Picture of the day

Nice Mig-17 pictures in post 14553.

You might want to read " Soviet MiG-15 Aces of the Korean War ", Book By Krylov, Leonid

The supposed high kill ratio of the Americans was a result of their method of counting kills more than their actual kills.

Some American sources have speculated a ratio of 16 to 1.

If I remember correctly the Russian aces figured the ratio was more like 1 to 1.

Also " MiG Aces of the Vietnam War ", Book By Toperczer, István

The difference between the MiG15 and MiG17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9hfUoYnP6Q
 
Last edited:
Nice Mig-17 pictures in post 14553. You might want to read " Soviet MiG-15 Aces of the Korean War ", Book By Krylov, Leonid The supposed high kill ratio of the Americans was a result of their method of counting kills more than their actual kills. Some American sources have speculated a ratio of 16 to 1. If I remember correctly the Russian aces figured the ratio was more like 1 to 1. Also " MiG Aces of the Vietnam War ", Book By Toperczer, István

The Soviets claimed 2:1 in their favour at one point, and their numbers are highly suspect. And while the official USAF claim of 14:1 immediately following the war was probably too high, a comparison from a variety of sources suggests 10:1 is likely to be more accurate.
 
Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses;

After the war the USAF reviewed its figures in an investigation code-named Sabre Measure Charlie and downgraded the kill ratio of the North American F-86 Sabre against the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 by half from 14:1 to 7:1.[3] One of the factors inflating US numbers was that most dogfights took place over enemy-controlled area. The only way to confirm kills was through gun camera photography. USAF pilots were credited with a kill if the gun camera showed their guns striking the enemy aircraft even if no one actually saw it go down.[

From; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_air-to-air_combat_losses

Interesting read; http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/126076/to-stem-the-tide-a-korean-war-perspective/
 
Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses; After the war the USAF reviewed its figures in an investigation code-named Sabre Measure Charlie and downgraded the kill ratio of the North American F-86 Sabre against the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 by half from 14:1 to 7:1.[3] One of the factors inflating US numbers was that most dogfights took place over enemy-controlled area. The only way to confirm kills was through gun camera photography. USAF pilots were credited with a kill if the gun camera showed their guns striking the enemy aircraft even if no one actually saw it go down.[

From; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_air-to-air_combat_losses

Interesting read; http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/126076/to-stem-the-tide-a-korean-war-perspective/

The 7:1 figure comes from the 1970s study, Sabre Measure Charlie. If you take post 1991 (that is, post Soviet Union) access to Soviet records into account (or, at least, their own alleged records, which are subject to credibility issues), it drops down into 2:1 or 3:1 territory. Which, again, is very likely to be inaccurate. Especially as they admit over 300 losses. The kill ratio also considerably worsened for North Korea as the war dragged on.
 
tumblr_p8cll9Um8W1wknwd1o1_500.jpg


USS Hornet with a Flight Deck full of B-25s..
 
The Sabre was one hell of a fighter with a lot of eye appeal. I remember seeing the Golden Hawks perform back when, and that was something to see. The Snowbirds in their Tutor trainers look pretty, but wussy in comparison.

I was at the Hamilton Air Museum a couple of weeks back. They have one of the old Golden Hawks. Very pretty bird. Always like the Sabre.
 
1280px-NAA_XF-107A.jpg

The North American F-107 is North American Aviation's entry in a United States Air Force tactical fighter-bomber design competition of the 1950s. The F-107 was based on the F-100 Super Sabre, but included many innovations and radical design features, notably the over-fuselage air intakes. The competition was eventually won by the Republic F-105 Thunderchief, and most of the F-107 prototypes ended their lives as test aircraft. One is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force and a second at Pima Air and Space Museum.
Design and development
In June 1953, North American initiated an in-house study of advanced F-100 designs, leading to proposed interceptor (NAA 211: F-100BI denoting "interceptor") and fighter-bomber (NAA 212: F-100B) variants.[2] Concentrating on the F-100B, the preliminary engineering and design work focused on a tactical fighter-bomber configuration, featuring a recessed weapons bay under the fuselage and provision for six hardpoints underneath the wings. Single-point refuelling capability was provided while a retractable tailskid was installed.[3] An all-moving vertical fin and an automated flight control system were incorporated which permitted the aircraft to roll at supersonic speeds using spoilers.[4] The flight control system was upgraded by the addition of pitch and yaw dampers.[3]


A side-view of North American F-107A, AF Ser. No. 55-5119, at the NMUSAF.
The aircraft's most distinguishing feature is its dorsal-mounted variable-area inlet duct (VAID). While the VAID was at the time a system unique to the F-107A, it is now considered to be an early form of variable geometry intake ramp which automatically controlled the amount of air fed to the jet engine.[5] Although the preliminary design of the air intake was originally located in a chin position under the fuselage like the Vought F-8 Crusader, the air intake was eventually mounted in an unconventional position directly above and just behind the cockpit.[6] The VAID system proved to be very efficient and NAA used the design concept on their A-5 Vigilante, XB-70 Valkyrie and XF-108 Rapier designs.[7]

The air intake was in the unusual dorsal location as the Air Force had required the carriage of an underbelly semi-conformal nuclear weapon. Some sources claim that the original chin intake caused a shock wave that interfered in launching this weapon, but no such testing was actually carried out.[8] The implications this design choice had for the survivability of the pilot during ejection were troubling. The intake also severely limited rear visibility. Nonetheless this was not considered terribly important for a tactical fighter-bomber aircraft, and furthermore it was assumed at the time that air combat would be via guided missile exchanges outside visual range.[9]

A training version of the F-107 was also planned, with the designation TF-107. The fuselage in front of the cockpit would have been extended, and both cockpits would have been covered by a single large cabin hood.[10][verification needed]

In August 1954, a contract was signed for three prototypes along with a pre-production order for six additional airframes.[6]

Designation and names
Extensive design changes resulted in its redesignation from F-100B to F-107A before the first prototype flew. The F-107 was never given an official name, but was sometimes informally called the "Super Super Sabre"[11] referring to North American's earlier fighter design, the F-100 Super Sabre.[12] The flight crews referred to it as the "man eater", in reference to the position of the air intake directly above the cockpit.[13]

The designation "F-107A" was the only one assigned to the aircraft,[12][14] though "YF-107A" is often used in publications
he first F-107A (s/n 55-5118) with North American's chief test pilot Bob Baker at the controls, made its initial flight on 10 September 1956, attaining Mach 1.03.[16] Although successfully carrying out its flight, the brake chute did not deploy, which resulted in a "hot" landing with the nose gear strut breaking.[16] The aircraft first achieved Mach 2 in tests on 3 November 1956.

It was joined by the second F-107A (AF Ser. No. 55-5119), which made its first flight on 28 November 1956. It was used for weapons testing with both conventional and atomic bombs.[17] The last prototype, (AF Ser. No. 55-5120) had its maiden flight on 10 December 1956. At the conclusion of the F-107A's successful test program, the Tactical Air Command decided to hold a fly-off competition between the F-107A and the Republic F-105 which was designed to same mission requirements and used the same engine. Although the competition was close, the F-105 was selected as the new standard TAC tactical fighter. The three F-107A prototypes were relegated to test flying while the pre-production order was cancelled.[18]

In late 1957, prototypes #1 and #3 were leased to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) for high-speed flight research. Aircraft #1 is now in the collection of the Pima Air & Space Museum. In September 1959, with Scott Crossfield at the controls, aircraft #3 was damaged during an aborted takeoff. The aircraft was not repaired and, ultimately, used for fire fighting training and was destroyed in the early 1960s.[19] (55-5120 was also noted to be stored in poor condition in the Tallmantz collection at Orange County Airport California in September 1970.)

Prototype #2 was never used for testing, and instead flown on 25 November 1957 to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. This aircraft had not been completed and none of the radio navigation systems had been installed. To fly it to the museum, Major Clyde Good intended to follow an F-100 being delivered the same day. After an en route refuelling stop the two aircraft became separated, and Good was forced to follow roads to the St. Louis area when it turned dark and overcast. The aircraft was not equipped with cockpit or instrument lighting, so Good periodically flicked his Zippo lighter to read the instruments. Guessing a heading, he flew close enough to Dayton to be seen on radar at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and was talked down to the runway. It was then that Good discovered that the landing lights had not been installed either, but he was able to successfully land the plane while using the Zippo to light the airspeed indicator through the approach.[8]
1280px-F-107A_in_flight.jpg

f-107.jpg


Russians like it too. rear end ant delta wings make it seem to be a converted Mig 21. Carnard in the front seems interesting.
mikoyan_gurevich_ye_10_by_bispro-d4cmyhw.jpg
 
Last edited:
By the time Canadair production of the Sabre Mk x was completed, well over three-quarters of the components were being made in Canada. A gradual "Canadianization", if you will. There were numerous refinements among the various marks.
I recall reading somewhere that well informed ‘experts’ on the subject considered the Canadair Sabre - the ‘Cadillac’ of Sabre production.
 

Attachments

  • pT25-1.jpg
    pT25-1.jpg
    23.2 KB · Views: 488
  • TBM_interior.gif
    TBM_interior.gif
    52.1 KB · Views: 486
Last edited:
Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses;

After the war the USAF reviewed its figures in an investigation code-named Sabre Measure Charlie and downgraded the kill ratio of the North American F-86 Sabre against the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 by half from 14:1 to 7:1.[3] One of the factors inflating US numbers was that most dogfights took place over enemy-controlled area. The only way to confirm kills was through gun camera photography. USAF pilots were credited with a kill if the gun camera showed their guns striking the enemy aircraft even if no one actually saw it go down.[

From; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post–World_War_II_air-to-air_combat_losses

Interesting read; http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/126076/to-stem-the-tide-a-korean-war-perspective/

the use of gun cameras can be attributed to two ‘challenges’ - the need to record results (success or failure) on intended targets and adjust — and the need to ensure that pilots were expending limited resources in the most effective fashion. Catch 22 outlines some options that were available. There was a situation in Italy where US fighter/bombers were attacking Canadian gun emplacements. This apparently ceased when it was determined that there might be defensive retaliation if it continued.
 
the small machinegun in the rear - supposed be browning M1919 - did it have a higher rate of fire than the land versions?[/QUOTE]

Browning 30 cal M2 1200 rpm
 
the small machinegun in the rear - supposed be browning M1919 - did it have a higher rate of fire than the land versions?

About double the rate of fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1919_Browning_machine_gun

With assistance from firearms engineers at Fabrique Nationale de Herstal, Belgium, the Model 1919 was completely re-engineered into the .30 caliber M2 AN (Army-Navy) aircraft machine gun. The .30 in M2 AN Browning was widely adopted as both a fixed (offensive) and flexible (defensive) weapon on aircraft. Aircraft machine guns required light weight, firepower, and reliability, and achieving all three goals proved a difficult challenge, with the mandate for a closed bolt firing cycle to enable the gun to be safely and properly synchronized for fixed-mount, forward-aimed guns firing through a spinning propeller, a necessity on many single-engined fighter aircraft designs through to nearly the end of World War II. The receiver walls and operating components of the M2 were made thinner and lighter, and with air cooling provided by the speed of the aircraft, designers were able to reduce the barrel's weight and profile. As a result, the M2 weighed two-thirds that of the 1919A4, and the lightened mechanism gave it a rate of fire approaching 1,200 rpm (some variants could achieve 1,500 rpm), a necessity for engaging fast-moving aircraft. The M2's feed mechanism had to lift its own loaded belt out of the ammunition box and feed it into the gun, equivalent to a weight of 11 lb (5 kg). In Ordnance circles, the .30 M2 AN Browning had the reputation of being the most difficult-to-repair weapon in the entire US small arms inventory.
 
Just noticed something different in this F-86 pic. The canopy opens vertically like a 101 or a T-33. Our Sabre canopies slid forward and backwards. The switch that powered the canopy was on the left side up near the canopy rail and one had to be careful of errant finger placement when closing the canopy. You only did that once.

Of course ours were made in Montreal by Canadair under licence from North American so there could have been numerous other changes like the engines. Ours had the Orenda engine from Malton and the Americans had a GE J47 powering theirs. Pretty sure the Orenda engine was built under licence as well because Orenda (OEL Canada) later produced the J79 (OEL-7) for our CF-104’s that were also built by Canadair.

At the CNE in 1963 one of the golden hawks flew a low pass at low throttle with canopy slid back and the pilot waving at the crowd. It was overtaken right in front of us with one of his partners at full throttle. One of the most impressive things I have seen and I spent 4 years tracking 104s. or as we called them "one-oh-fers".
 
Yes, Brownings on aircraft were made to cycle at 20 rounds per second or a little faster.

The Canadian-built Hurricanes used by 133 and 135 Squadrons RCAF were equipped with 12 guns per aircraft.

It was an Armourer's slip-up at 133 which resulted in 135's nice new hangar-top at Tofino becoming so nicely perforated. My Dad was standing up against the fuselage when the Magic Button was pushed; he was MOST impressed!
 
Back
Top Bottom