Re: Korean Air War

["Diego Zampini" <dzampini@hotmail.com>]

Ron:

>Also because of protection for the pilot, of which the Zero
>had just that -0-. Point is that we kept the pilot in mind
>in designing aircraft. You can see one in the Smithstonian.
>A friend here in the Bay Area has a Mig-15 and it looks to me
>like a piece of junk. Yes, I'm a pilot.

Here I go again…
It is true that the cockpit of the MiG-15 was everything but big, and the 
Soviet veterans admitt that the rear view of the MiG was not the best. In 
that aspect Pepelyayev and Aleksandr Smorchkov (XO of the 18th GvIAP, 303rd 
IAD) remembered that when they saw the F-86 BuNo 49-1319 (the second victim 
of Pepelyayev on October 6 1951, the one rescued and taken to the USSR) they 
understood why they could surprise a Sabre in very weird occasions: because 
the excelent rear view of the bubble canopy. All of them sat into the 
cockpit of the F-86 and thought that they were into a very expensive car, 
due to the comfort. They also agree that the artificial horizon and the 
gunsight of the Sabre was quite better than the MiG one.
But as Dan told you, the MiG cockpit was strongly protected by armored 
plates. Such plates allowed the Soviet MiG pilot to survive even if he 
rammed an aircraft!! only 2 examples: on June 18 1951 the MiG-15 pilot 
Seraphim Subbotin was badly damaged by the shoot of the Sabre piloted by 
William Crone. Subbotin reversed and intentionally rammed the F-86 of Crone 
in the center of the fuselage. Despite it was the nose of the MiG which 
struck the fuselage of the Sabre, Subbotin survived the collison and Crone 
did not make it!! Later, on June 12 1953 the same happened in a night 
engagement between one MiG-15 of 298 IAP and one F-94B of 319 FIS. The 
Soviet pilot, I.P.Kovalev, survived, but the US crew (McHale, Hoster) was 
killed. So, it is clear to me that the Soviets (and the Russians) did not 
give comfort to their pilots, but they gave to their aircraft the strenght 
of a battleship. Such strenght give more chances to the pilots to survive a 
crash. So, I do not think that the Russian designers do not have in mind the 
pilot when they built a plane.
Take into account the Sukhoi Su-7 Fitter: The Indian Air Force speak 
marvelous things about it. For example; in an occasion, an Indian pilot 
invited an American editor of aeronautic magazines to hung up from the pitot 
pipeline of the Sukhoi. The American did it, and saw atonished how the pitot 
resisted his weight without troubles. During the 1971 war with Pakistan 
there were Su-7s which ressisted direct hits of AIM-9s but could return home 
and land without troubles.The sign ´No Step´ fills the American planes, but 
you will never find a similar sign in Russian in the Russian-built 
airplanes.
Back to the MiG-15, there were lot of occasions when the Sabre pilots 
admitted that they ran out of ammo, and the MiG still kept on flying!!! 
(Lt.Col. Bruce Hinton himself admitted that he spent almost all his ammo 
when he shot down the MiG of Yakob Yefromenko on December 17 1950). 
Addittionally, I do not think that a ´piece of junk´ had been able to shot 
at least 300 UN airplanes (including 130 Sabres).
Ron, anybody here have any doubt the excellent quality of the American 
planes. I am not saying that the Russian stuff is the best, I mention the 
strong points and admitt the weak points. So, Why do you insist in treating 
the Russian built-planes so despectively, using expressions as ´piece of 
junk´? Are you really so convinced that the Americans always do everything 
better than the rest of the world?
No, I am not a pilot, but I consider you are wrong. There is no solid data 
which support your ´piece of junk´ prejudice about the Russian planes.
Respectfully yours,
Diego Zampini.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos es la manera más sencilla de compartir e imprimir sus fotos: 
http://photos.latam.msn.com/Support/WorldWide.aspx