Clip from MiG vs Sabre / Cannon vs Guns. The Air Zoo is a world-class, Smithsonian-affiliated aerospace and science museum, in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Plan your visit: www.airzoo.org Merch: www.airzoostore.org
Yes, a lot of US guys are not aware that 30mm is double the size of 05 call. Not mentioning that Mig-15 has HE rounds which literally make one meter sized holes on impact.
As one pilot said after flying a MiG-15 whose pilot defected: "It was built by tractor mechanics to be maintained by tractor mechanics." It was meant as a compliment to one tough but simple little jet.
@@BryanJohnson4891 it was the RR Nene. The Nene was a centrifugal flow engine and the Avon was RR’s first axial flow engine. The USSR acquired the Nene because the British government wanted the improved relations with them and authorised RR to export the Nene. Later it was discovered the Soviets had copied it and built the VK-1 without licence. RR demanded £207 million in licence fees, unsurprisingly they didn’t receive it. The VK-1 from the MiG-15 was actually a bit bigger and an improvement on the Nene, just like the RR Tay that was licence built as the J-48.
May we know more about your father? What years he flew, where he was based? Always fascinated. Every little story like the anecdote you mentioned is precious to hear.
My Dad was a Canadian F86 pilot stationed in Zweibrücken, Germany. I think mid 50's to late 50's. He always knew he wanted to be a pilot. He had his private pilots license the day he turned 16. On his 75th birthday one of his flying buddies came to the house to celebrate. He said "You have no idea how good of a pilot your dad was, because he will never say that to anyone. He was just THAT good". RIP Major Cliff Zacharias - we miss your smile and your wicked repartee.
@@sirbachelorboredmen1314you mean 200.000.000.000mm? Okey but for real, the 30mm MK108 was not that good. It literally had half the velocity of .50 cals (500m/s compared to 800-1000m/s on .50s depending on the bullet). For hitting bombers it was okey but good luck hitting a manovering single engine fighter with those potato launchers.
@@jakobc.2558 it was designed to be able to take out bombers and be fast enough to get away before the fighters could do anything, but tons of me-262 pilots tried to dogfight and got destroyed by mustangs
@@Luna-qt9hq it's not just "tons of ME 262 pilots tried to dogfight". A prop fighter can absolutely catch a jet if they play their cards right and once a allied fighter is on the tail of a 262 it's over. For one, all 1944-45 allied prop fighters had a much higher top speed in a dive then the ME 262s level flight top speed. So with an altitute advantage (which the allied fighters would have when escorting bombers up high), it is very possible to catch a 262 in a propeller aircraft. And once the prop is on the 262s tail it is over, because the 262 will have to manover to avoid getting shot, at which point it is trapped because prop fighters have better low speed energy retention and exceleration so if the 262 tries to fight, it dies, and if it tries to run away again, it dies because something like a P-51D-30 can outexcelerate a 262 up to like 500km/h. Early jets were just not that good. Keep in mind, the U.S. airforce did not adopt the P-59 Airacomet into front line service because the propeller fighters they had in 1944 were simply better in every way except for level flight top speed.
Try it with those 4 M24A1 20mm cannons and an after burning engine!! Oh and don’t forget the upgrade to an all weather interceptor instead of just day time operations!! God I loved the Saberdog 🥰
My father, ret USAF Capt William Gregor flew the F-86 during the Korean War, he said it saved his live when he was shot down. He just passed away February 1st at 97.
The incendiary ammo (Blue Tip) they were using was not effective because it blew up on the outer armor. They switched to the API Silver Tip which penetrates one surface then ignites on the second one and is much better at lighting up fuel tanks. The 50's main advantage is high muzzle velocity which makes hitting at range much easier than when lobbing cannon shells. The Sabre mounting them in the fuselage meant that convergence was not a problem...more effective.
.50 is only good against lightly armored targets, trucks and prop planes and what not. 50 cal could never stand up to anything with a bit more than 2cm of steel
Of course it was better. It was a copy of a Rolls Royce Nene engine. Without it would of been a pile if crap. Thanks to the idiotic Labour government of the time (too date, there's never been a great labour government) selling licenses to the Soviets on the stipulation the Soviets use them on civilian airliners. The Soviets were laughing at the British government the whole time.
Centrifugal flow compressor engines suck ass. They're much larger (radially) than an axial compressor with the same compression ratio. They're good for helicopters (where the radial size is less of a limitation compared to the height) and that's essentially it. There's a reason no modern jet uses a centrifugal compressor. As for the damage point, I don't know if they are able to function better when damaged but I could see them being less susceptible to damage given they tend to be shorter axially and with the layout of the compressor, I could see it being harder to damage it
@@jacobdewey2053 Yep, axial designs as a class had more growth in them. But the axial's blades are more delicate than the relatively robust one piece axial compressor. And of course, back then, the MiGs were slinging cannon shells instead of bullets - which put even more of a hurt on the Sabre's more delicate engine.
@@jacobdewey2053 yes they do, but in the 50’s the best engines in the world were British, and they sold their best centrifugal flow engine to the soviets. It took awhile for axial flow engines to really show their dominance. They were definitely more damage resistant though, and could resist some pretty significant shrapnel getting into the internals. Forgot where I saw it but I saw a video on those centrifugals and they’re tanks.
A repeat scenario of the British .303 during the battle of Britain, although the similarity ends there as I believe they basically went straight to 20mm Hispanos later on. I did read somewhere that the Americans had trouble mass producing those cannons to the required standard, which is why they stuck with heavy machine guns.
The F-2 variant that was introduced later in the war had 20mm T-160 auto revolver cannons. It was built in response to the USAF wanting to up spec the firepower of the sabres. The guns caused at least one fatal compressor stall as the gas from the guns caused the engines to be starved of O2 when being fired. Temporary fix was to fire one set of guns at a time and was later permanently fixed. I am not sure if any F-2 or F-3 sabres survived as they were low production but they were way more devastating to migs.
The .50 caliber did not lack stopping power but it lacks the exploding shell/bullet similar to the 20mm which can create more damage than simply piercing through the plane. The armor piercing bullets of the .50 machine gun simply punches through the fuselage and do little damage unless it hits the engine, fuel tanks or some other vital parts of the plane, or the pilot.
50cal wasn't the best choice for an air-to-air projectile at jet aircraft speeds - that's why they needed 6 guns. unless it goes right up the tailpipe lotsa 50 cal bullets would just skim off the sides of the fuselage- hitting the skins at an angle. US later upgraded to cannon.
"Unlike the Mig-15, the F-86 was armed for dogfighting." "The Mig-15 was a well-armored durable aircraft." Sounds like it was fit for dogfighting to me. 🤨
The mig was made to quickly intercept American bombers and limited fighting against their escort aircraft. That's why it is armed with a 37mm and two 23mms.
being well armor is the kind of thing you don't want in a dogfight. it makes the plane slower, it's acceleration slower, worst climbrate, harms energy retention and manuverability in general. so no, it was not fit for dogfighting, it was supposed to be' a bomber hunter.
Armed referring to the gun sight, which was the definitive advantage between the two comparable jets. And then there was the skill gap that widened the advantage for American fighter pilots.
My great grandfather was a f86f airframe maintenance man for the RCAF during korea and the veitnam era. He had medals for peacekeeping and other things (a distant part of the family got them after he passed, which was extremely disappointing). He brought a love of aircraft into my life and to this day the only aircraft i run in DCS is the sabre in his memory. I have read every manual i can get my hands on. He even helped restore the f-86 out front of the marina in my home town for display (in the golden hawks livery). I still miss him to this day.
Mig 15 was initially designed to hunt b29 and its cannons were actually hard af to aim because the trajectory of the cannons were different but that wasn’t a problem when hunting large bombers. F86 was not a bomber hunter but played the role of p51 more. Even though 50 cals lacked the stopping power the aim can make up for it like George Davis who was called on burst Davis being able to down bombers fairly easily with his aim
I recently visited a local museum with one in display. That one apparently was one of a few aircraft that had been fitted with 20mm cannons to test in combat.
@@socaljarhead7670 no not at all. 30 mm and 20 mm cannon rounds are far superior to .50 BMG. If you have space to fit a cannon, you fit a cannon. A cannon armed aircraft can remain outside the weapons envelope of a MG armed aircraft, regardless of how many MG it carries or how many rounds it has. The Sabre was thoroughly outclassed in that department, however the superior training and combat experience of the USAF crews ensured that the Sabre remained an effective platform against North Korean/Chinese /Soviet crews. With the advent of jet powered aircraft, there was enough power to add the extra weight of a cannon system. The superior ballistics and gun aiming systems of more modern aircraft also added to the effectiveness, especially as aircraft got faster and faster.
@@thelandofnod123 yes, no point at all in having ineffective armament. As I mention above the.303 had trouble taking down bombers during the Battle of Britain, despite RAF fighters carrying a battery of eight machine guns. Luftwaffe aircraft sometimes made it back with several hundred bullet holes in them, probable evidence that at least two British planes had emptied most of their ammunition into the target. The top brass already had concerns over this weakness before the war but the 20mm Hispano was in short supply and was difficult to fit into the Spitfire's wing, when mounted sideways it was prone to jamming. I believe 19 squadron tried them but it was a failure, the problem was resolved eventually by modifying the feed system and possibly breeches, too but obviously this took time. In the case of the .50 later on the issue could be due production issues of the 20mm in US factories that meant the heavy m/g's were in service after their sell-by date, a similar situation really.
Reading your posts about aeronautics, especially military. I'm always impressed by how knowledgeable you are. Thank you for letting me know that there's more intelligent people out there than it seems.
As a war thunder player the the 50 cal on the saber is the perfect representation of quantity v quality. Yes the Mig might be heavily armored, but strap in some AP-HEIT rounds and some practice tracer rounds and all it takes is one burst to cripple, and another to finish Love this plane in war thunder, best turnfighter assuming you don’t pass out
We Aussies put 2x 30mm Aden cannons in our Sabres. Add an Avon engine, 7500 pounds of thrust against the 5900 of the J47, it was a kick-arse machine. Of course, rockets and Sidewinders added to the punch.
So each bullet was filled with a small droid that would walk on the wing of the Mig, and begin to cut it with diamond tip saws. Later, nicknamed, buzz droids, because of the peculiar sound they made as they cut through the wings.
The Mig was the better dogfighter. It had a higher ceiling allowing it drop down on the F86. It could out rate the Sabre at higher altitudes and it's better rate of climb lets it disengage by going vertical. Plus it had 3 cannons, 2x 23mm and a single 37mm that was meant primarily for bombers. Not a coincidence the Sabres later upgraded to 20mm guns. The Sabre had the better sighting system and maybe more important was the anti-G system that made it easier for pilots to fly. The Mig didn't have anything like that, which caused a lot of fatigue.
normally we wouldn't say that a .50 BMG "lacks stopping power" but when all it's hitting is paper thin aluminum they don't expand, and cause lots of damage like they would hitting hardened materials or flesh! They are just drilling 1/2 in. holes and passing right through without hurting much.
What they fail to realize at the beginning of the jet age is that your time on target was drastically reduced because of speed and the .50 caliber just didn't cut it anymore! It's kind of surprising they still did this because even on later models of the F4U Corsair were equipped with 20 mm cannons!
The F-86F-2 variant was created as part in the "GunVal" program in 1952, and was up-gunned with four M39 20mm cannons. Ten F-86F-2s were sent to Korea in 1953, and two of them were lost to compression stalls caused by air intake ingestion of gasses produced when firing the cannons.
Republic Thunderbolt guns. 8-50 cals with 3400 rounds, versus 1800 rounds total for the Sabre. The single man Thunderbolt fighter carried the most ammo in WW II, along with 1.5 tons+/- of wing stores. Look up General Robbie Risners tale of the F-86, with him chasing a Russian "Honcho" in a Mig-15 during the Korean war.
It's a mite confusing because the US military learned in WWII that the .50 cal was insufficient for air to air combat. That's why you started seeing things like F4U and F8F variants pop up with 20mm cannons. And yet they did away with it and gave the Saber 6 .50 cals
I would hesitate to say if a Sabre emptied it's entire amount of .50 into a Mig15 that it would fly away.... Maybe if it emptied everything and nothing hit...
.50 cal rounds don't do as much damage to aircraft as you would think. Many models have relatively small areas where simple projectiles can cause critical damage and they tend to protect those areas pretty heavily. Cannons and missiles are your best bets for taking out modern aircraft.
That's most likely what happened. Pilots dumped their guns in the short time they were on target (missing most). Early to even more modern day jet combat your window of opportunity to take a shot on aircraft was very short. Better then to only be one solid hit with a 20mm+ than 3-5 with a .50 cal. I don't care how lucky you are, but hitting 1,800 .50 cal rounds 100% into anything in the air is going to go down.
Saber pilots had to be careful firing their 50 calibers because it would slow the plane down every time they fired, same thing happens with the A10 warthog
How about the story of the development of the R-3S missile (It was reverse engineered from an AIM-9B that failed to detonate and got itself stuck in a MiG-15)
I wouldn't say the 50 cals lacked stopping power, more like they had too much and just passed through the plane without doing much. 20mm HE or APHE leaves behind a surprise though.
