[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Korean Air War
>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
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.
MSN Photos es la manera más sencilla de compartir e imprimir sus fotos: