Jet versus Jet: The ultimate matchup of the F-86 and MIG-15 Korean War fighters. Who wins?

Question

In the Korean War, USAF pilots in magnificent F-86 Sabres racked up an impressive 26-1 kill ratio against North Korean and Chinese (and a few Russian) fighter pilots in the fabulous Russian MIG-15.

Most military aviation experts would rate the F-86 as the better all-around fighter, but the MIG definitely had some strong points: better high altitude performance, faster climb, a cannon instead of machine guns.

In Korea the MIGs could fight closer to home than the Sabres, but better USAF pilots managed their fuel and still managed a high kill rate in MIG Alley.

Strip away the obvious advantages. Both fighters are based close to the combat area. Pilots are about equal capability. Weather is good.

Kick the tires, light the fires, and may the best jock win!!

Just who might that be?

Reci, I respect your view, but that isn't what I asked. Certainly you are welcome to post your answer, but I hope you weren't planning on more than two points--'cause that's all you're getting.

Some comparisons are in order. The North American Aviation F-86 was somewhat based on the highly successful P-51 prop-driven fighter--intended to keep many of the Mustang's strong characteristics. It had better range than the MIG-15, but lacked the MIG's abilities to land on grass airfields. The F-86 was a somewhat better performer at lower altitudes. It was NOT a copy of the MIG-15. The F-86 was developed from a carrier-based Navy fighter called the FJ Fury, which was originally a straight-wing design, but later evolved into a swept-wing design similar in appearance to the F-86.

The MIG was lighter and smaller. The Russians designed it to be comparatively expendable, therefore it was cheaper and not designed for a long service life. The Russian philosophy was to build a lot of aircraft, store most of them and then send them to satellite or client states as they aged.

The F-86 and MIG-15 were somewhat similar in appearance, but were very different aircraft.

There is a story--which I believe to be true--that legendary test pilot and fighter ace Chuck Yeager flew the MIG-15 against the F-86 in mock combat and won.

Then he traded places with the other pilot and flew the F-86 against the MIG-15, and won. Yeager knew how to exploit the best characteristics of both aircraft, and both had a lot of best characteristics.

Both were great fighters. Incidentally, the F-86 first flight was in 1947.

F-100 Super Sabre more closely compares to the MIG-17. F-100 first flight was in 1954, after the Korean War had ended. MIG-17, with two engines, would have easily bested the F-100 in combat had the two ever met. It held its own against F-105s and F-4's in Vietnam.

One important asset that American jets had in Korea was external fuel tanks, which gave them considerably more range. We quickly learned that jets are fuel hogs, so external tanks--which had solved the problem of extending the range of World War II escort fighters--were quickly added.

I'm not sure if the MIG was ever given external tanks, but since they fought relatively close to home they didn't need them.

A tactic used by some MIG pilots with some success was to challenge the F-86s early enough in flight to force them to jettison fuel tanks that were full or nearly full. This forced the USAF pilots to break off combat early to make it home.

This tactic had also been used by the Luftwaffe against American escort fighters. It worked. Both times.

The lesson: The best piece of gear in any fighter is a smart pilot.

Answer 1

This has always been a nice area to ponder.
The MIG 15(Named for the Mikoyan-Gurevich Aircraft Co and nicknamed "*****" by NATO) was based on a German WW2 jet fighter design (Kurt Tank's TA-183), but larger in size. At the onset of the Korean conflict, it totally outclassed any Allied aircraft that if came across. This is due mostly to the fact that the Allied aircraft at the start were prop driven WW2 planes (like the Mustang and Corsair) and were no match to the faster, more nimble M15.

A side by side comparison is needed to fully look at these two planes. Important factors of a plane to consider are: 1) power 2) climb/dive rates 3)weapons

Both jets had powerful engines for their frames, the MIG having a slight edge in the power area. The Mig used a Klimov VK-1A (which was a reverse engineered Rolls Royce Nene engine given to Russia from Britian) which gave the smaller fighter 5, 950 lbs of thrust. The F86 had a GE jet turbine that gave the larger plane 5,200 lbs of thrust. This translated to a top speed for the MIG of 668 mph versus the Sabre which was 685 mph. Both planes had similar ranges, around 1,200 miles.

Due to the designs, the MIG far outweighed the Sabre in rates of climb (9,840 feet min vs. 7,250 for the Sabre). Rate of climb is very important for fighters as the pilot that is above has a greater advantage over the ones below. A serious drawback to the MIG was is lack of diving ability, it would very often cause the plane to lose control in steep dives or turns. Airbrakes were added to the MIG to aid in slowing the plane down in dives or in turns, but if a trained pilot was on a MIGs tail, he could easily overcome the slight drop in speed.

The MIG had more powerful weapons by far, however powerful weapons are not always a good thing. The MIG was armed with 2x23mm NR-23KM cannons (80 rnds each cannon) and one 37mm NL-37D cannon with 40 rounds. The orignial purpose of the MIG was not to shoot down fighters, but be an interceptor and shoot down larger bombers. Against the large targets, the MIG's firepower was deadly, however it almost proved to much against smaller fighters. The cannons had a much slower rate of fire than the 6 .50 cal machine guns the F86 had and the cannons each had different trajectories for the rounds. Many times Allied pilots would claim that they would be straddled with 23mm cannons above and the 37mm below. The Sabres main weapons were its dependable .50 cal machine guns (in use today, designed back in WW1) which could not only fire faster than the MIG's weapons, but had a convergance point of 1,000 feet ahead of the plane. Another advantage the Sabre had was its tracers. Every tracer (on average every 5th round) was coated with a magnesium tip that would burn in the air, showing the pilots where the rounds were heading and landing. The magnesium would burn and when it struck parts of the MIG's engine, would cause the highly flammable jet fuel to erupt into flames. The most important advantage the Sabre pilots had was its gun sight equipment. Orignally the Sabres had a manual range computing sight, but with the advent of radar, this was changed to a radar ranging gunsight, which far outclassed anything the MIG could hope to offer.

Equipment aside, it is truly the pilots that make up the plane. Allied pilots were mostly WW2 veterans and could pull from combat experience. The MIG was piloted by Chinese, North Korean and Soviet pilots. The Soviets had combat experience and contrary to American belief, were better trained at the start of the Korean War. The Soviets didnt have a draw down of military forces like the US did after WW2, they continued to build and expand their armies, navies and air forces. As the war continued on, the North Koreans and Chinese began to have a more acute role in flying, as the Soviets began to pull some of their pilots out due to political pressure. Chuck Yeagar, (famous fighter pilot/test pilot) flew both the Sabre and the MIG (a captured plane) in a mock dogfight while stateside. He won with the MIG. He then flew the Sabre and won with that plane. Simply put, the machine may be good, but if the pilot can extort the weaknesses of the other plane, then he will win.

My vote...the Sabre. Even if its record of 10-1 (as per USAF records) is in question, it still outperformed, outmaneuvered and accounted for more MIG kills during the entire conflict.

Answer 2

Given what you said about everything being even. The Mig-15 would win out and here is why I believe that. Our pilots tactics and training. Lets take the Pilots and switch them out. Put our Pilots in the Migs and the Korean, Chinese, and Soviet Pilots in the F-86. Now the US Pilots win again, but perform better because of the superior aircraft they are flying.

Answer 3

F 86 Vs Mig 15

Answer 4

Greetings. note that the MiG 15 was what the North Koreans started with. the American plane was the shooting star that was cold meat against a MiG. the Sabre, take a look at it, you are looking at a copy of the MiG that has been upgraded. So you are comparing hardware that was available at the beginning of the conflict there to hardware that was not available till much later. that is not a very fair way to compare weapons. In general Russian planes are better engineered, but more crudely built. the pilots are not as good either because of the tight party control that does not allow them to fight as individuals. And I seem to get the idea that the sabers did not do so well against the MiG, so the Super Saber was introduced that did the decimation of the MiG 15s there back then.

Answer 5

IF the pilots are equally experienced, the MIG would win by all accounts, but the pilot quality was THE main reason the kill ratio was so lop sided.

Even if you took two newbies from both sides and put them in a dogfight, the F-86 pilot's training was already better than his Communist counterpart. To get pilots of equal experience, you'd just about have to have two AF pilots in those planes or two Communists in them trained by the same guy almost.

Disclaimer: I hate to fly anyway.

Answer 6

The kill ratio spells it out. The F-86 could exploit the weaknesses of the MIG-15 better than the MIG could exploit those of the Sabre.

Answer 7

The F-86 wins because it also depends on the man who is flying the plane. US Military pilots are better trained.

Answer 8

First, we shouldn't minimize the heroic military service of John McCain. He served honorably and made great sacrifices for our nation. But... Those things make McCain a great American, but do not qualify him to be President any more than the bigotry that Obama has experienced qualifies him to be President. And many men and women have sacrificed just as much, and more, than McCain has, and many of them are Obama supporters. So sacrificing for one's country does not mean that a person knows how to win a war.

Answer 9

I would say the us built f-86 would be the best aircraft but i does depend upon the pilot and how well he is trained

Answer 10

nobody wins, the cruelty of war wins which is the real sorrow of war