Re: Sabre vs MiG-15; similar to Bf 109 vs Spitfire

[Love Shack <Home@DanSources.com>]

Hi Diego:
There are lots of aircraft comparisons.  I think the Warhawk and Zero is much
closer comparison.  Just based on the use of similar tactical considerations
that the Sabre and Mig used against each other.

Actually the P40, Spit and 109E were very equal aircraft and had similar InLine
Liquid cooled engine flight dynamics.   The P40 and Spit better turners.  190
speedier.  Overall maneuverability was close. The P40 could roll better then the
other two.  All had similar weight and power.

The P40 would have been able to chase the 109 back to France and return as it
had a 200mile better range then both aircraft. I think the P40 would have given
the 109E a run for its money.

In fact the P40 performed better then the Zero at lower alts. It was faster and
had better high speed maneuverability.  The faster the P40 got the better it
Rolled.  This fast roll rate was excellent for hit and run.  Even if the plane
you were attacking decided to Split-S the P40 could roll and turn into it. One
of the reasons why the FW190 was so dangerous.  Both were stable gun platforms
with good aiming pilots.

What made the Zero so dangerous was that they could attack you at your base but
the Allies could not get to theirs.  This also means maintaining standing
patrols longer.  Not until the Mustang really did the Allies have competive long
range fighterplane.

Before and during early WW2 dogfighting close quarter tactics were the vogue.
Everyone liked the dogfight challenge and was a natural thing to do. Getting
pilots to hit and run was hard to do.  The difference is playing ACM game verus
killing another person.  Of course you needed to know your aircrafts envelope.
Flying in the other aircrafts best envelope got you killed.

The interesting thing was the Honchos and skilled US pilots were better behaved
as tactics went compared to their WW2 counterparts.  If the Migs did not have
the advantage they left the scene.  Same with the US.   However the Mig did have
the advantage with altitude and usually the sun a their backs. Made them a PITA
to the escorting F80, F84 and F86.

A tactic of Sabre pilots was to bait the Mig to a lower altitude.  The Mig would
bait the Sabres to climb after them.  Since the Mig had a much better sustained
climb.  The slower the fight got the better the Mig could turn inside the
lumbering heavier Sabre.

Practically the same tactics Gen Chennault taught against the far more
maneuverable Ki27 and Ki43.  This same scene played out with the Mig21 and F104
Starfire in the Pakista/India airwars.  Intersting side note, the F86H's and K's
and  were knocking down the better British and Russian aircraft India had.
Should have given the US in Vietnam a damn hint!

The P40 and F86 were classic heavy do everything American Metal.  The Russians
just wanted a fighter plane only. The Zero could carry a bomb but it was
designed as a fighter like the Mig.  So the intentions of each side built what
they got.

One other thing.. The P40 was a derivative of the P36.  The Sabre was a
derivative of an earlier straight wing version. The F100 was the next generation
just like the F51. Mig 17 the newer derivative of the Mig15.

Punt!
Dan Fahey




Diego Zampini wrote:

> Dan:
> You had always compared the duel Sabre vs MiG with the duel Zero vs P-40,
> and it is quite right, but it also remiond me another duel between classic
> fighters: the duel Bf 109E Emil vs Spitfire Mk I over England in the
> summer-autumn of 1940.
> The Bf 109 had some similarities (also important differences) with the
> Sabre: both were flying over enemy soil (the Bf 109 did it over the Thames
> estuary, the Sabre did over the Yalu river) so both had limited fuel for
> only 20' of aerial combat before to be forced to disengage, as both the
> Spitfire and the MiG-15 could be in CAP at least 45', the Messerchmitt and
> the Sabre usually disengaged of a Spitfire/MiG performing an steep diving
> (the Messerchmitt could do dit becuase its fuel inyection engine could
> resist negative g, and the carburators in the Spitfire could not; the Sabre
> did it because it could resist a supersonic diving as the MiG could not),
> and at high altitudes the Emil/Sabre were outmaneuvered by their opponents
> the Spitfire/MiG-15. Of course, the main difference between the Bf 109E and
> the Sabre was that, as the Bf 109E was better armed than the Spitfire (3
> machinegus of 7.92 mm and a cannon of 20 mm against the six Vickers
> machineguns of 7.7 mm) the Sabre was not better armed than the MiG-15 (six
> 0.50" vs the already mentioned 37 and 23 mm cannons). Addittionally, I think
> the Emil outclimbed the Spitfire, as the MiG-15 did so to the Sabre.
> What do you think about it?
> Diego.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Con MSN Hotmail súmese al servicio de correo electrónico más grande del
> mundo. http://www.hotmail.com/ES