MiG-17 manuevirity..

[challenge]

accoring to Air International, MIg-17 despite her primitiveness,was one most manuever aircraft,during the Vietnam air war,Fresco got far better respect than supersonic Mig-21. When USAF finally got there hand on MiG-17 in the late 60's (via israel) USAF personel discover the aircraft could even out manuever USN lightest single engine aircraft- A-4 skyhawk.
In fact One North Vietnamese MiG-17 sport 6 killed against USAF/USN aircraft.

[crobato]

Yes, the MiG-17 is an extremely maneuverable plane. One warbird collector called it "God's gift to aviation". Another described as the pinnacle of the classic dogfighter. And yes, it will turn inside a MiG-21.

However, do note that it does not necessarily have the best roll rates because of the wingspan (shorter, faster roll). Planes like the MiG-21 or the Mirage III will definitely roll faster than a Fresco, and tactics exploiting roll can be used against the MiG-17.

[Schorsch]

Originally Posted by challenge

accoring to Air International, MIg-17 despite her primitiveness,was one most manuever aircraft,during the Vietnam air war,Fresco got far better respect than supersonic Mig-21. When USAF finally got there hand on MiG-17 in the late 60's (via israel) USAF personel discover the aircraft could even out manuever USN lightest single engine aircraft- A-4 skyhawk.
In fact One North Vietnamese MiG-17 sport 6 killed against USAF/USN aircraft.

Depends highly on the speed and altitude. If a MiG-17 meets a Phantom at M0.9 and 30000ft, the MiG-17 is pretty much on the edge of its envelope and will make curves like a supertanker, as while the Phantom is quite sporty. Different thing at M0.6 and 5000-10000ft (where Vietnam era dogfights often took place). Here the Phantom (and the MiG-21) is scratching heavily on its maximum lift limit, while the MiG-17 can fly quite unrestricted.

The success of the MiG-17 is based largely on the inability of the USN/USAF fighters to use their advantages to best profit (due to restrictions and shortcomings in training and in equipment), and the Vietnamese ability to pick their engagements with care (most time the North Vietnamese airspace was empty, MiG encounters were rare). In other theatres, where the MiG-17 needed to fight to different rules, it quickly turned out to be inferior to most supersonic jets.

[Drone]

There was a great show on the History Channel called "The Dogfights of the Middle East" where they talk about this subject.
It can be found on Youtube, and I made links for that show at my site:
http://idfaf.110mb.com/Movies.html
The first part talks about a Dogfight between Mirage and MiG-17s.
Enjoy, Doron.

[swerve]

Originally Posted by Schorsch

...The success of the MiG-17 is based largely on the inability of the USN/USAF fighters to use their advantages to best profit (due to restrictions and shortcomings in training and in equipment), and the Vietnamese ability to pick their engagements with care (most time the North Vietnamese airspace was empty, MiG encounters were rare). ....

The success of the MiG-17 was, in any case, limited. It gained a reputation for success because it did much better than the US expected, not because it it had a positive exchange ratio (it didn't), or because it did better than the MiG-21 (it didn't).

When picking their engagements, the N. Vietnamese took care to use MiG-17s to intercept low-flying strike missions en route to their targets, bombed up & preferably with drop tanks. When the USAF sent a flight of F-105s with AAMs & no bombs to simulate a strike mission, & it was intercepted by MiG-17s (as hoped), the ensuing battle was heavily in the F-105s favour.

Have to give the NVAF credit, though. Overall, I'd say they played a poor hand pretty well.

[Schorsch]

Originally Posted by swerve

The success of the MiG-17 was, in any case, limited. It gained a reputation for success because it did much better than the US expected, not because it it had a positive exchange ratio (it didn't), or because it did better than the MiG-21 (it didn't).

When picking their engagements, the N. Vietnamese took care to use MiG-17s to intercept low-flying strike missions en route to their targets, bombed up & preferably with drop tanks. When the USAF sent a flight of F-105s with AAMs & no bombs to simulate a strike mission, & it was intercepted by MiG-17s (as hoped), the ensuing battle was heavily in the F-105s favour.

Have to give the NVAF credit, though. Overall, I'd say they played a poor hand pretty well.

No disagreement!
But the MiG-17 earned its name for the fights over North Vietnam, at least in this community (where, understandably, engagements with American participation get much more attention). One must admit that it was the backbone of many air forces for many years, and was produced by the thousands by the Chinese. An F-86, especially when equipped with a reheat engine, would have done equally well I guess.
As swerve pointed out, a MiG-17 is always in disadvantage when the supersonic fighter uses its trumph cards correctly.

[Entropy]

The is an article in "another" avaition mag this month about the US testing MiGs, Constant Peg, Red Hatters etc. Anyway, the article states that American pilots were incredbily impressed with the turning rate of the -17, and in particlaur were impressed with the design of the wing. One pilot/engineer (cant remember which) called it "a damn near perfect wing." I'll see if i can find out more when i go back to the bookstore tonite.

[Sens]

Just some data from OKB MiG. No height and speed given!
MiG-17F inst. 19°-21° and sust. 12°-14°
MiG-21F13 inst. 22°-24° and sust. 10°-12°
MiG-19S inst. 19°-21° and sust. 12°-14°

[crobato]

The is an article in "another" avaition mag this month about the US testing MiGs, Constant Peg, Red Hatters etc. Anyway, the article states that American pilots were incredbily impressed with the turning rate of the -17, and in particlaur were impressed with the design of the wing. One pilot/engineer (cant remember which) called it "a damn near perfect wing." I'll see if i can find out more when i go back to the bookstore tonite.

The wing is designed with its compound sweep, which pointed to the future direction of sweep wing designs, with different geometries in the inner and outer part of the wing.

Depends highly on the speed and altitude. If a MiG-17 meets a Phantom at M0.9 and 30000ft, the MiG-17 is pretty much on the edge of its envelope and will make curves like a supertanker, as while the Phantom is quite sporty. Different thing at M0.6 and 5000-10000ft (where Vietnam era dogfights often took place). Here the Phantom (and the MiG-21) is scratching heavily on its maximum lift limit, while the MiG-17 can fly quite unrestricted

The real failure of the MiG-17 design is the use of the T-tail. Maybe I should have mentioned it also in the Starfighter thread, but T tails generally don't give good authority at high speed. I think that affects the Starfighter (never renowned for its maneuverbility) as much as the MiG-17 when the speed reaches to a certain point. If you look at the planform you will see the elevators are rather tiny compared to later MiGs for example.

So while the plane turns excellently at slow speeds, it becomes a slug at higher speeds, thanks to the tail plane. The fact that the long wingspan impedes on the rate of roll adds to the problem.

This leads to the introduction of all moving tailplanes in the next design, the MiG-19. The MiG-17 itself corrects on the MiG-15 by adding hydraulic controls, afterburner, and radar ranging gunsights.

Here is something some people wasn't really aware of.

There is no "original" Russian made double seater MiG-17 at all. There was never a two seater MiG-17; the Soviet Union deemed the MiG-15UTI to be adequete.

All the two seater MiG-17s ever built, the so called "MiG-17UTI" were actually Chinese JJ-5s, presenting the first ever case of the Chinese seriously modifying a Russian design for their own purposes.

was produced by the thousands by the Chinese

True J-5s were never built in China by the thousands. More like hundreds. Ironically, more JJ-5s (at least over a thousand) were built than the single seater J-5s. Many of these were imported into the United States as warbird collectors and for evaluation testing.

Looking at recent pictures of PLAAF flight academies, it appears that the JJ-5s are still there in operational status and meticulously maintained.

[Buddha]

Any one have images of Vietnamese MiG-17 with AA-2 missiles?

[savage-rabbit]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Any one have images of Vietnamese MiG-17 with AA-2 missiles?

I don't think NVAF Mig-17s carried any K-13 missiles. At least I have never seen any photos of one. The K-13 was definitely carried by the MiG-21 and reportedly also by some Chinese supplied F-6 fighters. I have never seen a photo of a missile carrying F-6 or MiG-17/F-5 taken during the Vietnam War. If there are any I'd like to see some. There were variants of the MiG-17 capable of carrying the K-13, Cuba had some IIRC.

[Buddha]

Here is the reference on the K-13 armed MiG-17F:

10 May 1966, three North Vietnamese MiG-17s attack a SAR packet of two A-1Es Skyraiders and a HH-3C Jolly Green helicopter with two AA-2 Atolls IR missiles, near Yen Bai, about 85 miles northeast of Hanoi. One missile was fired at the HH-3 and one was fired at the Skyraiders, both missiles failed to track all the way to their intended targets. MiG driver must have been out of the Atoll’s envelope. Description: CPT Robert D. Furman, pilot of an HH-3, performed the deepest successful rescue into North Vietnam, to date, when he rescued a downed F-105 pilot, CPT Martin H. Mahot, 80 miles northwest of Hanoi (“MiGs Miss First Shots With Air-Air Missiles”, The Washington Post, May 12, 1966, p. A1 (NC); “Mekong Arms Ship destroyed”, The Times (London), May 12, 1966, p. 1 (NC); Neil Sheehan, “MiG’s Fire First Missiles, But They Miss U.S. Planes”, The New York Times, May 12, 1966, pp. A1 & A17; “Vietnam Communique”, Air Force Times, May 25, 1966, Vol. XXVI, No. 41, p. 4; “World Affairs”, “Vietnamese War”, Facts On File, Vol. XXVI, No. 1341, July 7-13, 1966, p. 249; “World Affairs”, “Vietnamese War”, Facts On File, Vol. XXVI, No. 1333, May 12-18, 1966, p. 169; “Industry Observer”, Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 20, 1966, p. 23; Jack Foisie, “Air, Navy Units Destroy Ship With Red Arms”, The Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1966, pp. A1 & A11; “MiGs Fire Missiles”, Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 16, 1966, p. 37).

[savage-rabbit]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Here is the reference on the K-13 armed MiG-17F:

10 May 1966, three North Vietnamese MiG-17s attack a SAR packet of two A-1Es Skyraiders and a HH-3C Jolly Green helicopter with two AA-2 Atolls IR missiles, near Yen Bai, about 85 miles northeast of Hanoi. One missile was fired at the HH-3 and one was fired at the Skyraiders, both missiles failed to track all the way to their intended targets. MiG driver must have been out of the Atoll’s envelope. Description: CPT Robert D. Furman, pilot of an HH-3, performed the deepest successful rescue into North Vietnam, to date, when he rescued a downed F-105 pilot, CPT Martin H. Mahot, 80 miles northwest of Hanoi (“MiGs Miss First Shots With Air-Air Missiles”, The Washington Post, May 12, 1966, p. A1 (NC); “Mekong Arms Ship destroyed”, The Times (London), May 12, 1966, p. 1 (NC); Neil Sheehan, “MiG’s Fire First Missiles, But They Miss U.S. Planes”, The New York Times, May 12, 1966, pp. A1 & A17; “Vietnam Communique”, Air Force Times, May 25, 1966, Vol. XXVI, No. 41, p. 4; “World Affairs”, “Vietnamese War”, Facts On File, Vol. XXVI, No. 1341, July 7-13, 1966, p. 249; “World Affairs”, “Vietnamese War”, Facts On File, Vol. XXVI, No. 1333, May 12-18, 1966, p. 169; “Industry Observer”, Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 20, 1966, p. 23; Jack Foisie, “Air, Navy Units Destroy Ship With Red Arms”, The Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1966, pp. A1 & A11; “MiGs Fire Missiles”, Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 16, 1966, p. 37).

That sounds interesting but I have learned take eyewitness accounts with a grain of salt. Especially if the sightings took place at high speeds while the eyewitness was being shot at. If it was really common practice to arm NVAF MiG-17/F-5 fighters with K-13 missiles then I would expect MiG-17/F-5 fighters packing K-13 missiles or at least K-13 pylons to feature very, very prominently in wartime NVAF photographs. They don't, at least not in the material that is available to me. That doesn't mean that NVAF MiG-17/F-5 fighters never carried the K-13. The NVAF converted several of it's MiG-17/F-5 to carry bombs and rocket pods so it's not unthinkable that they also upgraded some to carry the K-13 which wasn't a particularly complex thing to do and the Vietnamese are resourceful people. In addition the NVAF may have recieved limited numbers of MiG-17 aircraft from the Soviets or Eastern European countries that had this capability already installed on delivery but these aircraft would have been comparatively few judgnign from available photographic material.

[Kaduna2003]

Anyone got the max G ratings (inst and sustained) for the following birds:

Mig 15
F-86
Mig 17
Mig 19


Ive heard reports that the 17 could pull up to 8Gs but nothing confirmed.

[martinez]

Originally Posted by crobato

The real failure of the MiG-17 design is the use of the T-tail. ......I think that affects the Starfighter (never renowned for its maneuverbility) as much as the MiG-17 when the speed reaches to a certain point.

Ohhh, that is poorly understood. Definitely not a problem of the T-tail, actually the T-tail improved the authority over the standart layout when stabilizers were in the wake of the main wing. The problem were non all-movable horizontal tails, which were loosing effectiveness due to compressibility effects at Mach1. AFAIK they fixed that problem with late production series of the supersonic Mig-19 using all moveable stabilizers.

Originally Posted by crobato

So while the plane turns excellently at slow speeds, it becomes a slug at higher speeds, thanks to the tail plane. The fact that the long wingspan impedes on the rate of roll adds to the problem..

Again, not only due to the T-tail, but mostly because of non-supersonic "thick" wing profile, on the other side having far,far,far better Lif to Drag ratio than all nowadays military aircrafts. Simply the drag would build up and ailerons gone un-effective.

Originally Posted by crobato

Here is something some people wasn't really aware of. There is no "original" Russian made double seater MiG-17 at all. There was never a two seater MiG-17; the Soviet Union deemed the MiG-15UTI to be adequete.

That is correct, but the most substantial change between the Mig-15 and Mig-17 was the increase of wing sweep. Basically the Mig-17 had identical airframe with the Mig-15. Why build another doubleseater version, where is the logic?

Originally Posted by Schorsch

As swerve pointed out, a MiG-17 is always in disadvantage when the supersonic fighter uses its trumph cards correctly.

A typical statement.... When I say the Mig-17 is always in advantage when using its subsonic triumph cards correctly, would you agree?

Originally Posted by Schorsch

The success of the MiG-17 is based largely on the inability of the USN/USAF fighters to use their advantages to best profit (due to restrictions and shortcomings in training and in equipment).

Very nicely put, I hope you applied the same to the success of all Israeli fighters in wars against Arabs.

[Entropy]

I reread the article today it said (paraphrasing) "We were amazed by the manuevablity of the bananna shapded -17 wing. We could not believe Mikoyan could design such a perfect wing. It was like a boomerang. If it got behind you ti was liek trying to shake gum off your shoe. It made the A-4 laughable."

[MadRat]

Drone's links show how Mirages used brute power to overcome their agility. Its a good lesson in tactical progression.

[crobato]

Originally Posted by martinez

Ohhh, that is poorly understood. Definitely not a problem of the T-tail, actually the T-tail improved the authority over the standart layout when stabilizers were in the wake of the main wing. The problem were non all-movable horizontal tails, which were loosing effectiveness due to compressibility effects at Mach1. AFAIK they fixed that problem with late production series of the supersonic Mig-19 using all moveable stabilizers.

I should have mentioned that the T-tails were not all movable, and plus the fact they're really small.

Again, not only due to the T-tail, but mostly because of non-supersonic "thick" wing profile, on the other side having far,far,far better Lif to Drag ratio than all nowadays military aircrafts. Simply the drag would build up and ailerons gone un-effective.

Noted. Excellent observation.

That is correct, but the most substantial change between the Mig-15 and Mig-17 was the increase of wing sweep.

The change is not just the sweep but the geometry, which is now compound, where inner wing has a more acute sweep than the outer. Starting to foreshadow our modern concept of aerodynamics.

Basically the Mig-17 had identical airframe with the Mig-15. Why build another doubleseater version, where is the logic?

The Russians also didn't build a double seater version of the MiG-19, and that's a totally different airframe, with significantly different aerodynamics and power levels than the MiG-17. So where is the logic in that? So called "MiG-19UT" are really all Chinese JJ-6s.

[Schorsch]

Originally Posted by martinez

That is correct, but the most substantial change between the Mig-15 and Mig-17 was the increase of wing sweep. Basically the Mig-17 had identical airframe with the Mig-15. Why build another doubleseater version, where is the logic?

It is interesting to note that the MiG-17 really made a step into being a transonic fighter, while F-86 and MiG-15 were subsonic.

Originally Posted by martinez

A typical statement.... When I say the Mig-17 is always in advantage when using its subsonic triumph cards correctly, would you agree?

Actually, yes. Just that the supersnoc fighter often has the option to leave the engagement, especially if his opponent is not equipped with missiles.

Originally Posted by martinez

Very nicely put, I hope you applied the same to the success of all Israeli fighters in wars against Arabs.

Basically yes, but I think the technology gap in the Israel-Arab conflicts 1967 to 1973 was smaller than it was in Vietnam.

[Sens]

Originally Posted by crobato

I should have mentioned that the T-tails were not all movable, and plus the fact they're really small.



Noted. Excellent observation.



The change is not just the sweep but the geometry, which is now compound, where inner wing has a more acute sweep than the outer. Starting to foreshadow our modern concept of aerodynamics.



The Russians also didn't build a double seater version of the MiG-19, and that's a totally different airframe, with significantly different aerodynamics and power levels than the MiG-17. So where is the logic in that? So called "MiG-19UT" are really all Chinese JJ-6s.

No MiG-21U for China in the 60s, so they have to do the JJ-6.
The MiG-19 was a interim fighter in Russia, when it was not so in China.
Now they have JJ-7 or MiG-21Us.

[PLA-MKII]

from lycos

[Sens]

Originally Posted by Schorsch

It is interesting to note that the MiG-17 really made a step into being a transonic fighter, while F-86 and MiG-15 were subsonic.


Actually, yes. Just that the supersnoc fighter often has the option to leave the engagement, especially if his opponent is not equipped with missiles.


Basically yes, but I think the technology gap in the Israel-Arab conflicts 1967 to 1973 was smaller than it was in Vietnam.

Max dive speed for the MiG-17, F-86 and Mystere IV A were between Mach 1,05 till 1,2. The MiG-17 started with 1,05 and was freed up to Mach 1,15 to cope with the mentioned Western fighters.
The MiG-15bis was a true subsonic design and unable to pass Mach 1 in a dive.
In 1967 the Arabs enjoyed some technology advantages.
The MiG-15bis surpassed the Ouragan by a good margin.
The MiG-17F enjoyed advantages in the subsonic range against the Mystere IVA.
The MiG-19 surpassed the Super Mystere B2.
The MiG-21 enjoyed advantages in agility in some areas against the Mirage IIIC, when Mirage IIIC does in some others.

[TinWing]

The MiG-17 really wasn't very maneuverable at high speed. Why? The control forces were apparently too high - especially for North Vietnamese pilots who were smaller in stature and weaker than their Russian instructors. American test pilots would apparently bend the control sticks of MiG-17s during high speed maneuvers.

Despite all of the uninformed propaganda, the MiG-17 was probably inferior to the Grumman Cougar, or even the early, and highly flawed, models of the Hawker Hunter.

The sad irony is that the A-4 Skyhawks used to simulate the MiG-17 in aggressor training were far more capable aircraft than the MiG they were meant to represent.

[TinWing]

Originally Posted by Sens

Max dive speed for the MiG-17, F-86 and Mystere IV A were between Mach 1,05 till 1,2. The MiG-17 started with 1,05 and was freed up to Mach 1,15 to cope with the mentioned Western fighters.
The MiG-15bis was a true subsonic design and unable to pass Mach 1 in a dive.
In 1967 the Arabs enjoyed some technology advantages.
The MiG-15bis surpassed the Ouragan by a good margin.
The MiG-17F enjoyed advantages in the subsonic range against the Mystere IVA.
The MiG-19 surpassed the Super Mystere B2.
The MiG-21 enjoyed advantages in agility in some areas against the Mirage IIIC, when Mirage IIIC does in some others.

The Israeli didn't enjoy a significant technology edge in the 1967 war. They did employ superior tactics, and Israeli pilots were better trained and motivated than their counterparts.

It could be argued that Israel enjoyed a definitive technological advantage by the time of the so-called "War of Attrition." Of course, results were also misleading in that conflict because of the human element. Soviet pilots knew that the Egyptians weren't true believers in communism, and that they weren't fighting for either their country of ideology. If they died over Egypt, they died over nothing. The Soviet had directly intervened to demonstrate that Egyptian pilots weren't properly employing their Soviet training and doctrine, and the Egyptians were very much inclined to see the Soviets fail, rather than admit the failings of their own leadership.

It isn't hard to understand that Russian MiG-21 pilots flew with less determination over the Suez canal than they would have over Eastern Europe.

[martinez]

Originally Posted by crobato

The Russians also didn't build a double seater version of the MiG-19, and that's a totally different airframe, with significantly different aerodynamics and power levels than the MiG-17. So where is the logic in that? So called "MiG-19UT" are really all Chinese JJ-6s.

No, No, there is a logic too. Soviets built the prototype Mig-19UTI in late fifties, but due to the fact that the Mig-21 arrived very quickly the double-seaters Mig-19UTI were not produced at all. As Sens already pointed out, the Mig-19 was an interim aircraft in the Soviet military aviation, the progress was indeed unstoppable whereas Chinese were not able to design a new aircraft, they`ve stuck with the old soviet tech.
Many Mig-19 prototypes have been developed to verify new principles and solutions, the aircraft type literally worked in favour of the Mig-21. Also true is that the double seater Mig-21 came very late....pilots trained with Mig-15UTI, before they changed to Mig-21F13.

[martinez]

Originally Posted by TinWing

The MiG-17 really wasn't very maneuverable at high speed. Why? The control forces were apparently too high - especially for North Vietnamese pilots who were smaller in stature and weaker than their Russian instructors. American test pilots would apparently bend the control sticks of MiG-17s during high speed maneuvers.

That is BS buddy, the Mig-17 had hydraulic actuator BU-1U(M) reducing the control force in the roll and pitch channel of the aircraft. AFAIK the Vietnamese versions had only special mounted pedals, bcs Vietnamese pilots were shorter in stature.
The Mig-17 had also a "speed limiter". At speed M0.97 the aerodynamics brakes were released automatically and at M0.92 closed.

[Schorsch]

Originally Posted by martinez

The Mig-17 had also a "speed limiter". At speed M0.97 the aerodynamics brakes were released automatically and at M0.92 closed.

Interesting feature. Envelope protection. Does Airbus pay license fees to MiG?

[PhantomII]

A short low-quality clip I took of a MiG-17 at the Tyndall AFB air show a few months back. It was the first time I'd ever seen a MiG-17, and man it put on a great show!

http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...MiG-17Clip.flv

[Modly]

What is subtype of this Mig-17?



Thanks

[Sens]

Originally Posted by Kaduna2003

Anyone got the max G ratings (inst and sustained) for the following birds:

Mig 15
F-86
Mig 17
Mig 19


Ive heard reports that the 17 could pull up to 8Gs but nothing confirmed.

What do you mean? You can pull as much till the fighter brokes.
By an 8 G design limit, you still have ~50 % safety margin, which gives a "redline" of ~12 Gs. If it is a brief peak-value for around a second, even that can be passed before the pilot faded out or the aircraft break-up. A similar load for several seconds will see the pilot to pass-out and the aircraft damaged beyond repair. By pulling Gs you can kill yourself very easily, because you are in an constantant danger in loosing controlibility, by stalling your aircraft. The sudden loss of that may break your neck or pass you away.
For a minimum of SA=situation awarness (grey-out starts above 5 Gs) you do avoid G-forces behind 7 Gs, whenever possible.
All the fighters given by you had a design limit of 8 Gs in general.