armament was upgraded from .50 caliber machine guns to four 20mm cannon as standard, with provision for two 1,000 lb. bombs and 8 5-inch HVARs.

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 03:07 PM
this is pretty funny

our U2VS is also knowen as the Po-2 . its the uber slow flying dog of a biplane

slow as in it cant even get over 160 km/h


Throughout the Korean War, the North Korean People's Air Fore managed to be a thorn in the side of the U.S. Air Force with nighttime nuisance raids mounted by Po-2 and Yak-11 light aircraft. The airplanes were wood and fabric, making them very difficult to pick up on radar.

One Po-2 inflicted more damage on the USAF than the rest of the NKPAF combined when it bombed Kimpo air base in the Spring of 1952, destroying six F-86 Sabres and damaging ten others.

In 1952 an F-94A Starfire managed to shoot down a Po-2 when the Starfire throttled back, dropping gear and flaps to stay with the slow biplane; unfortunately the Starfire immediately stalled and spun from the recoil of its guns, killing the pilot and observer.

Jets were too much for the "Bedcheck Charlies," and a flight of four armed T-6 Texans were used in 1953 against them with no success. One June 16, the new Yak-18s being used by the NKPAF had their most successful night when two of them destroyed 5 million gallons of fuel in a dump in Inchon. The mighty Air Force was forced to ask the Navy for assistance.

LT Guy P. "Lucky Pierre" Bordelon, USN, was the commanding officer of VC-3 Detachment D, when the call for help came on June 17, 1953. Bordelon took two of the detachment's F4U-5N Corsairs to Kimpo, his personal aircraft with the assignment of hunting the Bedcheck Charlies. Between June 29 and July 17, 1953, Bordelon shot down four Yak-18s and one Yak-11 over Seoul. It was the greatest success by one pilot against the North Korean raiders, making Bordelon the only U.S. Navy ace of the Korean war, as well as the only "all-prop" ace. Bordelon returned to the "Princeton," leaving the F4U-5N at Kimpo to be flown by an Air Force pilot if there were any more raids. The Air Force pilot immediately totalled the Corsair in a daytime crash, due to unfamiliarity with "Old Hose Nose."

Bremspropeller
05-20-2007, 03:12 PM
Sounds like teh Po-2 is the über maneuvre-kill machine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Can't wait to maneuvre-kill all those n00b Sabre-drivers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ploughman
05-20-2007, 03:16 PM
Here's an interesting bit of info from KORWALD relating to a B-29A that was shot down that's relevant to this post "
USA confirmed combat loss of 119 (103) Sabres and 17 B-29. Very funny because according to official rescue teams report they flew 1000+ rescue missions into enemy territory."

From KORWALD:

Aircraft Type: B-29A
Tail Number: 42-94045
Wing or Group: 307th Bmb Wg
Squadron: 371st Bmb Sq

"Downed by MiGs near Namsi airfield at 0920L, last seen in a tight spiral, 3rd ARSq SA-16 Dumbos participated in SAR effort, a total of approx 233 SAR missions flown, surface vessels impeded by rough seas.

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 03:36 PM
F4U-5 havar rack

http://www.chinalakealumni.org/IMAGES/1951/121840%20F4U...AR%20NP45-039386.jpg (http://www.chinalakealumni.org/IMAGES/1951/121840%20F4U-5%2013JUN51%20Shelly%20Cluster%20FFAR%20NP45-039386.jpg)

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-20-2007, 03:42 PM
The match up between MIG and Saber will be about the pilot if everything is done right which Im certain it will be. There is to much documentation, flying examples, and living pilots for it not to be. It will come down the the pilots being able to exploit each planes weakness.

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-20-2007, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
Mig climbs Sabre doesn't

.
Well not untill they changed the wing design.

.

Depends on the altitude.

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-20-2007, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
Some where around 10-1 kill ratio....F-86 FTW! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Much lower vs Russian pilots.

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Much lower vs Russian pilots.
it was 4.5 - 1 (roughly) for "all Saber v all Migs"

wasnt just ami's in the Sabers & it wasnt just russians in the Migs

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 03:47 PM
didnt realise the Corsair wings were partly fabric


The entire outer-wing panels, for the first time on any Corsair, were metal covered. A substantial reduction in drag resulted.

Spring tabs for use on the elevator and rudder controls reduced pilot effort as much as 40 percent. Guns and pitot tubes were electrically heated. The nose was dropped about 2 degrees to improve longitudinal stability and vision.

http://www.voughtaircraft.com/heritage/products/html/f4u-5.html

R_Target
05-20-2007, 04:36 PM
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2631/wingiethingiews8.gif

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 05:46 PM
ok! rgr that , thanks

M_Gunz
05-20-2007, 06:41 PM
Expect the MiG's to regain speed monstrously fast if you're in a slowed down Sabre.
He'll just leave you standing *while* climbing unless maybe you have F-86F.

SimHQ has their BoB review down for reformatting. And the thing is that Rowan shows their
numbers and list the sources and discuss FM and show charts derived from game use when they
showed the sim off.

Well, I found pretty much the same material over at "I dang near forgot" combatsim.com!
They do bring up history and the gotta-hav'em quotes... some good ones at that.

CombatSim review of MiG Alley (http://www.combatsim.com/memb123/archive/htm/htm_arc3/mig-sabre.htm)

fordfan25
05-20-2007, 09:12 PM
CombatSim review of MiG Alley
m-gunz thats a great find EVERY one hear who is planning on getting this game should read this. it just goes to show that p2w thrust is not the end all be all many think it to be. just a sample

"With the higher thrust to weight ratio and lower wing loading, the MiG should have demonstrated the better turn performance. In fact performance was compromised by the MiG's poor stalling characteristics. During combat, the aircraft would suddenly stall and the inexperienced pilot could not avoid the aircraft going into an uncontrollable spin.

The result of the MiG's poor stall characteristics was that pilots were uneasy about pushing the aircraft to the limit and hence the Sabre pilot had the edge in a turning contest.

The MiG armament only exacerbated the situation. As the MiG was fitted with large bore slow firing canons, the MiG pilot had to pull far more lead in a turning fight compared with the Sabre pilot. As a result the Sabre pilot found it easier to get a gun solution than did the MiG pilot.

The Sabre wing had a torsion box type structure which prevented wing flexing. The MiG's wing construction was not as stiff and the MiG suffered badly from wing flexing. In addition, the variation in MiG wing manufacturing quality was wide. These factors are likely to have contributed to the poor stalling characteristics of the MiG.

Poor roll rate on the MiG could also have been caused, in part at least, by the MiG's wing design and construction. A roll-rate of 180 degrees/sec at all speed ranges has been reported for the Sabre(4) whereas the MiG could only produce a performance that was half to two-thirds as good.

In fact the Sabre was generally more refined and controllable with no tendency to yaw. Overall, the Sabre was the better aircraft for a turning fight. "


i choose that just as a example and to try and point out that other things besides power to weight add to a good fighter. in fact iv read that up to 30k the saber was faster. throw in G-suits and you have got a tough fight aginst the mig15.

M_Gunz
05-20-2007, 09:49 PM
Yeager had words about the brand new MiG that Lt. No defected in. Deathtrap was one.

That's why I don't go by those E-M charts. It takes test pilots in controlled conditions to
make the higher-G data points. I should not find many players in MiG-15 even 15bis that can
"just" pull a 6 G corner or hold better than 4 G's flat turn.

Fordfan, did you ever get a copy of the Rowan game? After RB2-RB3D in 98 there came (for me)
EAW and then MA. EAW required being much lighter with the stick compared to RB-Any. But for
the jets in the Rowan MA, EAW was a kind of trainer. Delta wings stall easy and in that sim
the MiG-15 has the wing bend effects.

Badsight-
05-20-2007, 10:51 PM
I should not find many players in MiG-15 even 15bis that can
"just" pull a 6 G corner or hold better than 4 G's flat turn. quality of pilots means nothing when comparing plane performance

from the Mig Alley review :

as General Albert Boyd said about the MiG 15, "A light plane with a big engine." In the final analysis, the MiG had the edge and for the pilot willing and capable of flying that edge, the MiG gave him the advantage
up high - the lower weight , higher power & thicker wings of the Migs means your going to get out-turned flying the Saber

& down low the Mig may actually been slower in the top speed - but it still had lower weight , higher power & thicker wings . . . . . all of which can help give turning advantage

& these are the 3rd generation jets , despite their running problems your going to be grabbing alt a hell of a lot faster than in IL2

gkll
05-20-2007, 11:10 PM
I agree with aggressive angles tactics for the Sabre if co-e, however the em chart is good for something (if it <is> Boyd and Yeager, or otherwise based on RL), it shows the clock is ticking for the Sabre. The Sabre can absolutely dominate early, big difference in the stall line. Add a g suit and the Mig is in trouble for some early turns... however if the Mig stays alive until the Sabre is out of e, well, there you go.... time to dive away. In our sim world anyways.

Maybe the the Mig's bad stall line we see on the em chart is handling issues. If it <is> based on Boyd and Yeager id love to see the raw data points.

Yeager on the Mig

"A white line is painted down the center of the instrument panel. Lieutenant Ho, who is here to brief us, explained that if the Mig gets into a spin, we are shove the control stick against that white line. If the airplane doesn't come out of the spin after 3 rotations - he put up three fingers to make sure we understood - then "you go", he said flicking his hand like a guy ejecting."

"The Mig is a pretty good fighting machine, but it lacks our sophisticated American technology. It has problems - oscillating, pitching up unexpectedly, fatal spins, no stall warning, lousy pressurization, and a particular warning from Lieutenant Ho not to turn on the ermergency fuel pump. That could blow the rear off the airplane; the North Koreans lost four or five Migs that way."

I did get the feeling Yeager liked the Mig though, hot airplane.

M_Gunz
05-21-2007, 02:00 AM
If in an F-86 you and a MiG get slow about the same time (1 too many hard maneuvers for each,
done at the same time in the fight) then unless you're in an F-86F the MiG will regain speed
faster at a rate no prop plane will match. Jet thrust increases with speed, props fall off
where jets pick up so the increase snowballs in favor of those MiGs.

The question is just how hairy will the SOW MiGs and Sabres be? Dream on that, the Rowan FM
is good for 1999 and 300mz PC's but it really was not bad at all. Of course I don't remember
seeing more than small numbers of planes at a time.

In the Rowan sim you fly close to the edge in either and you learn to know and it's just tiny
amounts to straight into accelerated stall, you don't even want to roll too fast (change bank
angle) if you are turning as you could stall the downward going wing and spin so fast it's scary. Stall speed gets higher by the square root of G's loading on the wings, it's twice as high at 4 G's as in level flight. Get slowing down in a turn and think you won't stall till
"Stall Speed" just forget that. Reference "Stall Speed" is straight and level only, 1 G.

Anyway, the jets in that one are way easy to stall and if you're getting good then you'll
only bleed some speed. Try the P-51 in that one out as well to get a perspective on the
F-86 and MiG FM's by comparing that P-51 to those in other sims. Not so easy to spin as
the jets and more warning.

fordfan25
05-21-2007, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Yeager had words about the brand new MiG that Lt. No defected in. Deathtrap was one.

That's why I don't go by those E-M charts. It takes test pilots in controlled conditions to
make the higher-G data points. I should not find many players in MiG-15 even 15bis that can
"just" pull a 6 G corner or hold better than 4 G's flat turn.

Fordfan, did you ever get a copy of the Rowan game? After RB2-RB3D in 98 there came (for me)
EAW and then MA. EAW required being much lighter with the stick compared to RB-Any. But for
the jets in the Rowan MA, EAW was a kind of trainer. Delta wings stall easy and in that sim
the MiG-15 has the wing bend effects. i bought the game and played it a few times tyill i updated a driver or something wich fubared it, put it up and it got lost.

fordfan25
05-21-2007, 02:37 AM
yea its going to be interasting to see what thay moddle in and dont to be sure. one thing that realy has me worried is think how tough it is now to kill a FW or la-7 ect with .50's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif . of course thay dont always take a planes reported and reputaion as being rugged into acount. just look at the f4u,hellcat and p47 in game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

M_Gunz
05-21-2007, 03:39 AM
If a bullet or even shrapnel hit compressor or turbine blades then that's all she wrote for
the engine. And each kind is fully open at front and rear of the target. Other than that,
if the skin is punctured and leaves skin peeled outwards then will that be able to tear and
peel or take whole skin panel off like the AC damage pics?

hejbrigade
05-21-2007, 04:18 AM
Man I wish to play this game already to confirm those charts...yea maybe in 2008/9 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

JG14_Josf
05-21-2007, 10:12 AM
The Sabre wing had a torsion box type structure which prevented wing flexing. The MiG's wing construction was not as stiff and the MiG suffered badly from wing flexing. In addition, the variation in MiG wing manufacturing quality was wide. These factors are likely to have contributed to the poor stalling characteristics of the MiG.

In an effort to continue being ignorant (according to some) I am going to comment on the above.

The power to weight ratio is (as if this is not common sense) a function of additional mass such as ˜torsion box type structure which prevent wing flexing'.

More accurate information is better than less. At what g load does any wing begin flexing?

Example:

David Lednicer back up (http://us.share.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf)


A comparison of the local wing lift coefficients, calculated by VSAERO, at stall with the estimated stalling lift coefficients of the airfoils two-dimensionally (Fig. 12) shows that at higher loading conditions (i.e., when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously.

All the above may appear to be nonsensical if you have yet to understand what is being discussed (or purposefully ignored).

Documentation exists ONLY in the case of the F-86 versus Mig-15 performance comparison whereby the higher weight to wing area and higher weight to engine power ratio plane (F-86) has the slower speed corner velocity (better corner speed) over the Mig-15.

That lower corner speed means that the heavy and underpowered (small wing) F-86 is the better turn fighter – at high speed.

That does not mean that the F-86 is the better turn fighter at slow speed.

That means; that a plane can be better at high speed turn fighting and not as good at slow speed turn fighting.

If anyone can find a match-up in any current game that models a plane with a better high speed turn performance and a worse slow speed turn performance plane, then, someone finds the type of match-up that should be modeled into the F-86 versus the Mig-15.

Among the may possible reasons why one plane (higher wing loading and lower power loading) will turn better than another plane (lower wing loading and higher power loading) is the subject of wing flex or ˜elastic deformation'.

No matter how heavy a plane is made the fact remains that a 6 g turn is a 6 g turn.

If the wing can handle a 6 g turn, then, the wing can handle a 6 g turn.

If the wing flexes (elastic deformation) at 7 g, then, the wing flexes at 7 g.

If the wing flexes at 7 g at .6 Mach, then, the wing flexes at .6 Mach AT THAT WEIGHT.

If the plane is loaded up with a new and more massive wing, then, 7 g will arrive at the same speed – not lower – not higher – unless the wing flexes (elastic deformation).

The opposite is true.
If the wing is capable of generating 7 g at .6 Mach and then the plane wing is replaced with a wing that is no longer as massive (not as strong), then, the lighter version of the plane will still reach 7 g at .6 Mach – not lower – not higher – 7 g at .6 Mach - unless the wing flexes.

If the wing flexes (elastic deformation), then, the 7 g can be generated at a higher speed (if the wing is less efficient at the new shape), or the wing can generate the same g force at a lower speed (if the wing becomes more efficient due to elastic deformation) or the wing can generate the same g at the same speed (not likely) if the wing continues to be as efficient as it was before flexing (under load).

To say that the F-86 was, in reality, a better turn fighter than the Mig-15 and have that ˜saying' intend to mean that the F-86 could ˜sustain' a tighter turn while maintaining altitude is a ˜saying' that is not supported by the EM chart and not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

To say that the F-86, in reality, was a better turn fighter than the Mig-15 is about as inaccurate as saying that the Focke-Wulf was the better turn fighter over the Spitfire.

Examples:

Bud, Boots, and Chuck (not to mention John) (http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html)


Q: You're in the cockpit of an F-86, and you're out after a MiG. Describe what's going on in your mind and what you're actually doing with your aircraft.

Mahurin: It depends on the circumstances of the combat. On several occasions, I dogfought, like World War I, with a MiG. Once we started fighting about 37,000 feet, went around and around down to the ground and back up to about 26,000, before I shot him down. So that hadn't changed much since World Wars One and Two. It was very exciting and a lot of fun. On a couple of other occasions, we caught them when they didn't know we were there. That was just a matter of going in and shooting down an unaware pilot. But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker. We didn't try to climb with them, because they could climb higher than we could. We tried to keep the combat on those elements where we had an advantage. Whenever they were gaining an advantage, we could always leave, we could always turn around and dive away.

When you talk to a pilot, especially a guy like me who has a lot of years on him, his stories get better by the moment. The next thing you know, his airplane was a dud, but due to sheer combat capability he was able to shoot down twenty enemy aircraft.

Just after the war, a North Korean pilot named Ro Kim Suk defected with a MiG-15 and landed at Kimpo airport just outside of Seoul. The MiG-15 was sent to Wright Field, and Chuck Yeager did the performance tests on it, which revealed that the F-86s was slightly faster. The Sabre had lots of combat capability that the MiG didn't. Above all, it had the creature comforts that I talked about earlier. The MiG-15 wasn't as good as the F-86, but all in all it was a pretty good airplane. A lot of them have survived, and once in a while, F-86s and MiGs show up at air shows, and it's quite a sight to see them. Especially when you realize that one of them used to be an enemy.



...we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker.


Turning faster does not automatically equate to having an ability to sustain level flight at a higher turn rate and smaller turn radius.

"we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker" means something.



. Whenever they were gaining an advantage, we could always leave, we could always turn around and dive away.


What does ˜pull out quicker' mean?

This is not an ˜anecdote'.

Not an anecdote (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html)


Climb
18.........The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.

Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.


What does "can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty mean"?


...we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker.


What does "when both aircraft are pulled up onto a climb from a dive" mean?

British Military Comparative Flight Testing (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests)


Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably stepper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

What does ˜pulled into a climb from a dive' mean?

Mk IX was still to be left standing (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/image/15917226)

What does that mean?


"With the higher thrust to weight ratio and lower wing loading, the MiG should have demonstrated the better turn performance. In fact performance was compromised by the MiG's poor stalling characteristics. During combat, the aircraft would suddenly stall and the inexperienced pilot could not avoid the aircraft going into an uncontrollable spin.

Chuck Yeager was not inexperienced and neither were all the Mig-15 pilots flying the Mig-15 in combat.
"Poor stalling characteristics" means what exactly?

Poor stalling characteristics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_wing)


- furthermore, the wing's uniform lift distribution causes the entire span of the wing to stall simultaneously, potentially causing loss of control with little warning. To compensate, aircraft such as the Supermarine Spitfire used a modified elliptical wing with washout, though such compromises increase induced drag and reduce a wing's efficiency.

David Lednicer back up (http://us.share.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf)


A comparison of the local wing lift coefficients, calculated by VSAERO, at stall with the estimated stalling lift coefficients of the airfoils two-dimensionally (Fig. 12) shows that at higher loading conditions (i.e., when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously.

A compromise to gain ˜better' stalling characteristics does not equate to ˜better' high speed performance.

Back to Dave (http://yarchive.net/air/spitfire.html)


Yes, the elliptical planform did result from the need for
outboard guns. More specifically, wing depth for the ammunition trays
for the outboard guns was needed. Also, remember that the landing gear
retracted outboard, so depth was need for the tire too. The Spitfire
wing had approximately 2 degrees of twist, so the lift distribution was
not elliptical.



Actually, the Spitfire was very slow for its power, so I wouldn't
say it had good high speed performance (in level flight). The wing has a
NACA 2213 at the root and a 2209.4 at the tip. The Mustang has a 13.8%
thick root airfoil and a 11.4% tip airfoil. So yes, the Spitfire has a
thinner wing, which would help at high Mach. However, I would estimate
that the Mustang's airfoils have lower drag at high Mach (something I
have got to try and calculate someday soon...). I think that the
Spitfire's high drag divergence speed, relative to the Mustang is due to
a combination of features, not just the wing or wing airfoil design.

For more info, so my two papers:

Lednicer, D., "A CFD Evaluation of Three Prominent World War II
Fighter Aircraft," Aeronautical Journal of the Royal Aeronautical
Society, June/July 1995.

Lednicer, D. and Gilchrist, I., "A Retrospective: Computational
Aerodynamics Analysis Methods Applied to the P-51 Mustang," AIAA paper
91-3288, September 1991.


The Mig-15 was the slow speed turn fighter.

The F-86 was the high speed turn fighter.

The reasons for each plane to dominate in their designed envelope include wing design and density.


The result of the MiG's poor stall characteristics was that pilots were uneasy about pushing the aircraft to the limit and hence the Sabre pilot had the edge in a turning contest.

What does that mean? Does that mean that every Mig pilot was ˜uneasy'? Does that mean that every Sabre pilot could out-turn a Mig pilot in a stall fight where both pilots are maintaining altitude in a level turn at the aircrafts lift boundary?


In fact the Sabre was generally more refined and controllable with no tendency to yaw. Overall, the Sabre was the better aircraft for a turning fight.

Does ˜better aircraft for a turning fight' include stall fighting and angles tactics where the ˜better' aircraft is the aircraft with the ˜better' slow speed turn performance?

Does ˜better' mean ˜easy to handle' at the stall boundary at slow speed?

I don't think so; but I am a Joke, The Buda of ignorance, stupid, etc.

The game models light weight fighters as double superior fighters. The game will model the Mig-15 as the double superior fighter if the game continues to model planes the same way.

If the game models the F-86 and the Mig-15 in such a way as to enable those planes to plot performance capabilities accurate to the EM chart, then, the F-86 will be single superior / single inferior to the Mig-15.

The F-86 will have the lower corner speed (Va).

The Mig-15 will have the lower ˜sustained' corner speed.


We tried to keep the combat on those elements where we had an advantage. Whenever they were gaining an advantage, we could always leave, we could always turn around and dive away.


If the game models the F-86 with the higher corner speed (like the game models all the heavy planes), then, the F-86 will be double inferior. The F-86 will be the hit and run plane.

If the game also models the F-86 with the slower top speed, then, the F-86 will be the hit and run plane that can't run.


Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw

page 183

Double-Superior and Double-Inferior Conditions

The pilot of the inferior fighter in this scenario has real problems He may not be able to avoid engagement, and he may not be able to escape once he is engaged. These problems may be alleviated, however, by a very thorough aircraft preflight inspection, followed by a decision to spend the day in the bar. If this luxury is not available, high-speed hit-and-run tactics or multiple-aircraft engagements may offer some relief; otherwise the pilot of the inferior fighter must be very good and very lucky.

Bremspropeller
05-21-2007, 11:37 AM
Delta wings stall easy

In fact, they don't really stall at all up to considerable angles of attack. They'll only create exessive drag as our AoA goes way up, slowing you down very quickly, while you're getting an ever increasing sink-rate.

Swept-wings have a less well pronounced link between AoA and stall. That means at and past the stalling AoA your lift curve won't decrease as quickly as with a straight-winged a/c.
Also, the curve is flatter than with straight-winged a/c.

Swept-winged a/c, however, have bad slow-flying handling qualities. They rely highly on high-lift devices in order to achieve comparable low-speed flight characteristics.

hejbrigade
05-21-2007, 04:45 PM
Delta wings were also used on MIG-21, Mach 2 capability exceeds the top speed of many later modern fighter types despite prototype build in 1956. Delta wings dont stall easy, but can stall plane in tight turn's if you make it to 2nd.

M_Gunz
05-21-2007, 06:18 PM
Brems, when the slowing effect takes you below your accelerated stall for the turn you are in,
it's a very short trip to spin city at least in the Rowan MA. Not as quick as spin-happy-EAW
but I think the word accelerated in that term is a double-entendre IRL anyway.

Badsight-
05-21-2007, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
one thing that realy has me worried is think how tough it is now to kill a FW or la-7 ect with .50's the Korean F4U-4 & -5 had 20mm's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SkyChimp
05-21-2007, 07:22 PM
Why the assumption that the USAF didn't count write-offs from MiG damage as losses to MiGs? They most certainly did.


There were 103 confirmed losses to MiGs. There were 16 possible losses to MiGs (ie. F-86 lost to unknown causes during encounter with MiG). This accounts for the 119 losses to MiGs admitted by the USAF. After a line-by-line review of KORWALD, I believe the USAF did a very good job accounting for F-86 losses to MiGs.

M_Gunz
05-21-2007, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
one thing that realy has me worried is think how tough it is now to kill a FW or la-7 ect with .50's the Korean F4U-4 & -5 had 20mm's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to the MiG it would be like mounting the 20mm's on a Gladiator against a 190A-9,
as the planeset on a DF server. Would you want to fly the upgunned Gladiator there?
You could name yourself "Clay Pigeon"!

Badsight-
05-21-2007, 07:38 PM
exaggeration max

fyi , i do well in the bips against 45 planes - not that it proves anything

the props could get over 400 mph - thats not slow . plus they had an ok intial climb-rate

Migs were shot down by Corsairs & SeaFurys during the Korean conflict .

the point was the korean corsair isnt going to get stuck with .50's . why take issue with such a small thing max

M_Gunz
05-21-2007, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
exaggeration max

fyi , i do well in the bips against 45 planes - not that it proves anything

the props could get over 400 mph - thats not slow . plus they had an ok intial climb-rate

Migs were shot down by Corsairs & SeaFurys during the Korean conflict .

the point was the korean corsair isnt going to get stuck with .50's . why take issue with such a small thing max

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif OH NO! Not when you put it like that!

I just see that the prop fighters will be in a position of huge disadvantage to jets flown
properly. As you go faster in a prop, your efficiency drops while in a jet it rises.

How many 45 planeset servers permit Me-262's or He-162's?

fordfan25
05-21-2007, 09:56 PM
yep we may finaly get -4 corsairs...... better late than never http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif lol

VW-IceFire
05-21-2007, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
exaggeration max

fyi , i do well in the bips against 45 planes - not that it proves anything

the props could get over 400 mph - thats not slow . plus they had an ok intial climb-rate

Migs were shot down by Corsairs & SeaFurys during the Korean conflict .

the point was the korean corsair isnt going to get stuck with .50's . why take issue with such a small thing max

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif OH NO! Not when you put it like that!

I just see that the prop fighters will be in a position of huge disadvantage to jets flown
properly. As you go faster in a prop, your efficiency drops while in a jet it rises.

How many 45 planeset servers permit Me-262's or He-162's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A few...and the props usually end up, during the jet to jet combat scenarios, flying ground pounding. Just like in Korea. Killing a jet with a prop is tough work...doable but tough.

Copperhead310th
05-21-2007, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
one thing that realy has me worried is think how tough it is now to kill a FW or la-7 ect with .50's the Korean F4U-4 & -5 had 20mm's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to the MiG it would be like mounting the 20mm's on a Gladiator against a 190A-9,
as the planeset on a DF server. Would you want to fly the upgunned Gladiator there?
You could name yourself "Clay Pigeon"! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not. I have successfully engaged and defeated Me-262's in P-40's and P-39's in this sim and flown away victoruios on a number of occations. some by very skilled virtuial pilots...others not so skilled.
Would i bring a knife to a gunfight? you bet. and already have. But i made damn sure i could kill with the knife i brought. and when i used that knife i made sure to stick it in just the right place.

So give me a Gladiator with 4 20mm, vs a fw-190a any day. i'll smoke that 190. and i'm by far the one of the worst pilots in this comunity. So a F4U-4 or F4u-5 vs a mig.... sure i'd do that.

AKA_TAGERT
05-21-2007, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
yep we may finaly get -4 corsairs...... better late than never http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif lol Just like we got torpedo planes in PACIFIC FIGHERS.. Oh.. wait.. Nevermind.. Bad example

AKA_TAGERT
05-21-2007, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
one thing that realy has me worried is think how tough it is now to kill a FW or la-7 ect with .50's the Korean F4U-4 & -5 had 20mm's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compared to the MiG it would be like mounting the 20mm's on a Gladiator against a 190A-9,
as the planeset on a DF server. Would you want to fly the upgunned Gladiator there?
You could name yourself "Clay Pigeon"! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not. I have successfully engaged and defeated Me-262's in P-40's and P-39's in this sim and flown away victoruios on a number of occations. some by very skilled virtuial pilots...others not so skilled.
Would i bring a knife to a gunfight? you bet. and already have. But i made damn sure i could kill with the knife i brought. and when i used that knife i made sure to stick it in just the right place.

So give me a Gladiator with 4 20mm, vs a fw-190a any day. i'll smoke that 190. and i'm by far the one of the worst pilots in this comunity. So a F4U-4 or F4u-5 vs a mig.... sure i'd do that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Have not read all the posts.. So forgive me is this has allready been pointed out.. Has anyone told MAX that a F4u-4 short down a MiG15 in KOREA?

Badsight-
05-21-2007, 11:53 PM
dont forget the all metal La-9 & Yak9U (at a higher HP than the Yak9U in FB)

so the high HP F-51 & F4U-5 are going to have some quality targets

JG53Frankyboy
05-22-2007, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
dont forget the all metal ........... Yak9U (at a higher HP than the Yak9U in FB)

..............

that thing was caled Yak-9P, actually http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gordon&Kazhanov are rating it with 590km/h at SL and 660km/h at 5000m.
armed with 2x12,7mm and 1x20mm.

Badsight-
05-22-2007, 02:19 AM
ok ok - lots of little improvements , engines that were more reliable

should be interesting to compare how the new game engine makes it handel DFing

the La-9 while lighter (+ more wing area ?) had laminar flow surfaces which (according to oleg at least) made it less effective at tight turns compared to the La-7

IL10 versus the monster AD1

i really , really cant wait http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

hejbrigade
05-22-2007, 03:59 AM
Good video Bob Hoover flying the F-86F demo at Clark afb Philippines in 1961, rare;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRt6UnNzR6I

JG53Frankyboy
05-22-2007, 06:20 AM
i hope for more than one F-86 version http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F-86A from December 50 on
F-86E from December 51 on
F-86F from June 52 on
F-86F "6-3" wing from ~September 52 on

the differences in their FM should be noticeable
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_11.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p86_11.html)

and for having an early MiG-15 from November 50 on and a later one, general called MiG-15BIS, from ~Mai 51 on too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
05-22-2007, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
i hope for more than one F-86 version http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F-86A from December 50 on
F-86E from December 51 on
F-86F from June 52 on
F-86F "6-3" wing from ~September 52 on

the differences in their FM should be noticeable
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p86_11.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher1/p86_11.html)

and for having an early MiG-15 from November 50 on and a later one, general called MiG-15BIS, from ~Mai 51 on too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Great link Franky!
I can't wait to circle high in the MiG and watch the early Sabres fall out of the air..
much like the Spitfire vs. Focke Wulf http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-22-2007, 07:10 AM
Flyable F-82 Twin Zwilling is what I'm looking for. Has this been done in any sim other than mods?

Carefull JG53, SaQsoN Said, more than just -15 and -15bis. Look out for, maybe, 12 variants of MiG-15. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Hopefully, La-15 too in yet another La that would make the hardcore gamers soil diapers. Restricting the sim to just "korea sim(tm)" over the long term would be tragic. I'd like to see Korea And Beyond for a far more international customer base.

HellToupee
05-22-2007, 09:12 AM
ild like to see a Il-28 23mm tail guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and other early jet bombers like canberra etc

MEGILE
05-22-2007, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
ild like to see a Il-28 23mm tail guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I can see the PK headshots now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

HellToupee
05-22-2007, 09:27 AM
i would love this baby to

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/tu95/tu95_03.jpg

fast as the dam jet bombers of the day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ploughman
05-22-2007, 09:30 AM
Pfft. How good can it be if it needs a tow?

Klemm.co
05-22-2007, 10:48 AM
Right. The props are actually windmilling.

FPSOLKOR
05-22-2007, 11:10 AM
But what about economy on fuel? And no greenhouse gases either!

JG53Frankyboy
05-22-2007, 01:57 PM
and i would say the RRG team has already enough work to do with staying with the Korean War related stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and here are "just" the aircraft:
http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft/index.html

MEGILE
05-22-2007, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

and here are "just" the aircraft:
http://www.korean-war.com/KWAircraft/index.html

Did anyone consider yet the addition of bombers? I realize we have been focusing on the Sabre and and Mig..... but.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif imagine a flyable B-29.

And on that note franky... what about the ground units?
maybe for another thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://www.korean-war.com/images/KWAircraft/US/USAF/rb45c02.jpg

What an ugly plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif
North American RB-45C Tornado

JG53Frankyboy
05-22-2007, 02:26 PM
well, a fylable B-29............. i dont know.
much, much work to make this thing flyable - with all internal stations. would it be worth it ?!?!?!
as AI it has to be in.
and having in mind that with the SoW engine AI planes will be possible on "Dogfightmap" servers , well, the MiG-15 will have targets on such servers and the F-86/F-84 will have something to look after http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

i would more looking for flyable B-26B (14x.50cal firing forward http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )/B-26C and Tu-2 - if possible.

and not to forgett, the most combat planes used by the UN were be used as "bombers" - even the mighty Sabre. F-86F-30NA could carry bombracks and equipted two FighterBomberWings in 1953 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the "focus" is on the MiG-Sabre duell - true.
but there is more, espacially on the UN side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

we will see what the RRG team is able to do, i'm sure it will be interesting.

my, very personal, favorties would be:
-intercepting UN Bombers and Fighterbombers with the MiG-15. RADAR guidance will be possible in SoW-engine i guess , thats important for the BoB scenario too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-flying night missions in B-26B
-flying F9F Panthers and AD Skyraiders off from carriers

MEGILE
05-22-2007, 03:16 PM
I hear the Panther is the quintessential Korea US Naval Fighter... but how did she stack up to the MiG? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

luftluuver
05-22-2007, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
I hear the Panther is the quintessential Korea US Naval Fighter... but how did she stack up to the MiG? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It didn't. It would be like comparing a Me262(MiG-15) to a Meteor(F9F).

JG53Frankyboy
05-22-2007, 03:49 PM
yep, the Panther fought a long war in Korea, was there from July 1950 on till the end.
even if the NAVY used it as bombarmed Fighterbomber not before April 51 AFAIK http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

the Banshee was much more seldom - and flew its first combat mission (beside the recon version) not before August 1951.

so indeed, the F9F Panther was THE USN Jet in Korea http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Frankyboy
05-22-2007, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
I hear the Panther is the quintessential Korea US Naval Fighter... but how did she stack up to the MiG? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It didn't. It would be like comparing a Me262(MiG-15) to a Meteor(F9F). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and also the 77th Squadron RAAF Meteor F.8s hada lot of proplems fighting the MiG.........

all UN Jets beside the F-86 had actually, on paper, little chances agaisnt the MiG...... fortunatly, as already mentioned so often , the MiG pilots made often mistakes. And at least at lower heights they could outturn a MiG.

LEXX_Luthor
05-22-2007, 04:48 PM
JG53::
much, much work to make this thing flyable - with all internal stations. would it be worth it ?!?!?!
What was the defensive weaponry used on FEAF B-29s in Korea?

Would it be worth it? Yes!

Don't fall into the trap of having faith in Oleg Maddox's artificial, and game development crippling, "standard" of requiring all gunner positions playable. Its not needed.

Remember, Aggy22 had finished the Pe-2 model, but then poasted to us here the surprising news that Oleg *then* suddenly required Aggy22 to model the Pe-2 RADIO OPERATOR as playable -- never any explanation for this. Turns out, Oleg gave up on that strange, almost obsessive requirement...

...or did he? I never bothered getting the latest expansion pacs starting with Pe-2. Is this Pe-2 radio person position playable, with its gun shifting between tiny windows?

SkyChimp
05-22-2007, 07:44 PM
Performance wise, the Pather didn't compare to the MiG - but they only met a couple of times. That didn't stop NAVY pilots from
downing 5 MiGs for the loss of 2 or 3 Panthers. All told, Panthers shot down 7 planes in Korea, 5 MiGs and 2 Yak-9s.

M_Gunz
05-22-2007, 09:22 PM
Lexx did you ever try B-17-II?

All the crew positions were modeled as well as all the crew.
You can 'get up' from one station and go to another and use it.

Oleg loves the accurate models and the details, maybe he wanted to have that "if you can reach
it, it should work" capability?

We have the Pe-2 quite a while now. A delight to attack ground or ships with. Real nice feel
in the dive and swoop. So I guess it's not exactly blocked.

And no, I haven't jumped between crew positions. Too busy flying then.

LEXX_Luthor
05-22-2007, 10:10 PM
Gunz::
Lexx did you ever try B-17-II?

All the crew positions were modeled as well as all the crew.
You can 'get up' from one station and go to another and use it.
A sim focusing most "detail" on one (1) aircraft is different from our discussion here, thankfully.

Now, what was the defensive weaponry on FEAF B-29s in Korea?

JG53Frankyboy
05-23-2007, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
...........
Now, what was the defensive weaponry on FEAF B-29s in Korea?

in the pictures i saw the B-29 had their full defensive armament. Anyway, after "Black Tuesday" (23.October 1951), they operated only at night.

if the B-29 will be made flyable..........it actually would be nice to ahve also a historical Base on the map - at Japan/Okinawa http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
05-23-2007, 06:09 AM
OK. I'm ready for some more leaked screenies now please. The effect of the last lot has worn off and I'm begining to feel a little unwell so more screenies please.

MEGILE
05-23-2007, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
OK. I'm ready for some more leaked screenies now please. The effect of the last lot has worn off and I'm begining to feel a little unwell so more screenies please.

Patience young padawan.

Oleg/Luthier will have something for us

Blutarski2004
05-23-2007, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
What was the defensive weaponry used on FEAF B-29s in Korea?



..... The B-29' defensive armament was in unmanned turrets remotely controlled from nearby observer bubbles. I recall reading that this arrangement, whose lead-computing fire control system had been designed for WW2-era engagement speeds, had very great difficulty in tracking the much faster Mig-15's.

JG53Frankyboy
05-23-2007, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
What was the defensive weaponry used on FEAF B-29s in Korea?



..... The B-29' defensive armament was in unmanned turrets remotely controlled from nearby observer bubbles. I recall reading that this arrangement, whose lead-computing fire control system had been designed for WW2-era engagement speeds, had very great difficulty in tracking the much faster Mig-15's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

here you can read some more about the B-29's fire control.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_2.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher2/b29_2.html)
so, a Korean B-29 should have 12x.50cal guns.
(4 guns in the upper forward turret, in all other positions,3 turrets and the tail, 2 guns).

LEXX_Luthor
05-23-2007, 08:55 AM
Thanks fellas/fellattes. ACIG had a pic of FEAF B-29A, with full complement of turrets, dropping a stick of bombs.

Thanks JG53...

Joe B::
However, the tail turret was operated exclusively by the tail gunner, and could not be "handed off" to another gunner.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_2.html (http://home.att.net/%7Ejbaugher2/b29_2.html)

That, I think, should be the limit for playable bomber gunners.

Playable...
(1) Pilot position
(2) Tail gunner
(3) Bombardier position


Unlike the "detailed" dedicated B-17 Sim, I'd like to see the following all modelled with similar limits on the number of playable crew positions...

B-26 Invader
B-29 / B-50
B-36
B-45
B-47
B-52
B-57
B-66
B-70
etc...

...with major variants, in the Beyond part of Korea And Beyond, especially with some good Electronic Warfare modelling, as the Silent Hunter series has shown that strategic strike/intercept sims don't require XboX style Turn~and~Boyd "dogfight" to be popular even among old timer flight simmers...although we will stop the analogy short of Silent Hunter's use of StarForce!