Fórum Defesa Brasil

Túlio escreveu:Não sei, eu me inclino a crer que só porque é piloto de caça o índio não é obrigado a ser ENTUSIASTA que nem nós, conheço pessoalmente milicos que acham que o FAL é o fuzil mais moderno do mundo ou, pelo menos, O MELHOR...

Túlio escreveu:Não sei, eu me inclino a crer que só porque é piloto de caça o índio não é obrigado a ser ENTUSIASTA que nem nós, conheço pessoalmente milicos que acham que o FAL é o fuzil mais moderno do mundo ou, pelo menos, O MELHOR...

(...)
Q: Describe what it feels like to be in the cockpit of an F-86.

Mahurin: It was more fun than anything else I’ve ever done. The F-86 was a brilliant design. Even today, it’s a very modern aircraft in terms of its engine power and so forth. It was just a delight; it didn’t have any bad habits. Unlike the MiG, creature comforts were taken into consideration. The Sabre had an air conditioning system that would produce ice if you wanted it to. It would drive you out of the cockpit with heat if you wanted. You could adjust it like a modern car. The MiG didn’t have any of that. The MiG pilot was sitting in the cockpit without any air-conditioning. Our G-suits helped us control our blood flow at high maneuvering rates, and the Russians didn’t have that either. There are more advantages -- the F-86 was a Cadillac; the MiG-15 was a Model-T Ford.

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html

(...)

Palpiteiro escreveu:Caro Sintra,

O assunto Sabre X Mig na Guerra da Coréia é muito extenso e na internet possui uma verdadeira biblioteca a respeito. Veja site: http://acepilots.com/search-results.htm ... earch#1146 .

Dessa massa de informação, veja esse site: http://www.acepilots.com/discussions/mig_vs_sabre.html .

Na minha opinião, e segundo o li a respeito, as aeronaves se equivaliam, mas a ausência do traje anti-g nos migs foi a sua principal desvantagem durante os combates.

Do citado site, achei particularmente interessante essa informação:

MiG vs. Sabre - key factors, by max_g_cunningham

"Was the MiG really better than the Sabre as a fighter?"

John Boyd, (Mr. Energy Maneuverability, 40 second Boyd, & the Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War) did a complex analysis of the MiG vs. Sabre issue. Initially he too was puzzled at the Sabre's marked superiority in relation to it's Korean Combat record, being as the 2 aircraft on paper, seem so evenly matched. He took into consideration all the factors and conventional wisdom, (narrow advantage Sabre) and it still didn't quite all add up to a 10-1 kill ratio. After further research, interviews, and deep analysis, he concluded that the Sabre possessed a quicker instantaneous rate of turn, that is to say it could transition faster, from one maneuver to another. This is what gave the Sabre pilots a decisive advantage. Put another way, instantaneous rate of turn, (analogy "knife fight in a telephone booth") was more important than sustained turn rate, in the Korean theatre. This was among several clues that served as a departure point for Boyd's later revolutionary advanced theories.
Key points for comparison of the two Korean War jet fighters:

* The experience level of the American vs. N. Korean, and Soviet pilots, along with tactics, Popular, and superficial analysis attributes most of the empirical advantage demonstrated by the Sabres, to this single factor.
* MiG pilots advantage of higher altitude capability, also including (Sabre pilots, on the offensive, having to fly much farther, and into hostile territory) (Sabres used drop tanks to extend their range, MiGs had an inherent advantage being in much closer proximity to base) along with all the various advantages, and disadvantages that the MiG airframe had VS the various incarnations of the F86.
* The use of G suits, the hydraulically boosted control surfaces, (fatigue experienced by the MiG pilots, without hydraulics and G suits), (Adv. Sabre).
* Sustained VS instantaneous turn rates, also related to the hydraulically boosted control surfaces, (advantage Sabre). John Boyd, (Mr. Energy Maneuverability, 40 second Boyd, & the Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War) did a complex analysis of the MiG vs. Sabre issue. Initially he too was puzzled at the Sabre's marked superiority in relation to it's Korean Combat record, being as the 2 aircraft on paper, seem so evenly matched. He took into consideration all the factors and conventional wisdom, (narrow advantage Sabre) and it still didn't quite all add up to a 10-1 kill ratio. After further research, interviews, and deep analysis, he concluded that the Sabre possessed a quicker instantaneous rate of turn, that is to say it could transition faster, from one maneuver to another. This is what gave the Sabre pilots a decisive advantage. Put another way, instantaneous rate of turn, (analogy "knife fight in a telephone booth") was more important than sustained turn rate, in the Korean theatre. This was among several clues that served as a departure point for Boyd's later revolutionary advanced theories.
* Top speed, (Adv. Sabre) climb, and altitude capability, (Adv MiG) and limitations of the MiGS T tail configuration, vis-a-vie AOA limitations and tendency to depart. (A significant factor) (Adv. Sabre)
* Airframe and firing platform stability, (Adv. Sabre) IE; Flexing in the MiG wing structure and through the fuselage, VS the Sabre's wing structure, Firepower of the combinations of 20mm vs. only 50 cal. (Adv. Mig, circumstantial) (one can argue that under conditions of very high stress, and to various degrees, (Pun) the lack of stability in the MiG airframe, somewhat negated their superior firepower, and range of those weapons.)
* Visibility, windscreen fogging in the MiGs transitioning from high altitudes, and poor environmental regulation, (fatigue issue). (Adv. Sabre)
* Build quality, pilot protection, ability to absorb damage, (Adv. Sabre circumstantial)
* Maintenance, ground support & facilities, availability of weapons and ammunition, etc, etc, etc.

All were factors, plus a few I've missed, and it's all pretty much part of historical record, and what I'd consider as the historically, and popularly recognized account, of this interesting topic.


Um abraço,

Palpiteiro

Q: Describe what it feels like to be in the cockpit of an F-86.

Mahurin: It was more fun than anything else I’ve ever done. The F-86 was a brilliant design. Even today, it’s a very modern aircraft in terms of its engine power and so forth. It was just a delight; it didn’t have any bad habits. Unlike the MiG, creature comforts were taken into consideration. The Sabre had an air conditioning system that would produce ice if you wanted it to. It would drive you out of the cockpit with heat if you wanted. You could adjust it like a modern car. The MiG didn’t have any of that. The MiG pilot was sitting in the cockpit without any air-conditioning. Our G-suits helped us control our blood flow at high maneuvering rates, and the Russians didn’t have that either. There are more advantages -- the F-86 was a Cadillac; the MiG-15 was a Model-T Ford.

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html

Sintra escreveu:
HIGGINS

É perfeitamente irritante ver alguém acusar quem quer que seja de "forjar" o que quer que seja baseado em factos NÃO PROVADOS e NÃO SUBSTANCIADOS. Apetece perguntar "quem é que está a forjar o quê"?

Os Soviéticos portaram-se muitissimo bem, muitissimo melhor que os Coreanos e Chineses e ao nivel do que o melhor que a USAF tinha, mas coisas como o 64th IAK indicar que abateu 1102 aviões da ONU, pura e simplesmente NÃO SÃO VERDADEIRAS. Não houve nenhuma "SURRA".

Vamos falar acerca de "forjar", sabia que os pilotos Soviéticos recebiam 1500 Rublos de prémio por cada avião da ONU "abatido"?

Os Soviéticos portaram-se muitissimo bem, o que é natural, tal como os seus equivalentes Norte Americanos eram veteranos da II Grande Guerra, dai a negar o que o Santiago escreveu vai um grande passo.

Vamos lá a ver:

1º Os pilotos de Sabre Norte Americanos obtiveram uma esmagadora vantagem no rácio perdas/vitórias
2º Conseguiram-no devido a terem muito mais experiência que a média dos seus adversários
3º O Mig-15 era instável a altas velocidades e tinha tendência para entrar em "Spin"

Estes três pontos são verdadeiros, e foi o que o Santiago disse...

Se você queria dizer que caso os Mig-15 fossem maioritariamente pilotados por veteranos Soviéticos da II Grande Guerra os nºs teriam sido muito mais equivalentes, então tem toda a razão, e nem eu, e creio que nem o Santiago o vamos desmentir, mas pare lá de inventar "forjanços"...

Carlos Mathias escreveu:

Q: Describe what it feels like to be in the cockpit of an F-86.

Mahurin: It was more fun than anything else I’ve ever done. The F-86 was a brilliant design. Even today, it’s a very modern aircraft in terms of its engine power and so forth. It was just a delight; it didn’t have any bad habits. Unlike the MiG, creature comforts were taken into consideration. The Sabre had an air conditioning system that would produce ice if you wanted it to. It would drive you out of the cockpit with heat if you wanted. You could adjust it like a modern car. The MiG didn’t have any of that. The MiG pilot was sitting in the cockpit without any air-conditioning. Our G-suits helped us control our blood flow at high maneuvering rates, and the Russians didn’t have that either. There are more advantages -- the F-86 was a Cadillac; the MiG-15 was a Model-T Ford.

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html

É esse o tipo de fonte que se quer ter como parâmetro? Se for, paro logo por aqui, as piadas devem ser postadas lá no "Gerais".

Q: What were the MiG’s advantages over the F-86s?

Mahurin: Because the MiG-15 was lighter than an F-86 it could climb a little faster. While its forward speed during the climb wasn’t quite as great as an F-86, it could still climb at a higher angle of attack, and so, it appeared to us that the MiG could really climb. And, because of its lightness, the MiG-15 could reach a higher altitude than the F-86, high enough so that we couldn’t reach them, up above 45,000 feet.

Q: You're in the cockpit of an F-86, and you’re out after a MiG. Describe what’s going on in your mind and what you’re actually doing with your aircraft.

Mahurin: It depends on the circumstances of the combat. On several occasions, I dogfought, like World War I, with a MiG. Once we started fighting about 37,000 feet, went around and around down to the ground and back up to about 26,000, before I shot him down. So that hadn’t changed much since World Wars One and Two. It was very exciting and a lot of fun. On a couple of other occasions, we caught them when they didn’t know we were there. That was just a matter of going in and shooting down an unaware pilot. But we could outperform them with the F-86's slab tail, we could turn faster than they could, we could dive faster, and we could pull out quicker. We didn’t try to climb with them, because they could climb higher than we could. We tried to keep the combat on those elements where we had an advantage. Whenever they were gaining an advantage, we could always leave, we could always turn around and dive away.

When you talk to a pilot, especially a guy like me who has a lot of years on him, his stories get better by the moment. The next thing you know, his airplane was a dud, but due to sheer combat capability he was able to shoot down twenty enemy aircraft.

Just after the war, a North Korean pilot named Ro Kim Suk defected with a MiG-15 and landed at Kimpo airport just outside of Seoul. The MiG-15 was sent to Wright Field, and Chuck Yeager did the performance tests on it, which revealed that the F-86s was slightly faster. The Sabre had lots of combat capability that the MiG didn’t. Above all, it had the creature comforts that I talked about earlier. The MiG-15 wasn’t as good as the F-86, but all in all it was a pretty good airplane. A lot of them have survived, and once in a while, F-86s and MiGs show up at air shows, and it’s quite a sight to see them. Especially when you realize that one of them used to be an enemy.

Carlos Mathias escreveu:

Q: Describe what it feels like to be in the cockpit of an F-86.

Mahurin: It was more fun than anything else I’ve ever done. The F-86 was a brilliant design. Even today, it’s a very modern aircraft in terms of its engine power and so forth. It was just a delight; it didn’t have any bad habits. Unlike the MiG, creature comforts were taken into consideration. The Sabre had an air conditioning system that would produce ice if you wanted it to. It would drive you out of the cockpit with heat if you wanted. You could adjust it like a modern car. The MiG didn’t have any of that. The MiG pilot was sitting in the cockpit without any air-conditioning. Our G-suits helped us control our blood flow at high maneuvering rates, and the Russians didn’t have that either. There are more advantages -- the F-86 was a Cadillac; the MiG-15 was a Model-T Ford.

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html

É esse o tipo de fonte que se quer ter como parâmetro? Se for, paro logo por aqui, as piadas devem ser postadas lá no "Gerais".

HIGGINS escreveu:CM...

Meu caro,

estou com uma preguiça danada e não vou digitar, nem a porrete, aquela matéria enorme da ASAS sobre a guerra da Coréia. Por isso pergunto a ti: será que ela existe na net para copiar e colar?

Não sei mais viver sem "copiar e colar".

Abs.

Carlos Mathias escreveu:Ahã, ahã...
Tá bom Santiago, você fica então com essa fonte.
Some a ela aquele "coronel" da USAF que deu aquela entrevista/pelestra depois da Red Falg falando dos indianos.

Eu já vi relatos opostos de pilotos americanos que não conseguiram fugir e acabaram abatidos por tiros de canhão de 30mm. Ele dizia exatamente isso, que o MIG podia "out manouver" o Sabre, que os canhões de 30mm eram "devatating", pois apenas poucos impactos destruíam o Sabre.

Mas deixa assim, o Sabre era um cadilaqui e o MIG-15 uma carroça.