Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

MiG-17 "Fresco"


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#11 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,970 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 6 Months and 5 Days
  • 138 topics

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:14 AM

Great find, thanks for sharing :)

 

I'd never really noticed the Mohawk before



#12 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,238 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 22 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 05 November 2016 - 05:11 AM

Hey Bill, B.,

 

I'll do my best. Basically, I'd recommend staying away from the Chinese manuals. Chinese is a wonderfully flowery language, but is NOT a technical language at all. I had a very good friend who bought a MiG-15 from a museum in Peking and got the Chinese manuals. He paid three different people over $1,500 each to get translations, and NONE of them matched.

 

He gave up and bought Polish manuals. At least in the Polish language, the same word means the same thing every time! Now it is flying. He "rented" two Polish Air Force MiG mechanics to assemble it and they got it together pretty quickly. A great source for technical information is Worldwide Warbirds out of Arizona. They bought  LOT of MiGs from Poland and have many scattered around Arizona at airports.

 

Best of all, they have parts! The go-to guy for parts WAS Chester Dubai, but I have NO idea if he is still the man. Last I heard, Ivan Rasmussen was the owner of Worldwide Warbirds.

 

Good luck!

 - Greg



#13 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 7 Months and 5 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 09 November 2016 - 01:39 AM

It doesn't surprise me that a Mohawk could best a MiG 17 low down, in a valley. The MiG 17 was designed to shoot down stuff like high flying B-36s, where there wouldn't have been a lot of rocks in the sky. The Mohawk was at its best low down. What does surprise me is that the old MiG did so well against the more modern US fighters.


  • GregP likes this

#14 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,238 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 22 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 11 November 2016 - 10:49 AM

Doesn't surprise me since the "more modern" fighters were designed for high top speed and suffered some big loss in maneuverability at lower speeds due to non-optimum airfoils and wings planforms. Most of the "fast fighters" would lose speed rapidly in a turning fight and be subsonic quickly, right in the MiG-s domain; fairly rapidly if you pulled much g-force. The F-4 would VERY rapidly be subsonic and needed a lot of thrust to sustain flight at 4+ g's. Even faster to lose speed was the F-106 (Delta). They turn GREAT at first and lose speed rapidly due to the large wing area being thrown sideways. Great for some things and not-so-hot for others, especially the low down ride in 2+g bumps per minute.

 

MiG-17's are robust, reliable, and hard hitting if their shells manage to hit. They turn and accelerate well. They roll well. Not so good on low-speed handling, but that is compared with pistons. Compared with modern jets, they are pussycats to fly (low wing loading when compared with more modern aircraft).

 

It all means they could get on your tail rather easily, given the wrong maneuver choices by you and the right maneuver choices by your opponent.

 

Hi, Kiwi ... will STILL send that damned CD when I get the time.


  • flying kiwi likes this

#15 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 671 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 7 Months and 5 Days
  • 5 topics

Posted 12 November 2016 - 05:38 AM

Greg, what was the F8U like at turning? I know that it at least had guns, unlike the unreliable early Sparrows that were supposed to do it for the F4.



#16 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,238 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 22 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 12 November 2016 - 08:58 AM

I have heard F-8 pilots say it was the best of all the Navy jets at dogfighting.

 

Of course, they were F-8 pilots. The F4D Skyray pilots say the same in reverse. We have had former WWII pilots give a talk and say the P-51 was the BEST fighter. If you ask them what fighters they flew, they many times answer ... "the P-51." I'd say that's a pretty assuming opinion if you haven't experience in other fighters.

 

Basically, the F-8 was the last of the Navy "air superiority" fighters from the 1950s and the guys loved it. It even flew once with wings folded! Look it up. The guys who flew it became part of the "Fighter Mafia" who developed the F-16 in response to the F-15's large size and weight.

 

The only disadvantage I can find is the wheels were magnesium. If you took a hit in a wheel / tire, the wheel could catch fire on landing if sparks flew. That's not a recipe for a good afternoon. But for a single-engine fighter, it was a good one. The French continued to fly them after we retired ours. Heck, they still flew the Super Etendar until July 2016! Must have been trrying for a good vintage! It had a lot of good characteristics, including roll and turn. It wasn't supersonic, but was developed from the Etendard and adpoted in 1974. The original Etendard was a 1958 plane and was a contemporary of the F-8, if not supersonic. At least the F-8 was a Mach 1.85 or so aircraft with a good service ceiling (58,000 feet or 17.17 km).


  • flying kiwi likes this

#17 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 4 Days
  • 108 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:24 AM

.......Heck, they still flew the Super Etendar until July 2016! Must have been trrying for a good vintage! It had a lot of good characteristics, including roll and turn. It wasn't supersonic, but was developed from the Etendard and adpoted in 1974. The original Etendard was a 1958 plane and was a contemporary of the F-8, if not supersonic.

The Super Entendard was introduced to service in '78, at same time as the F-16, wich isn't to consider to be vintage-classed.
However the lack of speed might be the reason to the retirement in favour of the delta/canard designed Rafale.
BTW: Youtube Is filled with 'crazy French pilots' take a surf for awsome footage :-o

Edited by Armand, 12 November 2016 - 10:32 AM.

  • flying kiwi likes this

#18 Kutscha

Kutscha

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,548 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 7 Months and 22 Days
  • 116 topics

Posted 12 November 2016 - 02:18 PM

The S-E was a strike fighter not an air superiority fighter.

 

The A-7 would be the American equivalent a/c.



#19 Armand

Armand

    About the same age as another old Fokker: The F-27

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 7 Months and 4 Days
  • 108 topics
  • LocationAbout 20 nm east of BLL

Posted 12 November 2016 - 05:16 PM

Seemingly did the Rafale push out the Crusader as well as the Super Etendard. As Crusaders mission was primarely as escort for striking Super Entendards it sounds feasible that both followed each other out in the dark.

Edited by Armand, 12 November 2016 - 07:19 PM.


#20 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,238 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 11 Months and 22 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 13 November 2016 - 05:19 AM

Actually I mentioned the Super Etendard only becase the otiginal Etandard was an F-8 contrmporary, not because I thought it was an air superiority fighter. The F-8 had a lot of good and even great properites, but the airframe had more or less reached it's development potential, and the Vought "super crusader" extended-performance larger-airframe (XF8U-3) development lost out to the twin-engine F-4 Phantom II for the Navy orders.

 

Many still think the XF8U-3 SHOULD have been bought instead. Funny that keeps coming up, because it's LONG past and would no longer be current regarless of development.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users