Perhaps the most unusual Mig kill confirmation is chronicled in USMC ace and Medal of Honor recipiemt' Joe Foss' book, Top Gun. A USAF Sabre pilot got into a dogfight with a Mig-15 and shot it down. Parts of the exploding Mig got ingested into his Sabre's air intake, causing damage to his engine and he barely limped home. Unfortunately, nobody else witnessed the kill, and his gun camera didn't work, possibly damaged by used Mig parts. The squadron commanding officer was explaining to the pilot that the kill couldn't be confirmed due to a lack of certain evidence, when they were interrupted by a very pale and shaken crew chief. The crew chief reported to the squadron commander that included in the Mig parts that had been ingested into the Sabre's intake, was the pilots head with the helmet still on it. The pilot got full credit for the kill.
@@nolanolivier6791 I almost bought one of these, but did not find it _that_ interesting. The leather is very soft but has no lining and it is basically a light support headgear for the headphones and goggles. It was an old model that wouldn't be used in fast jets today but is used in all other aircraft, helicopters too. I ended up buying a _Tankist_ helmet, which is outstanding. Black canvas made and lined with mouton fur, with protruding longitudinal pads for protection and a cable for the Intercom. It closes under the chin with a buckle. Unfortunately, some moths found it and made a Blitzkrieg with its fur... 😦
Legend has it there is some extremely old Soviet aircraft designer still working on a way to mount a 16 inch gun from a battleship in a lightweight fighter....
Twin Bushmaster IV, forward firing, ramped up to 450rpm each, with radar proximity fused HE munitions would prove very effective inside of 3km against Air or Ground, including buildings and earthen entrenchments.
@@hardlydank932 No, but it's in just about every Mig-15 Korean War video on TV and RUclips. It's a very close in shot and the shoulder mounted wings are very evident.
Agreed. I'd really love to see some of the weird and interesting experimental stuff MiG were playing around with during the first half of The Cold War - Tail-less delta versions of the MiG-21, the Ye-150 family, VTOL MiG-23s - all kinds of crazy, forgotten projects.
@@Checkyoursix77are you thinking of the Il-28? The Yak-28 was made in both bomber and interceptor variants, but this channel focuses on fighters, so it makes sense that he would focus on the interceptor variant.
IIRC, there were later admissions by some US pilots that they regularly flew past the Yalu, against ROE, since their opponents knew and had been using it to their advantage.
The turbojets on early Hawker Hunters and Supermarine Swifts would also stall when their guns were fired 😯 Never entirely solved. The long term fudge was to momentarily restrict fuel when the guns fired. 🙂
Thanks for the comment and the information. Dassault solved that problem on the Mirage 3 in the same way - fuel restriction when the trigger was pressed and for a moment afterwards. The US solution on the Sabre/ Sabre Hog and Super Sabre was to increase speed and force of air flow through the gun compartment. I guess that was possible in that installation because of the open nose intake. Maybe I should do a video on cannon installations. It's a pretty interesting subject and there was a lot of trial and error for the first 15-20 years of jet development.
@@notapound Yes, please do! This is a great subject. I think a lot of us would be most interested to see it and - personally - I love the idea of yet more carefully-researched myth-smashing (especially as you tease the Fargo's smearing about this issue in your video notes). Nonsense pulverised by actual facts is a joy to see. Maybe one of these days I'll make a video about how the 150-ton Monitor turret was never actually jacked up off the deck on a nine-inch thick pole in battle...
That was a common problem on many earlier jets. And I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason it's not an issue on later jets is that they knew about the problem when they started and just designed the engines to cut out when firing before it ever became an issue. Missiles can do the same thing. Engines are generally better now, but a lot of that is just because they are fully software controlled and you can automatically factor things like that into the system. The A-10 was still 50 years ago, but was also just because the extreme volume of gas was a whole different ballpark from the normal stuff they had to deal with. This is why they do such extensive testing of new aircraft, I used to think it was kind of silly that they spent so much time and money testing how planes launch missiles and drop bombs and fire guns, but it turns out that it's actually very important. Unexpected stuff can and does happen, and even dropping a bomb from a plane can go wrong. The air flow does all kinds of weird stuff, and you want to know how and when a bomb or drop tank is going to fly back up and hit your jet before it goes into service, or whether the missiles will kill your own engines or whether firing the guns will blow your own nose off sometimes, or break your expensive radar or equipment.
In particular, gun cameras often failed to track kills against jet aircraft by ballistic arms such as cannons because of the amount of lead that is required to put rounds on target when they are moving that fast. This also doesn't sound like it was a very close up encounter, increasing the amount of deflection that one would have needed to employ before firing thus having the gun cameras pointed towards open sky.
Wow love the box art from the A model 1/72nd scale kit! Interesting early Soviet jet aircraft! Am familiar with it but not to this level, the adaptation of that rectangular muzzle break in a sense etc and how it would eventually disintegrate and get sucked into the engine is hilarious!! Nevertheless a cool and neat looking early Com-block jet!
The Yakovlev Yak-15 used captured and remanufactured Jumo OO4 engines, by the Yak-17 it was using reverse engineered Jumos made entirely in the USSR. These were also sold in large numbers to the Chinese, who kept the Yak-17 in service until the mid-50s noting the engine's remarkable contemporary reliability and serviceability, once quality strategic materials were used in its manufacture as originally intended but impossible for late war Germany, which had to use compromised materials and hence included several innovations in the Jumo like limited bypass cooling ducts and sodium filled compressor blades. The BMW was used in the MiG, it was slightly less powerful than the Jumo so was used in twin engine layouts, where the Jumo was used in single engine layouts in Soviet post war jets. Again initial supplies were simply captured German surplus and not very reliable. These were quickly supplanted by locally produced ones however, as you mention they had full blueprints for this engine so that was easy. Again the use of better quality materials than was available for Germany made for far better engine performance. AFAIK the BMW doesn't have the same auxiliary ducting as the Jumo so may have been more subject to flameouts by things like gas ingestion. In any case the muzzle velocity of the long barrelled Nudelman was entirely overpowered for aerial use, being originally designed for anti-tank warfare and there were several problems with that in a light fighter, including a sledgehammer recoil, the gun was redesigned for the MiG-15 solving both issues but this could have as easily been done with the MiG-9 if that were as big a problem for operators as it was in western reputation. If the gun was rarely used by pilots it would be for the same reason as the GSh30 rotary cannon in the MiG-27 decades later: shaking the airframe fasteners to pieces with its damn recoil.
The improvement in materials came from reverse engineering British jet engines like the Derwent and Nene that the Labour government sold to the Soviet Union immediately after WW2.
Yet everyone else claims the NS-37 was far too slow and impossible to hit targets with. Muzzle velocity is good. It's just you don't get any free lunch, it's still a 37mm cannon in the end. And I think the issue with the NS-37 is exaggerated. Everyone just talks about how hard it was to hit F-86s in dogfights, yt wasn't why they had it. They had it too shoot down bombers, because a 23 wasn't really powerful enough. They gave them 23mms for fighters and volume of fire (not that you can call a 23mm weak by any means, it's still significantly more powerful than a 20x110mm, which was the most powerful 20mm used in WW2). They didn't optimize the MiG-15 for dogfighting because in the end that isn't the primary reason fighters exist. There is no point in just making a bunch of planes that can fly around and shoot each other down so you can keep score. Fighters exist to kill bombers, or they exist to defend bombers. Either way they are defensive weapons. The Koreans were primarily concerned with shooting down US bombers, they only fought F-86s to get to the bombers, or at least to make it easier to get to them. If course there were plenty of pilots who just went out looking for fighters to take on, but that's not why they exist in military terms. So the Soviets had less reason to tailor their fighters as air superiority fighters than the US did.
We need to come to a consensus on what the definition of "overengineered" means. I keep seeing people using it in this context, when what they actually mean is _overbuilt_ . Overengineering is when you make a design more complex and technical than it actually needs to be to do the required task. The Germans were notorious for this (although i think that reputation is exaggerated). Making a design _stronger_ than it needs to be and therefore heavier is not the same thing, overengineering has no direct relationship to the weight and size of a product. If anything, making it excessively strong is a result of lack of engineering, they should have spent more time carefully examining exactly how strong the parts need to be, and the most efficient way to get that strength in consideration of manufacturing, cost, complexity, and actual performance. If anything the fact that the Soviets got such performance out of such small and light aircraft says that they did a really good job engineering them. They weren't overengineered, but they definitely went underenginereed either.
Centerline mounted guns are not only easier to aim, but there is no issue with convergence. Wing mounted guns have to be aimed at some point where the trajectory of all guns cross. The main killzone was usually set at around 400m or even closer. If pilot was closer than 200m or tried to fire from longer distance at 800m+, most rounds were missing. While nose mounted guns usually can cover whatever from 0-2000m without any issue and pilot just need to compensate for projectile drop. This also explains why La-5 with 2x20mm cannons in fact was much deadlier air-air plane than P-47 carrying 8xHMG. But for ground straffing against infantry wing mounted machineguns were better because of large area covered by hits.
That's mostly BS. A pilot is doing very well just to get rounds in the area of the enemy, having your streams of fire split by a couple of feet is the last of your concerns. The shape of the triangle is a very long and skinny spearhead, and anywhere in the long point area of the triangle, the rounds will be close enough that they will hit the target. If you are into the zone where they are diverging again, you are shooting from way too far anyway and it will be amazing if you can hit anything, especially if it's maneuvering at all. All this stuff about convergence was significant on RAF fighters with .303 guns because a concentrated burst hitting the target was essential for a kill, and the wide spread is the Spitfire guns made convergence a significant issue. It was less of an issue with .50s, since they were generally still pretty well concentrated. If your target is so unaware and stationary that you can shoot at them with careful enough aim that the two streams passing on either side of the target are actually a concern, you also should have had plenty of opportunity to get your range correct and make sure it's in the general convergence range. If it's maneuvering to avoid fire, you will be extremely lucky just to get a good aimed shots at it anyway. You could say having a wider spread just increases your odds of hitting him. Aerial gunnery is an extremely difficult thing to do and most shots missed entirely because the guns weren't even aimed at the right spot. The convergence was extremely minor in comparison. Although that's one reason they started using cannon, where even one hit was significant, so you didn't need to worry so much about a concentrated burst on target. For ground targets, the natural spread of the rounds is more than enough to cover the area, you dont need extra dispersal. You still want your bullets concentrated on the target you are trying to hit, they are going to spread over a wide enough area already that you need to be more concerned about putting enough rounds into the area to actually hit the things you need to hit. You don't see them diverging nose mounted guns to give them more spread for ground strafing, do you? Because it doesn't do you any good to cover a wider area if most of the troops you were shooting at don't actually get hit because you are only putting one bullet into every five square meters instead of every one or half meters. All your 500 rounds going into a single ten by ten space because they were aimed at a single spot is not a problem, the bullets or shells naturally disperse, plus the added movement of the aircraft relative to the ground, etc. Centerline guns are _better_ , but it's nothing like as significant an advantage as you make it sound. Do you see fighters with centerline guns inherently killing twice as many enemy as ones with wing mounted guns? Do you think the Allies were just too stupid to realize the amazing advantages of centerline guns? What's your basis for claiming the La-5 was "much more effective" than a P-47? What are your statistics for that? Where did those numbers come from? Even if they are correct, which is very unlikely, do they take into account that the _planes_ are very different? Used for entirely different roles? Maybe the P-47 is just a worse dogfighter than an La-5. By your logic, because the bigger and heavier plane has wing mounted guns, and the lighter, more agile plane has centerline guns, the armament scheme is the only explanation for this? Nothing to do with one carrying cannon and one carrying MGs? Nothing to do with one being used mostly as a fighter bomber for most of the war, while one was used purely as a fighter? One did most of its dogfighting at very high altitudes that the other couldn't even reach, at long ranges from home, and could only engage targets when they attacked the formation they were escorting, while one roamed at lower levels attacking any aircraft it came across? None of this has any bearing on relative statistics? Are you claiming that the La-5 was more effective than any US fighter? They all had wing mounted guns, excepting the P-38 and P-39. Are they all inferior to an La-5 just because the La-5 doesn't have a few feet of divergence to worry about? The US could have doubled their combat effectiveness just by mounting cowl guns? The Bf-109 and FW 190 were both also primarily armed with centerline guns, are they both then much more effective than any US fighter? How did they lose so badly then? Isn't two 20mm and two 13mm guns even better than two 20mm? Why isn't the P-38 and P-39 the most successful US fighters? Help me to understand this.
It seems like EVERYONE was hell-bent on having centerline mounted armament, despite all the problems with gas ingestion and engine failure it caused in the early jet era. But putting a 45 mm or 37 mm cannon square in the middle of the air intake? That's not just determination, that's flat-out obsession.
Not A Pound goes over this somewhere in his vid, but I do wanna say that having armament on or as close to centerline as possible means flyers don’t have to deal with convergence and whatnot, which would help with accuracy and range. Wing-mounted guns had to be angled inward slightly, so they could converge at a single point of aim somewhere in front of the aircraft. Anything too far or near to this point in the sky wouldn’t get hit.
Ugh look how narrow that undercarriage is. Must have been an absolute nightmare to taxi or do anything at all on the ground aside from just sitting there.
Always happy to see a new video from ya...but this is the third [!] time YT has unsubscribed me from your channel. :/ I guess that's good because it means you are growing enough for them to mess with you? Just wanted to give you a heads up that it's happening.
The SAAB Tunnan was downright ugly from any angle and point of view and was a pretty good aircraft too. Not sleek as a Lansen or a Hunter but pretty good.
The Swedes, post WWII always had a jet to match the Soviets that could also give US jets a run for their money too. The Tunan was not sexy, but it was ahead of many other country's aircraft.
@@jb6027 then the Draken left every one widemouthed and although currently stored the Viggen remains a fearsome, brutal combat aircraft. Now we have the Grippen but to me the Grippen is a rapier, not a bull. Right or wrong, I always tend to look to the Grippen as some sort of F-5E...
I like the Tunnan. All the Saabs were good jets. I'm not even sure I would call it ugly, just not what you expect to see. I guess I like when utility is first and the result works. Now the Gannet, that's just ugly. I don't know what the British are thinking sometimes.
It amazes me that one person with mininal help can produce more entertaining, cohesive, amd factually accurate videos than the History or Discovery channel which had way more production staff.
Tailplane at 8:31 (the remainder of an elevator) points out strongly to elevator flutter. Could be a transonic induced flutter with moving shockwaves, as a high speed run caused the crash.
This is THE BEST PROGRAM OF ITS KIND ON RUclips ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING INFORMATIVE AND VERY DETAILED MORE PLEASE. I know it might be classified but can you do a program about the AIMVAL ACEVAL trials during 1977 with tomcats and eagles verses F5e fighters.
@@johnshepherd9676you're right, I meant the original FH Phantom, which was crap. The F2H Banshee was actually pretty good. Fact remains that Mig 9 is dogpoop though 😂
@@sergeipohkerova7211 The FH is a WWII design and was first flown in January 1945. Naval aircraft are heavier and have more stringent low speed handling requirements. The FH was a decent first try.
What people don't realize is what makes a great design is that it stands out from the average mean. And the average, is often very good indeed. The areas they succeed or fail are usually from their basic overall design and use philosophy. If you don't prioritize features based on intended use, based on realistic usage it will see in reality, it will fail. M
Well that was about as obscure as it gets - Great historical / investigative video journalism it is too As noted could be a Saber flight were North of the Yalu, Then again, maybe a sprog wandered South? You could have the nucleus of another video right there - *How often did US & allied - ooop I mean 'UN' - CAPs go North of the Yalu*
Do the Yak-15/17 also (those seem to be lucky numbers for the Soviets huh?). I just think the idea of a Yak converted to a jet is really cool. And they weren't bad jets, they just didn't keep up with progress and went used in combat. Also would like to see a series in the whole development of the Su-7 into the Su-9 and 11 and then into the 15, and the parallel development of the Su-17/22. It's very interesting when you look into it it's clear that all stemmed from the same initial design even though they were very changed by the end. And they were all pretty good fighters actually. The Su-7 is what is is but is still very cool. I know you say you are mostly interested in air combat, and im sure you have material to cover for years, but i would love to see some Cold War bombers get this treatment as well. If you ever consider expanding your area of coverage. Looks like you have a formula for a very successful channel though, i can't imagine that you won't take off with this quality of content.
The glorious comrade's name was Gavriil Kondrashov. He ejected from a PE-2 on 24th of July 1947. I believe that he received 10,000 Roubles for his achievement...
And they've been trying to make hero of the soviet union medal that somehow stretches from his jacket to his pants ever since. That comrade has earned his 10000 roubles.
Question - would you be able to tell me where you got the data for your graph at 20:20? Just curious as it appears to show the Meteor F.4 comparing well with some much later models
I was not under the impression that in Korea gun camera footage was 100% required to get a kill. Kills can be positively confirmed by wingmen, I believe, even today without footage. If I'm incorrect, someone please correct me. I have heard that there was some frustration with kill confirmations in Korea because the "follow the wounded aircraft all the way to the ground and watch it break up" requirement was in force and very, very rigidly observed. I heard nothing about camera footage being required, though, and find that difficult to believe given the stated poor reliability of the gun cameras.
@@SnakebitSTI my point is that the supposed downed MiG-9 was apparently NOT confirmed by camera OR visually. That is probably why the supposed kill isn't officially recognized by the Air Force. It may well have happened, but it seems like there were no witnesses INCLUDING the gun camera. The kill was not apparently DISPUTED by the wingmen here, but was not confirmed by them either. I feel like it wasn't just because the camera didn't work. I don't think the pilots lied, either. I think they were unsure enough that the USAF said "nah".
When I was at Otis AFB I found out our CO was an ace When they arrived in the Pacific they were handed cameras and told to recon an island. The spotted a flight of Japanese and shot most down. Then flew around photographing crash sites because no one was going to believe them
I seem to remember in another presentation, the British Government shared Rolls Royce jet engine design with Russia in attempt to generate goodwill. Apparently the design ended up in the Mig15
Fargo seems a curious misnomer for this kite but The US guys who gave the Mig 15 its NATO 'code' designation must have been really annoyed at it? [Another good video BTW]
TBF jet technology was so new at the time that it could take a lot of effort to make an operational plane. Take F-84 Thunderjet as an example, the US had already worked on the P-59 and the P-80 and still it took Republic about 3 years to make a plane that could be used operationally. 😅
I'm no expert on plane design and might be very wrong, But I think it's possible that "Nose inlet" like the one in F-84 require some time to study and test, unlike the side inlet found in P-59 and P-80
@@minera7595 "I'm no expert on plane design and might be very wrong, But I think it's possible that "Nose inlet" like the one in F-84 require some time to study and test, unlike the side inlet found in P-59 and P-80" Why would that be? Nose inlet was the original method and side intakes came later and are more complicated.
@@gort8203 It did come first, in the form of the He 178, however, Most early jets like Me 262, Meteor, P-80 didn't exactly have nose inlets, and incorporating it into aircraft might require time to study right kind of structure and materials Anyways, as I said, it was my past guess that was likely wrong, and I think Miquel's reason sound much more credible than mine, so let's stick to that
@@minera7595 It didn’t come first just on the He 178. The Gloster porotype, the Meteor, the Me262, the Arado 234, and even the P-59 all had inlets that let the air flow in a nearly straight shot from the inlet lip to the compressor face. The P-80 is the only plane you mentioned that had side mounted intakes that required the air to flow a less than straight path. The P-80 intake was the newer development, and the F-84 did nothing that had not already been done with and air intake.
Question; why are these airmen, from 17:36-17:42 giving their departing comrades, the finger🖕??? Especially, in the 1950's?? Obviously, I never heard of this aircraft. Thank you. So, why wouldn't the gun's sometimes not work, during the Korean campaign?? They worked swell, in WWll.
03:40 MiG-1 that was not destroyed in early days of BarbaRossa was one of Pokryshkin. The greatest ace of allies in WW2.Not the plane, the pilot makes the deal.
My friend was a pilot in the Soviet Air Force and his father flew Yak9, Mig9 and Mig15/17. The Mig 15 was the first Soviet operational jet fighter. The Mig 9 had no operational capabilities compared to the late piston fighters.
Would be convenient if you had an engine failure and lose your jet to then say "oh yeah, you see i shot down this Mig and parts of it went into my engine and wrecked it up. Too bad the plane is at the bottom of the sea along with the gun camera film. But the fact that it went down just proves it really happened, see?" I would say he was a credible source regarding the Mig-9 because why would you make up a story about shooting down an inferior jet when you could get me credit for claiming a more dangerous opponent? Unless it was actually a prop fighter or trainer, or he was just that clever that he _knew_ people would buy a story easier if he could say "why would i claim a MiG-9 instead of a -15 if i was lying?" Anyway, there are plenty of reasons a MiG-9 might be in Korea, besides them sending them as front line fighters (although an aircraft being outclassed doesn't make it useless or not dangerous, it just means that it's not effective to waste them and good pilots at a disadvantage when they probably went be able to harm the enemy. But just existing as a threat can still be a useful job). Obsolete fighters can still be useful as reconnaissance or courier planes, they are still faster than most of what's in the sky and difficult to intercept, even if they dont make a match in a straight fight. And there are always plain navigation errors. Chinese pilot got lost and strayed over the border. Or "got lost" and did the same, out of foolish optimism or adventurous spirit.
If I remember correctly the USSR was one of two nations (the other being Italy) that came out of the Spanish civil with the wrong lessons, in terms of future air combat: pure manouverabilty was king, and few but heavy, well aimed guns was all you needed. This is partly to blame for the light designs in service at the start of WWII.
I'll see your 'That was the wrong lesson to take a away' and raise you a 'What do you suppose underpinned the success of the Mitsubishi 'Zero' & KI 43 Oscars?
Idk about that, yak 1 was already in service i think when Germans attacked. 109 f4 and that are close enough where other factors than plane design will be decisive. Also i16 is so maneuverable and small that you can't just say that it is completely bad, against German planes it's extremes can be turned to something beneficial.
@@robertkalinic335 the russians lucked out the Yak-1; Yakovlev was a specialist *_race_* aircraft builder, so everything they build was _fast_ . And the Yak-1 wasn't the 1st miltary aircraft he made, the SovAF had allready been very impresside with the Yak-4 bomber. Hence the comissining of the Yak-1.
@@robertkalinic335 on the I-18; yes it was extremely manouverable, like the Zero. But, like the Zero, the enemy quickly found the correct tactic; use speed against it. An Me-109 would just zoom in, rapid fire, and zoom away.
Finally the Chinese MiG - 9 used its debris to destroy the American F - 86F Sabre ! A stupid mistake of an American pilot destroyed both MiG 9 and F86F at the same time.
flying over the Yalu into Manchuria looking for a fight was a no-no for UN pilots. now...if they were in "hot pursuit" they could cross the Yalu to get the MiG. there are stories out there that the Sabers went across the Yalu looking for a fight with the gun camera film disappearing on return to base. if they did...they would be going up against the best of the Soviet Union's Jocks. and...the Saber drivers knew it. if it was going on...then it was all about the fight. mano y mano.
The Meteor became operational in July/August 1944 within days of the Me262. Both were initially used in the same role as home defence interceptors. The Me262 had lots of bombers to engage the Meteor had to make do with a few cruise missiles. The Meteor was also used to stand in for the Me262 as an aggressor during training for US bomber crews and escort fighter pilots. That also allowed the meteor squadrons to develop tactics for attacking bomber formations.
People keep saying this but other countries that fought in Korea weren't involved in the air that i know of which is is literally all this channel is about. Cope and seethe limey
Whilst the US provided the bulk of the air assets, off the top of my head I can think of the RAAF with Mustangs and later Meteors, SAAF with Mustangs and F-86s, the RAF provided Sunderland flying boats and had pilots on exchange with the USAF, the RN FAA Sea Furies and Fireflies. Other countries flew observation aircraft, often borrowed from the US IIRC, one example would be Turkey. So definitely a coalition effort even in the air.
This is a good thread - thanks all. I'm in the process about making a video about the Fleet Air Arm in Korea. The composition of air wings is interesting to me as Korea hit the FAA (and to a lesser extent the US Navy) at a transitional point. At some point I'd also like to get to 'Meteor in Korea' as that hits on the RAAF and RAF. Always happy and interested to hear topic suggestions :)
there is nothing I hate more than revisionism from the 75 years in the future point of view. Yes it was bad there are reasons it went out very quickly. The USSR needed a Nene Engine to create a proper jet power plant. Without that the Mig-15 wouldn't have been half as deadly. I always say with aeroplanes if it looks right you've won half the battle for it actually being right and the Mig -9 just doesn't look right nor does the Yak-15
Mysterious? I don't think you have ever experienced any hardship where Communists we're trying to sabotage your efforts to build the next advanced jet fighter. Espionage would be equal to treason! But hey, maybe double agents could have done better. Thanks for the informative videos.
Bendix is a dominant Avionics brand. They initiated many races in the US throughout the pre and post-war period. Typically offering a coveted prize including a Trophy, cash, and publicity. Google is omnipotent. You may query the genie at any time. But you only have but one wish.
The bullshit about "purging scientists" at the start discourages further viewing. No purges, either in scientific or army circles, were as important as the underdevelopment of production and the lack of qualified labor in sufficient numbers.And this is also superimposed on the lack of literacy of the population, that is, not only the producer, but also the end user of products. By 1920, only 3 million people in the former Russian Empire were considered fully literate. Before that, there were repeated cases of "decaying literacy": when a person went to a three-year elementary school at church parishes, and afterwards lost it's skills, because these skills were not required by this person in ordinary life. In total, before the Socialist Revolution, the Russian Empire produced about 100 thousand applicants to humanitarian and technical "gymnasiums", the analog of high school, per year. All this forced the Soviet industry to produce primitive and crude, yet as effective as possible, solutions. And in such a situation, the developers had to learn literally from other people's experience: first copying other people's designs and trying to adapt them to the conditions of Russian production and only then trying to develop something of their own.
I looked it up. There's no such thing as oo3. I think he meant 003. This dude needs to differentiate the difference between the letter o and the number 0. Watching one too many Hollywood movies.
Sometime "Zero" is pronounced "O" in daily life as well (this pronunciation can be found in phone number, for example), so there's also that to consider
"In spoken English, the number 0 is often read as the letter "o", often spelled oh. This is especially the case when the digit occurs within a list of other digits" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_the_number_0_in_English
yeah, us english speakers are always saying stuff like "look, there goes a Boeing seven zero seven!" or who can forget the hit TV show, Nine Zero Two One Zero
Perhaps the most unusual Mig kill confirmation is chronicled in USMC ace and Medal of Honor recipiemt' Joe Foss' book, Top Gun. A USAF Sabre pilot got into a dogfight with a Mig-15 and shot it down. Parts of the exploding Mig got ingested into his Sabre's air intake, causing damage to his engine and he barely limped home. Unfortunately, nobody else witnessed the kill, and his gun camera didn't work, possibly damaged by used Mig parts. The squadron commanding officer was explaining to the pilot that the kill couldn't be confirmed due to a lack of certain evidence, when they were interrupted by a very pale and shaken crew chief. The crew chief reported to the squadron commander that included in the Mig parts that had been ingested into the Sabre's intake, was the pilots head with the helmet still on it. The pilot got full credit for the kill.
Sounds like a Marine!
That would do it!
I suppose, if nothing else, Soviet helmets were proven to be of relatively quality leather.
And the head said "Idi k Tshortu Amerikansky, blath!" 😀
@@nolanolivier6791 I almost bought one of these, but did not find it _that_ interesting. The leather is very soft but has no lining and it is basically a light support headgear for the headphones and goggles. It was an old model that wouldn't be used in fast jets today but is used in all other aircraft, helicopters too.
I ended up buying a _Tankist_ helmet, which is outstanding. Black canvas made and lined with mouton fur, with protruding longitudinal pads for protection and a cable for the Intercom. It closes under the chin with a buckle. Unfortunately, some moths found it and made a Blitzkrieg with its fur... 😦
Legend has it there is some extremely old Soviet aircraft designer still working on a way to mount a 16 inch gun from a battleship in a lightweight fighter....
No doubt
Is there still an old Politburo member harping on them to upgun it to 18" so as to not be outdone by the Japanese Empire?
Twin Bushmaster IV, forward firing, ramped up to 450rpm each, with radar proximity fused HE munitions would prove very effective inside of 3km against Air or Ground, including buildings and earthen entrenchments.
Any Soviet aircraft designer that has made it to old age has my salute 😎
The Brit’s and Germans did manage to get 3” guns into the mosquito and hs129 during ww2😂
Now you gotta do the even MORE elusive La-15
There's gun camera footage of a La-15 being shot down. It's most often misidentified as a Mig -15, but the shoulder mounted wings give it away.
Do you have a link by any chance?
I have seen that too, I just can't remember where. I am off sick from work for a few weeks so I might have look.@@jb6027
@@hardlydank932 No, but it's in just about every Mig-15 Korean War video on TV and RUclips. It's a very close in shot and the shoulder mounted wings are very evident.
The La-15 was never produced or deployed in any significant numbers. Much like the He 100 or He112 during WWII...
Id love to see coverage of more soviet early jets like the yak-15 to 23 or the lachovikin fighters
(Lavochkin)
Agreed. I'd really love to see some of the weird and interesting experimental stuff MiG were playing around with during the first half of The Cold War - Tail-less delta versions of the MiG-21, the Ye-150 family, VTOL MiG-23s - all kinds of crazy, forgotten projects.
Absolutely, I agree. And the Sukhoi family.
Now do the Yak-28. For a numerically-important PVO plane it doesn't get much coverage.
Only as a bomber.
@@Checkyoursix77
PVO Strany were a purely defensive force - they didn't fly any bombers, just fighters/interceptors.
@@Checkyoursix77are you thinking of the Il-28? The Yak-28 was made in both bomber and interceptor variants, but this channel focuses on fighters, so it makes sense that he would focus on the interceptor variant.
IIRC, there were later admissions by some US pilots that they regularly flew past the Yalu, against ROE, since their opponents knew and had been using it to their advantage.
No one can convince me that the pilots didn't cross the Yalu often, "unintentionally".
Got to take the war to the enemy, y'know...😉
Great video!! I‘d love to see more videos about lesser known soviet fighter aircraft, they seem to get little coverage
I love these deep dives into more obscure stuff. Great channel 🎉
The turbojets on early Hawker Hunters and Supermarine Swifts would also stall when their guns were fired 😯 Never entirely solved. The long term fudge was to momentarily restrict fuel when the guns fired. 🙂
Thanks for the comment and the information. Dassault solved that problem on the Mirage 3 in the same way - fuel restriction when the trigger was pressed and for a moment afterwards. The US solution on the Sabre/ Sabre Hog and Super Sabre was to increase speed and force of air flow through the gun compartment. I guess that was possible in that installation because of the open nose intake.
Maybe I should do a video on cannon installations. It's a pretty interesting subject and there was a lot of trial and error for the first 15-20 years of jet development.
@@notapound Yes, please do! This is a great subject. I think a lot of us would be most interested to see it and - personally - I love the idea of yet more carefully-researched myth-smashing (especially as you tease the Fargo's smearing about this issue in your video notes). Nonsense pulverised by actual facts is a joy to see.
Maybe one of these days I'll make a video about how the 150-ton Monitor turret was never actually jacked up off the deck on a nine-inch thick pole in battle...
The L-39 does the same. Initiated electrically by the trigger being pulled.
The a-10 had that problem. They set it up that the starters kick on when the gun is fired
That was a common problem on many earlier jets. And I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason it's not an issue on later jets is that they knew about the problem when they started and just designed the engines to cut out when firing before it ever became an issue. Missiles can do the same thing. Engines are generally better now, but a lot of that is just because they are fully software controlled and you can automatically factor things like that into the system. The A-10 was still 50 years ago, but was also just because the extreme volume of gas was a whole different ballpark from the normal stuff they had to deal with. This is why they do such extensive testing of new aircraft, I used to think it was kind of silly that they spent so much time and money testing how planes launch missiles and drop bombs and fire guns, but it turns out that it's actually very important. Unexpected stuff can and does happen, and even dropping a bomb from a plane can go wrong. The air flow does all kinds of weird stuff, and you want to know how and when a bomb or drop tank is going to fly back up and hit your jet before it goes into service, or whether the missiles will kill your own engines or whether firing the guns will blow your own nose off sometimes, or break your expensive radar or equipment.
Another outstandingly interesting and informative video about an aircraft that gets little coverage. THANK YOU for your great work!
Great video. I would love to see a similar video on the MiG 23, as It's also a jet that gets a bit of an unfair reputation.
In particular, gun cameras often failed to track kills against jet aircraft by ballistic arms such as cannons because of the amount of lead that is required to put rounds on target when they are moving that fast. This also doesn't sound like it was a very close up encounter, increasing the amount of deflection that one would have needed to employ before firing thus having the gun cameras pointed towards open sky.
Actually, the Fargo didn't shoot down enemy aircraft. It hit them with an axe and then fed them to a wood chipper.
Strong comment! The nickname did make me smile - funny how connotations of things change down the years!
Wow love the box art from the A model 1/72nd scale kit! Interesting early Soviet jet aircraft! Am familiar with it but not to this level, the adaptation of that rectangular muzzle break in a sense etc and how it would eventually disintegrate and get sucked into the engine is hilarious!! Nevertheless a cool and neat looking early Com-block jet!
The Yakovlev Yak-15 used captured and remanufactured Jumo OO4 engines, by the Yak-17 it was using reverse engineered Jumos made entirely in the USSR. These were also sold in large numbers to the Chinese, who kept the Yak-17 in service until the mid-50s noting the engine's remarkable contemporary reliability and serviceability, once quality strategic materials were used in its manufacture as originally intended but impossible for late war Germany, which had to use compromised materials and hence included several innovations in the Jumo like limited bypass cooling ducts and sodium filled compressor blades.
The BMW was used in the MiG, it was slightly less powerful than the Jumo so was used in twin engine layouts, where the Jumo was used in single engine layouts in Soviet post war jets. Again initial supplies were simply captured German surplus and not very reliable. These were quickly supplanted by locally produced ones however, as you mention they had full blueprints for this engine so that was easy. Again the use of better quality materials than was available for Germany made for far better engine performance. AFAIK the BMW doesn't have the same auxiliary ducting as the Jumo so may have been more subject to flameouts by things like gas ingestion. In any case the muzzle velocity of the long barrelled Nudelman was entirely overpowered for aerial use, being originally designed for anti-tank warfare and there were several problems with that in a light fighter, including a sledgehammer recoil, the gun was redesigned for the MiG-15 solving both issues but this could have as easily been done with the MiG-9 if that were as big a problem for operators as it was in western reputation. If the gun was rarely used by pilots it would be for the same reason as the GSh30 rotary cannon in the MiG-27 decades later: shaking the airframe fasteners to pieces with its damn recoil.
The improvement in materials came from reverse engineering British jet engines like the Derwent and Nene that the Labour government sold to the Soviet Union immediately after WW2.
Yet everyone else claims the NS-37 was far too slow and impossible to hit targets with. Muzzle velocity is good. It's just you don't get any free lunch, it's still a 37mm cannon in the end.
And I think the issue with the NS-37 is exaggerated. Everyone just talks about how hard it was to hit F-86s in dogfights, yt wasn't why they had it. They had it too shoot down bombers, because a 23 wasn't really powerful enough. They gave them 23mms for fighters and volume of fire (not that you can call a 23mm weak by any means, it's still significantly more powerful than a 20x110mm, which was the most powerful 20mm used in WW2). They didn't optimize the MiG-15 for dogfighting because in the end that isn't the primary reason fighters exist. There is no point in just making a bunch of planes that can fly around and shoot each other down so you can keep score. Fighters exist to kill bombers, or they exist to defend bombers. Either way they are defensive weapons. The Koreans were primarily concerned with shooting down US bombers, they only fought F-86s to get to the bombers, or at least to make it easier to get to them.
If course there were plenty of pilots who just went out looking for fighters to take on, but that's not why they exist in military terms. So the Soviets had less reason to tailor their fighters as air superiority fighters than the US did.
We need to come to a consensus on what the definition of "overengineered" means. I keep seeing people using it in this context, when what they actually mean is _overbuilt_ . Overengineering is when you make a design more complex and technical than it actually needs to be to do the required task. The Germans were notorious for this (although i think that reputation is exaggerated). Making a design _stronger_ than it needs to be and therefore heavier is not the same thing, overengineering has no direct relationship to the weight and size of a product. If anything, making it excessively strong is a result of lack of engineering, they should have spent more time carefully examining exactly how strong the parts need to be, and the most efficient way to get that strength in consideration of manufacturing, cost, complexity, and actual performance. If anything the fact that the Soviets got such performance out of such small and light aircraft says that they did a really good job engineering them. They weren't overengineered, but they definitely went underenginereed either.
Another entertaining and informative look at aviation science/history.
Centerline mounted guns are not only easier to aim, but there is no issue with convergence. Wing mounted guns have to be aimed at some point where the trajectory of all guns cross. The main killzone was usually set at around 400m or even closer. If pilot was closer than 200m or tried to fire from longer distance at 800m+, most rounds were missing. While nose mounted guns usually can cover whatever from 0-2000m without any issue and pilot just need to compensate for projectile drop. This also explains why La-5 with 2x20mm cannons in fact was much deadlier air-air plane than P-47 carrying 8xHMG. But for ground straffing against infantry wing mounted machineguns were better because of large area covered by hits.
That's mostly BS. A pilot is doing very well just to get rounds in the area of the enemy, having your streams of fire split by a couple of feet is the last of your concerns. The shape of the triangle is a very long and skinny spearhead, and anywhere in the long point area of the triangle, the rounds will be close enough that they will hit the target. If you are into the zone where they are diverging again, you are shooting from way too far anyway and it will be amazing if you can hit anything, especially if it's maneuvering at all. All this stuff about convergence was significant on RAF fighters with .303 guns because a concentrated burst hitting the target was essential for a kill, and the wide spread is the Spitfire guns made convergence a significant issue. It was less of an issue with .50s, since they were generally still pretty well concentrated. If your target is so unaware and stationary that you can shoot at them with careful enough aim that the two streams passing on either side of the target are actually a concern, you also should have had plenty of opportunity to get your range correct and make sure it's in the general convergence range. If it's maneuvering to avoid fire, you will be extremely lucky just to get a good aimed shots at it anyway. You could say having a wider spread just increases your odds of hitting him. Aerial gunnery is an extremely difficult thing to do and most shots missed entirely because the guns weren't even aimed at the right spot. The convergence was extremely minor in comparison. Although that's one reason they started using cannon, where even one hit was significant, so you didn't need to worry so much about a concentrated burst on target. For ground targets, the natural spread of the rounds is more than enough to cover the area, you dont need extra dispersal. You still want your bullets concentrated on the target you are trying to hit, they are going to spread over a wide enough area already that you need to be more concerned about putting enough rounds into the area to actually hit the things you need to hit. You don't see them diverging nose mounted guns to give them more spread for ground strafing, do you? Because it doesn't do you any good to cover a wider area if most of the troops you were shooting at don't actually get hit because you are only putting one bullet into every five square meters instead of every one or half meters. All your 500 rounds going into a single ten by ten space because they were aimed at a single spot is not a problem, the bullets or shells naturally disperse, plus the added movement of the aircraft relative to the ground, etc.
Centerline guns are _better_ , but it's nothing like as significant an advantage as you make it sound. Do you see fighters with centerline guns inherently killing twice as many enemy as ones with wing mounted guns? Do you think the Allies were just too stupid to realize the amazing advantages of centerline guns? What's your basis for claiming the La-5 was "much more effective" than a P-47? What are your statistics for that? Where did those numbers come from? Even if they are correct, which is very unlikely, do they take into account that the _planes_ are very different? Used for entirely different roles? Maybe the P-47 is just a worse dogfighter than an La-5. By your logic, because the bigger and heavier plane has wing mounted guns, and the lighter, more agile plane has centerline guns, the armament scheme is the only explanation for this? Nothing to do with one carrying cannon and one carrying MGs? Nothing to do with one being used mostly as a fighter bomber for most of the war, while one was used purely as a fighter? One did most of its dogfighting at very high altitudes that the other couldn't even reach, at long ranges from home, and could only engage targets when they attacked the formation they were escorting, while one roamed at lower levels attacking any aircraft it came across? None of this has any bearing on relative statistics? Are you claiming that the La-5 was more effective than any US fighter? They all had wing mounted guns, excepting the P-38 and P-39. Are they all inferior to an La-5 just because the La-5 doesn't have a few feet of divergence to worry about? The US could have doubled their combat effectiveness just by mounting cowl guns? The Bf-109 and FW 190 were both also primarily armed with centerline guns, are they both then much more effective than any US fighter? How did they lose so badly then? Isn't two 20mm and two 13mm guns even better than two 20mm? Why isn't the P-38 and P-39 the most successful US fighters? Help me to understand this.
It seems like EVERYONE was hell-bent on having centerline mounted armament, despite all the problems with gas ingestion and engine failure it caused in the early jet era. But putting a 45 mm or 37 mm cannon square in the middle of the air intake? That's not just determination, that's flat-out obsession.
Not A Pound goes over this somewhere in his vid, but I do wanna say that having armament on or as close to centerline as possible means flyers don’t have to deal with convergence and whatnot, which would help with accuracy and range. Wing-mounted guns had to be angled inward slightly, so they could converge at a single point of aim somewhere in front of the aircraft. Anything too far or near to this point in the sky wouldn’t get hit.
All turbojet engines have difficulty with at low rpm at high altitude. The solution is for the fuel control to raise the minimum rpm allowed there.
Ugh look how narrow that undercarriage is. Must have been an absolute nightmare to taxi or do anything at all on the ground aside from just sitting there.
Always happy to see a new video from ya...but this is the third [!] time YT has unsubscribed me from your channel. :/ I guess that's good because it means you are growing enough for them to mess with you? Just wanted to give you a heads up that it's happening.
The SAAB Tunnan was downright ugly from any angle and point of view and was a pretty good aircraft too. Not sleek as a Lansen or a Hunter but pretty good.
The Swedes, post WWII always had a jet to match the Soviets that could also give US jets a run for their money too. The Tunan was not sexy, but it was ahead of many other country's aircraft.
@@jb6027 then the Draken left every one widemouthed and although currently stored the Viggen remains a fearsome, brutal combat aircraft. Now we have the Grippen but to me the Grippen is a rapier, not a bull. Right or wrong, I always tend to look to the Grippen as some sort of F-5E...
I like the Tunnan. All the Saabs were good jets. I'm not even sure I would call it ugly, just not what you expect to see. I guess I like when utility is first and the result works. Now the Gannet, that's just ugly. I don't know what the British are thinking sometimes.
To call the Tunnan ugly is offensive. A more PC term is: "diametrically challenged"...
😏
This is among the more compelling "fighter pilot" channels.
It amazes me that one person with mininal help can produce more entertaining, cohesive, amd factually accurate videos than the History or Discovery channel which had way more production staff.
Thank you - that comment has made my day!
It would have been interesting to see how the MiG-9 matched up against the P-80 Shooting Star.
p-80, not even close just from the refinement of the design
@@ivankrylov6270Nah, it’s pretty even and the P80 still had machineguns only, while the Mig had cannons.
Another great video! These are becoming a highlight of my Friday; an entertaining Herald of the Weekend!
Tailplane at 8:31 (the remainder of an elevator) points out strongly to elevator flutter. Could be a transonic induced flutter with moving shockwaves, as a high speed run caused the crash.
MiG pilot: 'Shoot me and we both die!'...😏
Another excellent presentation, complementary to your research and marvelous tone. Thank you. R.O. Nelsen
Spectacular knowledge....interesting subjects and masterful story telling ...
Your getting very good at this ..
This is THE BEST PROGRAM OF ITS KIND ON RUclips ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING INFORMATIVE AND VERY DETAILED MORE PLEASE. I know it might be classified but can you do a program about the AIMVAL ACEVAL trials during 1977 with tomcats and eagles verses F5e fighters.
A wonderful historical coverage video about Mig 9 jet engine Soviets designed aircraft .
Excellent. Sources of information are clearly stated. Balanced treatment.
The AiraCobra and King Cobra being well received because of the Nose Armament.
Loving your work fella!
"I'm the crappiest early production jet"
- McDonnell F2H Phantom
"Hold on there a second, capitalist dog..."
- Mig 9
You mean Banshee. The Phantom was the FH.
@@johnshepherd9676you're right, I meant the original FH Phantom, which was crap. The F2H Banshee was actually pretty good.
Fact remains that Mig 9 is dogpoop though 😂
@@sergeipohkerova7211 The FH is a WWII design and was first flown in January 1945. Naval aircraft are heavier and have more stringent low speed handling requirements. The FH was a decent first try.
What people don't realize is what makes a great design is that it stands out from the average mean. And the average, is often very good indeed. The areas they succeed or fail are usually from their basic overall design and use philosophy. If you don't prioritize features based on intended use, based on realistic usage it will see in reality, it will fail. M
Bell P-59A…
Amazing they got it so correct with the MiG-15 after the MiG-9 death trap.
Well that was about as obscure as it gets - Great historical / investigative video journalism it is too
As noted could be a Saber flight were North of the Yalu, Then again, maybe a sprog wandered South?
You could have the nucleus of another video right there - *How often did US & allied - ooop I mean 'UN' - CAPs go North of the Yalu*
Do the Yak-15/17 also (those seem to be lucky numbers for the Soviets huh?). I just think the idea of a Yak converted to a jet is really cool. And they weren't bad jets, they just didn't keep up with progress and went used in combat.
Also would like to see a series in the whole development of the Su-7 into the Su-9 and 11 and then into the 15, and the parallel development of the Su-17/22. It's very interesting when you look into it it's clear that all stemmed from the same initial design even though they were very changed by the end. And they were all pretty good fighters actually. The Su-7 is what is is but is still very cool.
I know you say you are mostly interested in air combat, and im sure you have material to cover for years, but i would love to see some Cold War bombers get this treatment as well. If you ever consider expanding your area of coverage. Looks like you have a formula for a very successful channel though, i can't imagine that you won't take off with this quality of content.
Post 1945, everyone still had Turbine Blade longevity issues. Me262 for example, had frequent motor changes necessary due to blade wear.
Imagine being the glorious comrade with the chance to first live test soviet aerial ejection seats.
The glorious comrade's name was Gavriil Kondrashov. He ejected from a PE-2 on 24th of July 1947. I believe that he received 10,000 Roubles for his achievement...
And they've been trying to make hero of the soviet union medal that somehow stretches from his jacket to his pants ever since.
That comrade has earned his 10000 roubles.
@@afmo500
And his party dues were like 10,001 rubles. Easy come, easy go
Excellent! Thank you!
Balanced and lacking in hyperbole, unfounded speculation, or outright lies - What is this channel doing on YT? 😉
Thank you :)
Question - would you be able to tell me where you got the data for your graph at 20:20? Just curious as it appears to show the Meteor F.4 comparing well with some much later models
Great video...👍
I was not under the impression that in Korea gun camera footage was 100% required to get a kill. Kills can be positively confirmed by wingmen, I believe, even today without footage. If I'm incorrect, someone please correct me. I have heard that there was some frustration with kill confirmations in Korea because the "follow the wounded aircraft all the way to the ground and watch it break up" requirement was in force and very, very rigidly observed. I heard nothing about camera footage being required, though, and find that difficult to believe given the stated poor reliability of the gun cameras.
There needs to be a witness, and gun cameras happen to be frequent witnesses.
All you need is to bribe your Wingman... 😀
@@SnakebitSTI my point is that the supposed downed MiG-9 was apparently NOT confirmed by camera OR visually. That is probably why the supposed kill isn't officially recognized by the Air Force. It may well have happened, but it seems like there were no witnesses INCLUDING the gun camera. The kill was not apparently DISPUTED by the wingmen here, but was not confirmed by them either. I feel like it wasn't just because the camera didn't work. I don't think the pilots lied, either. I think they were unsure enough that the USAF said "nah".
When I was at Otis AFB I found out our CO was an ace
When they arrived in the Pacific they were handed cameras and told to recon an island.
The spotted a flight of Japanese and shot most down.
Then flew around photographing crash sites because no one was going to believe them
What do we need? - CANNON! -- -- What kind of cannon? - BIG cannon!!!
How large caliber would you like to have?
Yes.
Super interesting. 👍🏻
No doubt a tricky little bugger to land in a high crosswind...
I thought I knew about all Soviet aircraft, but I never heard about this one. 👏🏻
I seem to remember in another presentation, the British Government shared Rolls Royce jet engine design with Russia in attempt to generate goodwill. Apparently the design ended up in the Mig15
17:40, I can only assume that flipping the bird was a custom that was intended to wish good luck upon the departing fighter pilots?
Ancient Hawaiian custom. 😂
@@stinkyfunguslet us paean it with many songs!
excellent, interesting video
I didn't know the Yak-17 jet trainer even existed, was it a derivative offshoot of the Yak-15? Also another interesting early Russian jet fighter.
The Yak-17 have a tricycle landing gear instead of a tail drager like the Yak-15.
Otherwise it pretty similar.
Awesome thanks
My favourite in IL-2 1946!
Fargo seems a curious misnomer for this kite
but
The US guys who gave the Mig 15 its NATO 'code' designation must have been really annoyed at it?
[Another good video BTW]
"All Show and No Go" described US fighters of jet beginnings to a tee.
At 4:25 I recognise that photo - possibly from the old "Project Cancelled" book. Is it German?
2 Minutes. First time being this early!
TBF jet technology was so new at the time that it could take a lot of effort to make an operational plane.
Take F-84 Thunderjet as an example, the US had already worked on the P-59 and the P-80 and still it took Republic about 3 years to make a plane that could be used operationally. 😅
I'm no expert on plane design and might be very wrong, But I think it's possible that "Nose inlet" like the one in F-84 require some time to study and test, unlike the side inlet found in P-59 and P-80
@@minera7595 IIRC the F-84's main issues had more to do with the engine and the plane's structure, hydraulics and skin covering.
@@minera7595 "I'm no expert on plane design and might be very wrong, But I think it's possible that "Nose inlet" like the one in F-84 require some time to study and test, unlike the side inlet found in P-59 and P-80"
Why would that be? Nose inlet was the original method and side intakes came later and are more complicated.
@@gort8203
It did come first, in the form of the He 178, however, Most early jets like Me 262, Meteor, P-80 didn't exactly have nose inlets, and incorporating it into aircraft might require time to study right kind of structure and materials
Anyways, as I said, it was my past guess that was likely wrong, and I think Miquel's reason sound much more credible than mine, so let's stick to that
@@minera7595 It didn’t come first just on the He 178. The Gloster porotype, the Meteor, the Me262, the Arado 234, and even the P-59 all had inlets that let the air flow in a nearly straight shot from the inlet lip to the compressor face. The P-80 is the only plane you mentioned that had side mounted intakes that required the air to flow a less than straight path. The P-80 intake was the newer development, and the F-84 did nothing that had not already been done with and air intake.
Question; why are these airmen, from 17:36-17:42 giving their departing comrades, the finger🖕??? Especially, in the 1950's?? Obviously, I never heard of this aircraft. Thank you. So, why wouldn't the gun's sometimes not work, during the Korean campaign?? They worked swell, in WWll.
Mig-19 video please!
03:40 MiG-1 that was not destroyed in early days of BarbaRossa was one of Pokryshkin. The greatest ace of allies in WW2.Not the plane, the pilot makes the deal.
Lesson to Soviet early jet fighter designers: "Don't create a fighter that shits where it eats, Comrades!"...😉
My friend was a pilot in the Soviet Air Force and his father flew Yak9, Mig9 and Mig15/17. The Mig 15 was the first Soviet operational jet fighter. The Mig 9 had no operational capabilities compared to the late piston fighters.
U.S. pilots regarded it as a game to cross the line and go hunt down an enemy aircraft.
Would be convenient if you had an engine failure and lose your jet to then say "oh yeah, you see i shot down this Mig and parts of it went into my engine and wrecked it up. Too bad the plane is at the bottom of the sea along with the gun camera film. But the fact that it went down just proves it really happened, see?" I would say he was a credible source regarding the Mig-9 because why would you make up a story about shooting down an inferior jet when you could get me credit for claiming a more dangerous opponent? Unless it was actually a prop fighter or trainer, or he was just that clever that he _knew_ people would buy a story easier if he could say "why would i claim a MiG-9 instead of a -15 if i was lying?"
Anyway, there are plenty of reasons a MiG-9 might be in Korea, besides them sending them as front line fighters (although an aircraft being outclassed doesn't make it useless or not dangerous, it just means that it's not effective to waste them and good pilots at a disadvantage when they probably went be able to harm the enemy. But just existing as a threat can still be a useful job). Obsolete fighters can still be useful as reconnaissance or courier planes, they are still faster than most of what's in the sky and difficult to intercept, even if they dont make a match in a straight fight. And there are always plain navigation errors. Chinese pilot got lost and strayed over the border. Or "got lost" and did the same, out of foolish optimism or adventurous spirit.
If I remember correctly the USSR was one of two nations (the other being Italy) that came out of the Spanish civil with the wrong lessons, in terms of future air combat: pure manouverabilty was king, and few but heavy, well aimed guns was all you needed. This is partly to blame for the light designs in service at the start of WWII.
I'll see your 'That was the wrong lesson to take a away' and raise you a 'What do you suppose underpinned the success of the Mitsubishi 'Zero' & KI 43 Oscars?
@@Farweasel yes, just in that case it was Japan vs China.
Idk about that, yak 1 was already in service i think when Germans attacked.
109 f4 and that are close enough where other factors than plane design will be decisive.
Also i16 is so maneuverable and small that you can't just say that it is completely bad, against German planes it's extremes can be turned to something beneficial.
@@robertkalinic335 the russians lucked out the Yak-1; Yakovlev was a specialist *_race_* aircraft builder, so everything they build was _fast_ . And the Yak-1 wasn't the 1st miltary aircraft he made, the SovAF had allready been very impresside with the Yak-4 bomber. Hence the comissining of the Yak-1.
@@robertkalinic335 on the I-18; yes it was extremely manouverable, like the Zero. But, like the Zero, the enemy quickly found the correct tactic; use speed against it. An Me-109 would just zoom in, rapid fire, and zoom away.
Remnants....the real problem
Finally the Chinese MiG - 9 used its debris to destroy the American F - 86F Sabre !
A stupid mistake of an American pilot destroyed both MiG 9 and F86F at the same time.
Kinda looks like a Saab.... 😉
flying over the Yalu into Manchuria looking for a fight was a no-no for UN pilots. now...if they were in "hot pursuit" they could cross the Yalu to get the MiG.
there are stories out there that the Sabers went across the Yalu looking for a fight with the gun camera film disappearing on return to base.
if they did...they would be going up against the best of the Soviet Union's Jocks. and...the Saber drivers knew it.
if it was going on...then it was all about the fight. mano y mano.
I was told by the Russians that the Fargo was heavily armed with cannon. Something I prefer. I think the Russians had the better guns for sure.
57mm! So the soviets had more A-10 than the A-10
Gloster Meteor came out in 1945, too late to have any real War time role. Me262 on the other hand.....
The Meteor became operational in July/August 1944 within days of the Me262. Both were initially used in the same role as home defence interceptors. The Me262 had lots of bombers to engage the Meteor had to make do with a few cruise missiles. The Meteor was also used to stand in for the Me262 as an aggressor during training for US bomber crews and escort fighter pilots. That also allowed the meteor squadrons to develop tactics for attacking bomber formations.
It was all sizzle and no steak
Steak
I'm fairly sure it wasn't just the USA in korea
True… but at least they didnt show up 3 years late like the last two wars
People keep saying this but other countries that fought in Korea weren't involved in the air that i know of which is is literally all this channel is about. Cope and seethe limey
@@xgford94the US does not have a god given obligation to the UK or Europe. I dont know why so many seem to think they're entitled to US assistance.
Whilst the US provided the bulk of the air assets, off the top of my head I can think of the RAAF with Mustangs and later Meteors, SAAF with Mustangs and F-86s, the RAF provided Sunderland flying boats and had pilots on exchange with the USAF, the RN FAA Sea Furies and Fireflies. Other countries flew observation aircraft, often borrowed from the US IIRC, one example would be Turkey. So definitely a coalition effort even in the air.
This is a good thread - thanks all. I'm in the process about making a video about the Fleet Air Arm in Korea. The composition of air wings is interesting to me as Korea hit the FAA (and to a lesser extent the US Navy) at a transitional point.
At some point I'd also like to get to 'Meteor in Korea' as that hits on the RAAF and RAF. Always happy and interested to hear topic suggestions :)
everytime I run into someone who reveals they're a military plane nerd I always shill this channel
there is nothing I hate more than revisionism from the 75 years in the future point of view. Yes it was bad there are reasons it went out very quickly. The USSR needed a Nene Engine to create a proper jet power plant. Without that the Mig-15 wouldn't have been half as deadly. I always say with aeroplanes if it looks right you've won half the battle for it actually being right and the Mig -9 just doesn't look right nor does the Yak-15
If prickly turds could fly.
Dinasty.
Mysterious? I don't think you have ever experienced any hardship where Communists we're trying to sabotage your efforts to build the next advanced jet fighter. Espionage would be equal to treason! But hey, maybe double agents could have done better. Thanks for the informative videos.
Paper sky’s disagrees 😊😂
"He won the Bendix trophy on the 29th of June..."
The
What
???
Bendix is a dominant Avionics brand. They initiated many races in the US throughout the pre and post-war period. Typically offering a coveted prize including a Trophy, cash, and publicity.
Google is omnipotent. You may query the genie at any time. But you only have but one wish.
wooooosh
Google is omnipotent. You may query the genie at any time. But you only have but one wish.
the king dynasty 🤣
1:30 "has a tremendously poot reputation in the west, some Even call it a parade fighter" *shows the thumbnail of a Ukrainian RUclipsr*
The bullshit about "purging scientists" at the start discourages further viewing. No purges, either in scientific or army circles, were as important as the underdevelopment of production and the lack of qualified labor in sufficient numbers.And this is also superimposed on the lack of literacy of the population, that is, not only the producer, but also the end user of products.
By 1920, only 3 million people in the former Russian Empire were considered fully literate. Before that, there were repeated cases of "decaying literacy": when a person went to a three-year elementary school at church parishes, and afterwards lost it's skills, because these skills were not required by this person in ordinary life. In total, before the Socialist Revolution, the Russian Empire produced about 100 thousand applicants to humanitarian and technical "gymnasiums", the analog of high school, per year.
All this forced the Soviet industry to produce primitive and crude, yet as effective as possible, solutions. And in such a situation, the developers had to learn literally from other people's experience: first copying other people's designs and trying to adapt them to the conditions of Russian production and only then trying to develop something of their own.
I looked it up.
There's no such thing as oo3.
I think he meant 003.
This dude needs to differentiate the difference between the letter o and the number 0.
Watching one too many Hollywood movies.
Sometime "Zero" is pronounced "O" in daily life as well (this pronunciation can be found in phone number, for example), so there's also that to consider
"In spoken English, the number 0 is often read as the letter "o", often spelled oh. This is especially the case when the digit occurs within a list of other digits"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_the_number_0_in_English
You can say o instead of 0 for example " o:100" time
yeah, us english speakers are always saying stuff like "look, there goes a Boeing seven zero seven!"
or who can forget the hit TV show, Nine Zero Two One Zero
@@deathsheadknight2137 Those are good shows, but my favourite us Hawaii Five Zero