[Captain Eddie]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

Bob Hoover said it best when the U.S. and Russia had a fly off in Moscow one year. It was a military air show of some sort, and he was flying the F-86. Russia was flying the Mig 15. The F-86 cleaned the clock of the Mig time and time again. Now these were the only two airplanes in the contest. The headlines of the paper in Moscow read,"Mig places second in contest while U.S. fighter finishes next to last."

That is PRICLESS!

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

Bob Hoover said it best when the U.S. and Russia had a fly off in Moscow one year. It was a military air show of some sort, and he was flying the F-86. Russia was flying the Mig 15. The F-86 cleaned the clock of the Mig time and time again. Now these were the only two airplanes in the contest. The headlines of the paper in Moscow read,"Mig places second in contest while U.S. fighter finishes next to last."

Driving expertise makes the difference in car racing and pilot expertise is the major decider in aerobatic competitions, and Bob Hoover is a world class pilot. Aerobatics are usually low level events and up to 25,000 feet the F-86 did have some advantages over the MIG-15. However above that altitude the performance advantage swung in favor of the MIG-15, which also had better weapons than the F-86. The US were able to reduce the MIG's advantages by providing their pilots with better training.

[aeroeng]

That guy must have been smoking pot all night before he logged in. He is pretty funny. It'd be cool if he'd join our forum. We could really be entertained with his viewpoints .

[mustangdriver]

Well, Yeager told me that the F-86 was a much better aircraft all around than the MIG. His exact word to describe the Mig was rough. He said that he F-86 was faster, had a flying tail, a better gunsight, and could fly higher. I have to say that I believe the man.

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

Well, Yeager told me that the F-86 was a much better aircraft all around than the MIG. His exact word to describe the Mig was rough. He said that he F-86 was faster, had a flying tail, a better gunsight, and could fly higher. I have to say that I believe the man.

With due respect to Mr Yeager I would place more emphasis on more objective comparisons and these are well documented if you check some websites and books matching the two aircraft. It's true that the MIG wasn't as refined as the F-86 but the Russians always went for simplicity and serviceability over technology.

The F-86 was faster at lower altitudes, but the MIG-15 improved above 25,000 and had a higher ceiling than the F-86. However their speeds were very close across the board and minor differences are of no real consequence, but it should be noted that the MIG-15 had a much higher rate of climb.

The F-86 had a better gunsight but only having 0.5" machine guns it lacked killing power but it was a more stable gun platform.

Here are two interesting sites:
Sabre vs MiG

Russian Aces of the Korean War

[mustangdriver]

Those 50 cals found there way to a 10 to 1 kill ratio.

[Berkut76]

A few years back there was a program on MiG-15 on Discovery Channel in the Wings Series. I don't remember much detail about it, but the US pilots who flew MiG-15 after North Korean pilot defected to Japan in one ranked it higher F-86. MiG bureau modified Rolls Royce engine and incredibly powerful armament were the main advantages over the Sabre.

Also, the US pilots were quite honest that the high kill ratios in favor of the Sabre were the results of better training and had nothing to do with technology.

Truth be told, the true military potential of the Soviet hardware could never be properly analyzed since with an exception of North Vietnam and to a lesser extent India, the rest of the Soviet client states were barely out of the stone age era in terms of educational and social structure development, plagued by corrupt regimes to boot.

It's easy to tout Western technology when it was in the hands of the Israeli or US, British, etc military personnel against lesser opponents in terms of social development. I bet the outcomes of the "local" wars of the twentieth century would have been the same if the equipment was "exchanged" between the opposing sides.

Regards,

Sergey

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by mustangdriver

Those 50 cals found there way to a 10 to 1 kill ratio.

Those 'claims' are now known to have been grossly overstated due to poor measurement parameters in a similar manner to the German 'claims' in WWII. The actual loss ratio in the Korean war is now considered to be about 3:1. Which is still a significant difference but reflects better training rather than the effectiveness of the relative aircraft.

Link here:Korean War Aces

[admin]

Originally Posted by djjeffhall

Admin,
What is the "flying submarine vessel" you are researching?

Posted by TehCockinbum on ampednews.com

In the mid 1930's the Soviet Union undertook the creation of a new and more powerful navy, which included construction of battleships, aircraft carriers and ships of other classes. This stimulated the emergence of totally new unorthodox technical and tactical solutions. In particular, the proposed concept of a vehicle which combined the properties of submarine and aircraft.

In 1934 Cadet B. P. Ushakov of the Dzerzhinsky Military and Engineering Academy presented the schematic design of the flying submarine (LPL) which was subsequently reworked and represented in several versions to determine stability and loads on the vehicle. In April 1936, Captain 1st Rank Surina indicated that Ushakov's idea was interesting and deserved unconditional support.

For several months, during July, the LPL project was examined by the Military scientific research committee (NIVK) and gained offical approval, with the statement: "it is desirable to continue the development of the LPL in order to understand its potential, completing of the corresponding calculations and necessary laboratory tests...". Among those signing the NIVK document were the chief of NIVK, Military Engineer 1st Rank Grigaitis, and the chief of the department of the tactics of military equipment, Flag Officer 2nd Rank Professor Goncharov.

In 1937 the LPL project was included in the NIVK’s organizational projects, but after its revision, which was very characteristic for that time, the project was eliminated. All further development was conducted during their off-duty time only by the engineers of division "V" and 1st Military-Technician B. P. Ushakov. On 10 January, 1938, in the 2nd division of NIVK sketches and basic tactical concepts of project LPL were re-examined and presented again by the author. However, that study was all that project LPL entailed.

The flying submarine was intended for ship destruction both in the open sea and enemy harbors protected by minefields and obstacles. A low underwater speed and limited action radius under water were not obstacles, because if there were no targets in the assigned sector, the LPL boat could find enemy targets elsewhere by itself. After finding its targets from the air, the LPL would land over the horizon, out of detection range from the enemy. It would immerse itself and track the ship. Before the appearance of a target within firing range, the LPL would remain silently at depth, without expending energy by excess motions.

In case of the enemy ships divergence from the path of the waiting LPL, it would slowly pursue the ship. With the very substantial deviation of target, the LPL would pass over the horizon from the ship, surface, take off and again prepare for attack.

Repeated approaches to the target ship was considered as one of the essential advantages the LPL flying submarine held over conventional submarines. Especially effective was the action of flying submarines in a wolf pack, since theoretically three LPL's could blockade an area up to nine miles wide. The LPL could penetrate harbors at night and, and in the daytime conduct observation, direction-finding and attack targets of opportunity.

In its design, the LPL contained six autonomous sections, three of which contained one AM-34 aircraft engine of 1000 hp each each. They were supplied with superchargers which allowed boosting in takeoff conditions to 1200 hp. The fourth section was habitable, designed to hold three people. Control of the vessel under water was conducted from the habitable fourth section. In the fifth section was located a storage battery, and in the sixth section was the propulsion motor with a power of 1200 hp.

The habitable housing of LPL was riveted duralumin 6mm thick, of cylindrical construction with a diameter of 1.4 m. Besides the habitable sections, the craft had a wet cockpit, which during submergence filled with water. For this, flight instruments were sealed in a special compartment. The wing skin and tail assembly was made of steel, and the floats were made of duralumin.

The entire construction was not meant to endure the pressure of sea water, since during sinking it was flooded by sea water which entered through scuppers. Fuel and oil were stored in special rubber reservoirs located in the center section. During submergence the radiator ducts filled with water, which excluded damage under pressure. Everything was painted with corrosion resistant materials. Torpedoes were carried under the outer sections of the wings in special holders. As was common for heavy aircraft, the design payload of the LPL was 44.5% of the total gross weight.

The process of submerging had four steps:

1. sealing the motor sections

2. flooding the radiator ducts with water

3. transferring control from the cockpit to the central compartment

4. moving crew from the cockpit into the central crew compartment

Tactical-Technical Characteristics of the LPL Project:

Crew: 3

Takeoff weight, kg: 15000

Flying speed, km/h: 100-200

Flying range, km: 800

Ceiling, m: 2500

Aircraft engines: 3 x AM-34

Takeoff power, hp: 3 x 1200

Max speed on surface, knots: 4-5

Max speed underwater, knots: 2-3

Submersion depth, m: 45

Action radius underater, nautical miles: 5-6

Underwater independence, hours: 48

Power of underwater motor, hp: 10

Time to submerge, min. 1.5

Time to surface, min. 1.5

Armament:

- 2 x 18 inch torpedoes

- 2 x forward firing machine gun

[admin]

Any Media Player 3.0.9

404 Not Found

This video was originally posted on rcgroups.com by jnida63.