MIG-15 arrives @ Edwards

Orange Anchor said:
I would not call 'snaking' or very stiff controls at high speed easy to fly. It reportedly had a nasty departure at high AOA. The engine was very slow to spool up. Yeager's comments were dismissive but then that was not out of character for him.

Possibly you should say 'modern' jets are easy to fly and that I agree with. earlier ones were not so easy. The vaunted Crusader was not an easy airplane to bring on the boat and the Vigilante was notorious. The early F-86s without the all moving tail were not wonder-machines. The -100 was also a demanding machine and woe to the stud you failed to use rudder with it. The -101 also had some nasty habits when near high AOA. And we are not even going to address odd ducks like the Demon and the "Gutless".

As for deploying them as a weapons system, true. And generally the old rule applies (never fly the A model of anything). A friend who was commander at Pax River for a while noted that it was good to fly all the bad handling stuff so one knew what to look for. Bob also said that it was up to the line units to MAKE they system work as often the system did not work as advertised.

I talked with Sean Roberts a while back about the NTPS and their SAAB Drakens, another good machine with a double delta wing. A mach 2 machine, it too had some habits that demanded respect.

My point. Even in this age of super-sims it is still good to visit the old killers and learn.
Click to expand...

No, I've read those jets were relatively simple to fly, except it specific areas. Certain aircraft may have flight regimes that were not easy to deal with, I guess the Mig-15 became near uncontrollable near mach. Sure, the F-8 was known to be difficult to land on the boat, not so great with the low speed handling but pleasent to fly at higher speeds. I would venture to guess relatively easy to take-off, land from land based runways. I flew the C-2A for many years and it was not exactly an easy aircraft to fly due to its heavy flight controls, required rudder trim just about every 10 seconds and to land it at the boat with those big rudders, not so easy. But your basic taking-off, landing, turning, straight and level, not bad. It's all relative I guess.

I could also say the T-45 is easy to fly, which it is but put any sort of g on it and it hits buffet and pitch buck quicker than you can blink. I can see it tough to always fly at the edge of of the envelope if one had to fly it in combat (some countries use the Hawk 200 series as point defence fighter). Overall though, easy to fly and very forgiving.
 
I used to take a C-21 (Lear 35) up there for them to evaluate...

The Engineers all wanted to explore the dutch roll characteristics with/without the yaw dampers; the Pilots wanted to fly it low level...

Fun times, especially the payback rides.
 
bunk22 said:
If the goal is to discuss the handling of the Mig-15, I've read that like the F-86, it was easy to fly.
Click to expand...

I guess that's true if:

A jet with takeoff rotation forces of less than 8 ounces and a nasty habit of lifting off if allowed to at a speed where aileron authority is so limited that any roll caused by the (huge) low speed dutch roll tendencies (with a 5:1 Theta-B, to be precise) places you into a position where wingtip contact with the runway is a real possibility (see "cartwheel, crash burn, etc" ) is considered easy to fly...

If a jet with a 200 knot trim speed band is easy to fly... (*you* try holding altitude or speed for a while...)

If a jet that goes into a divergent stick force per G gradient when the buffet boundry is neared is easy to fly.. (ever pull to 4 Nz only to find that you need to hold FORWARD pressure on the stick to maintain 4 G?)

If a jet which becomes essentially uncontrollable longitudinally at about 0.9 Mach is easy to fly...
(while at the same time lateral and directional control forces go thru the roof, talking 80 pounds plus here)

If a jet with a 13 second spool up time from idle to mil is easy to fly....

If a jet with a COMPLETELY undampened dutch roll in Pa (that's "Power Approach" or "landing configuration" for those not fluent in test pilot speak) that will demonstrate continuous rolls which will exceed 30 degrees of bank angle if not actively dampened in the traffic pattern is easy to fly....

If a jet with an ABSOLUTE crosswind limit of 15 knots, due to completely ineffective ailerons at toutchdown speed is easy to fly....

Or if a jet which has the worlds worst brakes and steering system is easy to fly....


Then a MiG-15 must be really REALLY easy to fly. So simple a cosmonaut could do it (see "How Yuri Gagarin Died")

For the rest of us: It's a handful on the runway, at low speed, at high speed, in the pattern, and back on the taxiway.


Don't ask how I know.

Oh, forgot... you *read it* someplace..... ;-)


.
 
Hacker15e said:
Hell of a first post!

X-pilot, why don't ya stand up and tell us about yourself....
Click to expand...


Uhh: I'd rather let the data speak for itself.
In other words, "To Be, rather than to Seem to Be"


"They were called Test Pilots, and nobody knew their names"
 
X-Pilot said:
Uhh: I'd rather let the data speak for itself.
In other words, "To Be, rather than to Seem to Be"


"They were called Test Pilots, and nobody knew their names"
Click to expand...

Welcome! Care to share what you are/have been flying?
 
X-Pilot said:
I guess that's true if:

A jet with takeoff rotation forces of less than 8 ounces and a nasty habit of lifting off if allowed to at a speed where aileron authority is so limited that any roll caused by the (huge) low speed dutch roll tendencies (with a 5:1 Theta-B, to be precise) places you into a position where wingtip contact with the runway is a real possibility (see "cartwheel, crash burn, etc" ) is considered easy to fly...

If a jet with a 200 knot trim speed band is easy to fly... (*you* try holding altitude or speed for a while...)

If a jet that goes into a divergent stick force per G gradient when the buffet boundry is neared is easy to fly.. (ever pull to 4 Nz only to find that you need to hold FORWARD pressure on the stick to maintain 4 G?)

If a jet which becomes essentially uncontrollable longitudinally at about 0.9 Mach is easy to fly...
(while at the same time lateral and directional control forces go thru the roof, talking 80 pounds plus here)

If a jet with a 13 second spool up time from idle to mil is easy to fly....

If a jet with a COMPLETELY undampened dutch roll in Pa (that's "Power Approach" or "landing configuration" for those not fluent in test pilot speak) that will demonstrate continuous rolls which will exceed 30 degrees of bank angle if not actively dampened in the traffic pattern is easy to fly....

If a jet with an ABSOLUTE crosswind limit of 15 knots, due to completely ineffective ailerons at toutchdown speed is easy to fly....

Or if a jet which has the worlds worst brakes and steering system is easy to fly....


Then a MiG-15 must be really REALLY easy to fly. So simple a cosmonaut could do it (see "How Yuri Gagarin Died")

For the rest of us: It's a handful on the runway, at low speed, at high speed, in the pattern, and back on the taxiway.


Don't ask how I know.

Oh, forgot... you *read it* someplace..... ;-)


.
Click to expand...

So you're saying it's not easy to fly...at least for the novice lol Seems to me a pilot with some experience, like all those hundreds of combat types in the Korean War, didn't have that much of an issue with it. Of course, I read it somewhere. Good info....HOWEVER....to be sure you're also not quoting it from some "source", lets see some credentials!!! The net is full of those who like to pretend they are something they are not. I'm only saying this as I've seen it from other sites. So again, like Hacker said, let's see some credentials as if looks as it you are implying it's difficult to fly becuase you've flown it. Until then, I can only assume you've done better research than I. To many fakes on the net and thus the following doesn't fly:

X-Pilot said:
Uhh: I'd rather let the data speak for itself.
In other words, "To Be, rather than to Seem to Be"
Click to expand...
 
bunk22 said:
So again, like Hacker said, let's see some credentials as if looks as it you are implying it's difficult to fly becuase you've flown it. Until then, I can only assume you've done better research than I. To many fakes on the net and thus the following doesn't fly:
Click to expand...


I provide my curriculum vitae to those who pay me. For professional reasons I am not interested in publishing my name here. If you wish to retain my professional services, and are willing to sign a NDA, then we can discuss my credentials privately. Even then, I am busy on programs for the next 11 months without a break, so I'm probably not interested in the work unless you represent a firm a whole lot more interesting than the one I work for now, which is not terribly likely.

With that said, I have personal experience as a pilot in MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-21, and a whole lot of other jets, both tactical types and otherwise. I have over 2500 hours logged *non US* Tactical Jets including almost 1000 in a variety of MiGs, and am a Member of the SETP.

Feel free to ask questions about things technical regarding the MiG's. I'll let my knowlage speak for itself. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just am not inclined to be public with my identity in non-professional forums. Please respect that.

.
 
X-Pilot said:
I provide my curriculum vitae to those who pay me. For professional reasons I am not interested in publishing my name here.
If you wish to retain my professional services, and are willing to sign a NDA, then we can discuss my credentials.
Even then, I am busy on programs for the next 11 months without a break, so... I'm probably not interested in the work.
Click to expand...

All the guys who have been asking about your creds are current active duty jet guys, so I doubt they are looking to hire you. This forum and other forums have been burned by imposters, so it is just kind of a standard procedure to ask a few "validation" questions if you will (I doubt anyone is looking to find out exactly who you are); I'm sure you can understand how unique your credentials are! That all being said, I (as well as others I'm sure) look forward to hearing about your experiences, I'm sure you have a lot to share, especially if you are able to find the time to do so. Did you come from a military background or other? I'd love to get into your line of work after my dues to uncle sam in grey jets are completed :) Again, welcome!
 
///AMG said:
Welcome! Care to share what you are/have been flying?
Click to expand...


"Warsaw Pact Aircraft from Antonov to Zlin, and everything in between".... ;-)

Miramar is a nice spot... just stay away from the Brig! I've been there a bit (Miramar, not the Brig).

I'm glad to be aboard. My experience is mainly in non-US tactical types working as a consultant to a variety of DOD client activities. I have limited experience in current-gen tactical jets, but am considered a leading expert in my area of expertise, which happens to be MiG's, thus my reply to the post regarding how "easy" they are to fly. I report "Abeam with the Gear" and leave my landing gear down in the tower pattern. I don't drink Jeramiah Weed unless forced to, but I do listen to Dos Gringos. My ancestral home is Pax River. That's enough for now, I think...



.
 
X-Pilot said:
"Warsaw Pact Aircraft from Antonov to Zlin, and everything in between".... ;-)


Miramar is a nice spot... just stay away from the Brig!

.
Click to expand...

Haha yeah, I actually just learned that the Abu Garaib troops were locked up there until recently. Can't complain about the scenery.....SWOLF departure is a great way to start the day....and wake up those lazy college students sleeping in :)
 
///AMG said:
Haha yeah, I actually just learned that the Abu Garaib troops were locked up there until recently. Can't complain about the scenery.....SWOLF departure is a great way to start the day....and wake up those lazy college students sleeping in :)
Click to expand...


I'd just keep a lookout for Kelly McGillis. One thing I have with her in common is that we both dig chicks because she's a lesbian, and I'm not. What we don't have in common is that I know about MiG's and she doesn't.... her Top Gun role notwithstanding.... ;-)


Smile, guys.


.
 
X-Pilot said:
I'd just keep a lokout for Kelly McGillis. One thing I have with her in common is that we both dig chicks because she's a lesbian, and I'm not...

.
Click to expand...

Her house in the movie is still standing, a couple miles from my house in Oceanside. Sadly she has definitely not aged gracefully
 
///AMG said:
Her house in the movie is still standing, a couple miles from my house in Oceanside. Sadly she has definitely not aged gracefully
Click to expand...



Now that we are in humor-mode, does everyone know that the sequal to Top Gun has just been green-lighted for production? Cruise is supposed to be back as the skipper (gag me *please*....), dunno if McGillis can play anything other than the fat chick who cleans the rooms in the Q, and dunno anything else. They might even send me a few bucks to help with the MiG intel stuff, dunno, but we are talking at least. Last time their MiG data and visuals sucked hugely.

Back to the MiG-15: The schools use it as a QE because it has EVERY flying qualities vice imaginable, and I mean EVERYTHING. It's dead-simple to operate from a systems standpoint, is a safe as a brick house from a technical reliability standpoint, and yet at the same time it does absolutely nothing right from a flying qualities standpoint. It can kill you in the pattern if you are a buffoon on the controls. It absolutely humbles electric-jet drivers. It's a core part of both the USN and USAF TPS programs. No other jet gives a student test pilot the same learning points per sortie as the Fagot (and could they have picked another reporting name *please*?)

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top