MIKoyan-Gurevich MiG·15 The Soviet Union's Long-lived Korean War Fighter
Yefim Gordon
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-iS The Sov...
485 downloads
2193 Views
137MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
MIKoyan-Gurevich MiG·15 The Soviet Union's Long-lived Korean War Fighter
Yefim Gordon
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-iS The Soviet Union's Long-lived Korean War Fighter
Yefim Gordon
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15: The Soviet Union's Long-lived Korean War Fighter © 2001 Yefim Gordon ISBN 1 85780 105 9
Contents Introduction
3
Chapters Published by Midland Publishing 4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, LE10 3EY, England Tel: 01455254490 Fax: 01455254495 E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com
1 The 'MiG Menace' is Born
7
2
The Aluminium Rabbit: MiG-15 Version Briefing
12
Foreign Production
47
Design concept and layout
3
Midland Publishing is an imprint of Ian Allan Publishing Ltd
© 2001 Midland Publishing and
4 The MiG-15 in Action or The Aluminium Rabbit Goes to War. 54
Worldwide distribution (except North America): Midland Counties Publications 4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, LE10 3EY, England Telephone: 01455254450 Fax: 01455233737 E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com www.midlandcountiessuperstore.com
Printed in England by Ian Allan Printing Ltd Riverdene Business Park, Molesey Road, Hersham, Surrey, KT12 4RG
North American trade distribution: Specialty Press Publishers & Wholesalers Inc. 11605 Kost Dam Road, North Branch, MN 55056 Tel: 651 5833239 Fax: 651 5832023 Toll free telephone: 8008954585
Title page: The ST-1 during State acceptance trials. See page 41. Below: A pair of Polish Air Force SBLim-2As at dispersal. 6010 Red is in the foreground; note the ubiquitous Antonov An-2 to the rear. Both Yefim Gordon
2
MiG-15
Stephen Thompson Associates
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photo-copied, recorded or otherwise, without the written permission of the publishers.
5 MiG-15 Operators Worldwide 6 The MiG-15bis in Detail
79 114
7 Production Totals and Family Specification tables ..... 118 End notes
125
Appendices 1
MiG-15 Family Drawings
127
2
MiG-15 in Colour
145
Introduction The Second World War brought about major changes in aircraft design. The piston engine had reached the limit of its development potential; a new aircraft powerplant was required. Hence the first experimental jet engines of the prewar period quickly paved the way for prototype and production jet-powered combat aircraft. The Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe (Swallow)/Sturmvogel (Storm Petrel), the Arado Ar 234 Blitz (Lightning) and the Gloster Meteor became the first jets to see actual combat. Thus, progress that might have taken decades was crammed into just a few years. In the postwar years, achievements in aerodynamics, engine design and manufacturing technologies led to the development of sweptwing jet aircraft. Predictably, the first of these were fighters. The first-generation jet fighters which entered service in 1945-1952 featured swept or thin straight wings and were capable of near-sonic speeds of 900 to 1,200km/h (486 to 648kts). The most successful and popular of these are the Mikoyan/Gurevich MiG-15 and the North American F-86 Sabre. Both flew for the first time in 1947, went through similar development stages and served operationally in their own countries and those of allies. Though differing somewhat in configuration, avionics, equipment and armament, the F-86 and MiG-15 were more or less equivalent in flight performance. When flown by equally skilled and experienced pilots, the two aircraft were quite a match for each other. The MiG-15 was to have a long service career. It was built in huge numbers both in and outside the Soviet Union, evolving into many versions, and paved the way for Soviet fighter design for the next decade. Many are active even now, albeit mostly as privately-owned warbirds; in passing, it should be noted that the MiG-15 has undoubtedly earned the warbird title! As a result of the Cold War and all its implications, for decades Soviet aircraft have been developed in total secrecy. For this reason, myths have taken hold concerning the creation of the MiG-15 which need to be put to rest. Myth number one: the MiG-15 was not a new aircraft but a major rework of the projected Focke-WulfTa183 developed by Kurt Tank. Myth number two, which arose as a consequence of the first: Soviet aircraft designers were incapable of producing something worthwhile and the MiG-15 would never have appeared without the use of captured German research data and 'captive brains'. However,
the use of captured materials in advanced technology development was not an unusual practice, and the USSR was not alone in doing this. The United States, Great Britain, and other nations made good use of German projects after the war. By the end of the Second World War the Soviet aircraft industry was fUlly capable of developing and producing jet aircraft on its own. Indisputably, the USSR could have quickly created powerful turbojets and transonic fighters without resorting to captured research, but, given the pressures of the incipient Cold War, Soviet engineers had very little time to produce an 'answer to the West' - months, sometimes literally days. Under the regime of losif V Stalin, failure to meet the objective could mean prompt execution. This is why Soviet engineers sometimes preferred to play safe by using 'imported' technologies. The capabilities of the MiG-15 were derived from what Russians called three 'whales', or ground rules: a turbojet rated at over 2,000kgp (4,409Ibst), a new configuration with swept wing and empennage, and new pilot survival aids, including an ejection seat. These, together with heavy armament and ease of manufacture and operation, turned the MiG-15 into a superb technical product. Engine development Turbojet development in the USSR dated back to the early 1920s. In 1923 V Bazarov received a patent for the world's first turboprop engine layout. Three years later a special gas turbine engine research group led by Nikolay Romanovich Brilling was organized at the Scientific Automobile and Engine Institute (NAMINaoochnyy avtomotornyy institoot) in Moscow; the main focus of this group was the turboprop engine. After 1930, the group was headed by V Oovarov, a famous scientist and engineer in the field of turbine engine design. In 1936 NAM I developed the 1,150eshp GTU-3 turboprop for Andrey Nikolayevich Tupolev's TB-3 bomber. Two prototype engines were built and tested in 1938-40, but the TB-3 flew with piston engines only. The next step in Soviet jet engine development came when Arkhip Mikhailovich Lyul'ka designed the RD-1 turbojet (reaktivnyy dveegate!' - jet engine) at the Khar'kov Aviation Institute. This first Soviet turbojet was rated at 500kgp (1,1 02Ibst); development was 75% complete when the Great Patriotic War began on 22nd June 1941. The Oovarov group at
NAMI also designed an engine rated at 2,000kgp (4,409Ibst). The war with Germany caused turbojet development in the USSR to be put on hold. The work resumed only in 1944 when the outcome of the war could be foreseen and it appeared possible to spare some efforts for the development of new advanced engines. A M Lyul'ka continued his work on turbojet design, which resulted in the 1,300kgp (2,866Ibst) TR-1 (toorboreaktivnyy [dveegate!'] - turbojet) powering the experimental Ilyushin IL-22 fourengine bomber of 1947. Shortly afterwards the design bureau led by Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Mikulin also started work on a similar engine. By then, however, jet engines and aircraft were in production in the West. The USSR risked falling far behind. To save time, the Soviet government chose the only realistic option to launch production of German axial-flow turbojets: the 900kgp (1 ,984Ibst) Junkers Jumo 004 Orkan (Hurricane) and the 800kgp (1,763Ibst) BMW 003 Sturm (Storm). The reverse-engineered versions were designated RD-10 and RD-20 respectively. These turbojets (and the Yakovlev Yak-15 and Mikoyan/Gurevich MiG-9 fighters they powered) gave the Soviet aircraft industry its first taste of jet technology. At the same time, it was decided to buy the most advanced Western turbojets with centrifugal-flow compressors - the Rolls-Royce Nene and RR Derwent - and build them under licence in the USSR. Soviet engine designers needed two to three more years for prototype and full-scale development of newer, more powerful axial-flow turbojets. This time was used effectively: several turbojets with thrust ratings from 3,000kgp to 9,000kgp (6,613 to 19,841 Ibst) entered production in the early 1950s. All were based on indigenous Soviet prototypes. In 1946 the Soviet Minister of Aircraft Industry Mikhail V Khroonichev and aircraft designer Aleksandr Sergeyevich Yakovlev approached Stalin, reporting their intention to buy state-ofthe-art British Nene and Derwent turbojets. 'Uncle Joe' reacted with typical spontaneity: 'What fool will sell us his secrets?' However, Soviet-Western relations were still cordial at the time, and Stalin's 'fools' abounded at RollsRoyce and in the British Labour Government. Hence, aircraft designer Artyom Ivanovich Mikoyan, engine designerVladimirYakovlevich Klimov and metallurgical engineer S Kishkin were sentto England to negotiate acquisition of MiG-15
3
the turbojets. They purchased 30 Derwent V and 25 Nene 1/11 engines which were carefully studied at the Central Institute of Aero Engines (TsIAM - Tsentrahl'nw institoot aviatseeonnovo motorostroyeniya). Both types were tested on a Tupolev converted into the Tu-2LL engine testbed, 1 a converted Tu-2 Bat twin-engine bomber operated by the Flight Test Institute (L11 - Lyotno-ispytahtel'nw institoot) in Zhukovskiy near Moscow! Later the Nene-1 powered the Tu-72 and Tu-73 bomber prototypes which evolved into the well-known Tu-14 Bosun. The Derwent-5 was considered a fighter engine and used for projects developed by the design bureaux under AS Yakovlev and Semyon Alekseyevich Lavochkin. Concurrently, licence production of the British turbojets began in Moscow. The Derwent V was manufactured under the local designation RD-500, while the Nene I and Nene II became the RD-45 and RD-45F respectively.' The numbers 500 and 45 were the numbers of the engine plants producing the respective models (plant No 500 was located in the Tushino district not far from the well-known airfield). Vladimir Ya Klimov was head of production and was also busy modernizing and further developing these turbojets. Soviet fighters powered by the 1,590kgp (3,505Ibst) RD-500, such as the Yak-23 Flora, Yak-30' and Lavochkin La-15 Fantail, made their maiden flights in 1947-48. The heavier RD-45 was intended for the Tu-14 and IL-28 Beagle tactical bombers. In choosing the RD-45 for its new fighter, the Mikoyan/Gurevich design bureau, aka OKB1555 or MMZ· 'Zenit' (Zenith), took a calculated risk - just as it had done in 1939 with the MiG-1 powered by the brand-new Mikulin AM-35 engine. The risk paid off; the MiG-15 powered by the RD-45 and (and the MiG-15bis powered by the RD-45F) became the mainstay of the Soviet fighter force. Although the competing Yakovlev fighters were more agile, the MiG was faster and more heavily armed. Typically of the Soviet aircraft industry (alas!), early RD-45s and RD-45Fs had a short service life (only some 100 hours, less than the original Nene) because poor-quality indigenous materials had to be used. Later, Soviet designers developed the RD-45FA which introduced new materials and structural improvements doubling the engine's service life. Building on experience gained with the RD-500 and RD-45 (and benefiting from TslAM research into centrifugal compressors), the Klimov OKB developed more powerful and fuelefficient centrifugal-flow turbojets. The 2,700kgp (5,952Ibst) VK-1 turbojet emerged in 1949; the VK initials stood for Vladimir Klimov, suggesting that enough Soviet research had gone into the engine to qualify it as an indigenous design. It was a refined derivative of the RD-45 and a stepping stone to the afterburning VK-1 F rated at 3,380kgp (7,451Ibst). Structural and manufacturing improvements produced the VK-1 A version with a 150 to 200 hour service life. 4
MiG-15
In due course, the VK-1 engine was fitted to the MiG-15bis, an upgraded version of the MiG-15. It also powered the IL-28 bomber and the Tu-14T torpedo-bomber.
RD·45F and VK·1 Aspecifications RD-45F (Nene-2) VK-IA Max static thrust, kgp (Ibst) 2,270 (5,004) Rpm 12,300 Dry weight, kg (Ib) 703 to 726 (1,550 to 1,600) Diameter, m (It) 1.25 (4' 1") Length, m (It) 2.45 (8' ~") Specific fuel consumption, 1,065 kg/kgp hr (Ib/lbst hr)
2,700 (5,952) 11,560 884.5 (1,950)' 1.273 (4' 2") 2.57 (8' 5")' 1,On
* without jetpipe; t at maximum thrust Centrifugal-flow turbojets proved more reliable than early axial-flow turbojets. As speeds increased, however, centrifugal-flow powerplants proved too thirsty. Higher speeds required greater thrust and hence greater mass flow. A centrifugal-flow engine offered less thrust than an axial-flow engine having the same frontal area. Also, the centrifugal-flow turbojet was limited by its single-stage compressor offering a pressure ratio of 4.2 to 4.4. Since no multi-stage compressors were developed, the centrifugal-flow turbojet reached its peak of development with thrust ratings of 3,000 to 4,000kgp (6,613 to 8,818Ibst) between the end of the Second World War and the early 1950s. Jet airframe design Early jet aircraft were designed along the same lines as their piston-engined forebears. As turbojets were improved, however, it became clear that changes had to be made to a typical airplane's aerodynamics and general arrangement. It is well known that obtaining the correct centre of gravity (CG) position is one of the major challenges in aircraft design. For conventional designs the CG must be located at 25 to 33% mean aerodynamic chord (MAC). With a piston engine, this meant positioning the engine at the front of the aircraft, ahead of the CG and the wings. The fuel tanks were in the CG zone to minimise CG travel caused by fuel burnoff, and the crew behind the CG. The weight of the engine and propeller was balanced by the weight of the rear fuselage and empennage. If a turbojet were mounted in similar fashion in the aircraft's nose, the exhaust gases would have to exit under the fuselage. Placing engines on or under the wings eliminated this problem, and this configuration was utilised by the Heinkel He 280, the Messerschmitt Me 262 and the Gloster Meteor. Soviet fighters thus configured were the Sukhoi Su-9 (manufacturer's designation 'izdeliye K')' of 1946 and Su-11 (izdeliye LK) of 1947,' as well as the 1-211 and 1-215 designed by Semyon Mikhailovich Alekseyev (I = istrebitel' - fighter).-
However, most of the early Soviet jet fighters were developed hastily. The designers selected a configuration identical to that of pistonengined aircraft, with the engine up front and exhausting under the fuselage, which inevitably resulted in a helicopter-style pod-and-boom fuselage. This configuration was called redahnnaya komponovka (lit. 'step arrangement') in the USSR because of the similarity to the step on a speedboat's planing bottom. Perhaps the ultimate example of this 'quick fix' design approach was the Yak-15, a straightforward conversion of the Yak-3U fighter. It was basically a standard Yak-3U airframe with the Klimov VK-105PF liquid-cooled Vee-12 engine supplanted by an RD-10 (Jumo 004) turbojet in the nose, underslung so as to direct the exhaust gases under the fuselage. This 'tadpole' configuration was not a Soviet invention, having been employed on the German Messerschmitt P 1101 (which was completed but never flown) and the projected Messerschmitt P 1106, Blohm & Voss P 210 and Heinkel P 1078. Yet many Soviet postwar jet fighters used it, including the Yak-15, Yak-17 Feather, Yak-23, MiG-9 Fargo and the experimental La-150, La-152, La-156 and La-174TK. In the West, only the 5MB J29 Tunnan (Barrel) had the pod-and-boom arrangement. Turbojets were lighter than piston engines, allowing the cockpit to be moved forward to improve the pilot's forward and downward view. Since there was no propeller demanding large ground clearance, the landing gear could be shortened. A tricycle landing gear eliminated the need to locate a tail wheel in the jet exhaust, as had been the case with the Yak-15. Another option was to mount the engine over the fuselage. Even though this freed up fuselage space for armament, equipment and fuel, this configuration was impractical because the engine nacelle created considerable drag and complicated pilot escape in an emergency. Only two aircraft actually utilised this configuration - the prototype Fieseler Fi 103 (the manned version of the V-1 'buzz bomb') and the production He162 Volksjager (People's Fighter). The next logical step in jet fighter development was to move the relatively lightweight turbojet backwards, placing it in the fuselage aft of the cockpit. This resulted in an cigar-shaped fuselage with the nozzle located at the aft extremity, which was much more aerodynamically efficient than the 'tadpole' arrangement. With the engine(s) buried in the aft fuselage, two air intake types were possible: nose and lateral inlets. Both types had advantages and shortcomings. A nose intake made it necessary to increase forward and centre fuselage crosssection, since the airflow had to be routed around the cockpit. Lateral intakes increased fuselage width ahead of the wings. With the advent of powerfUl but bulky radars the airintake arrangement issue was largely settled because the radar would have to be placed in the nose, making nose intakes impractical.
Swept wings By the end of the Second World War pilots flying high-performance piston fighters (for instance, the North American P-51 Mustang) would sometimes approach the speed of sound in a dive. In this situation the controls became steadily heavier as airspeed increased; the nose would try to drop, and sometimes the controls would reverse. It took a lot of effort from the pilot to recover from this dangerous mode known as Mach tuck. With jet aircraft, level flight speeds increased into the sonic range. Mach tuck which pilots of prop-driven aircraft had encountered briefly now became routine. At times, uncontrollable aircraft dived into the ground, taking with them not only the luckless pilots but the secrets of transonic flight. Test pilot Gheorgiy Ya Bakhchivandzhi was one of the first, losing his life in the Bereznyak/lsayev BI-1 rocket-powered interceptor on 27th March 1943 during a high-speed run. The message was clear: an indepth study of transonic aerodynamics was needed. Wind tunnel tests showed that a thin symmetrical wing section and swept wings could resolve the 'shock-wave crisis'. As early as 1935, the German aerodynamicist Dr. Alfred Busemann came up with the swept-wing concept. He continued his research during the war and the Germans used wings with 30 to 38° leading-edge sweep on several fighters (the Me262 and Me163 Kamet). A spate of sweptwing aircraft, including the Ta 183 which bore a passing resemblance to the future MiG-15, was on the drawing boards or at the prototype construction stage by the end of the war. The main peculiarity of the swept wing was that airflow was divided into two components; one flowed from the leading edge to the trailing edge and the other spanwise. The spanwise component caused boundary layer movement from wing root to wingtip, resulting in tip stall; it also reduced the efficiency of the wing's control surfaces. To prevent this, many Soviet aircraft featured boundary layer fences on the wing upper surface; these generated vortices, reducing spanwise flow and preventing early airflow separation. It is an open secret that scientists and engineers in different countries faced with the same objective often come up with similar solutions. In the USSR the swept wing idea was devised by V Stroominsky of TsAGI (Tsentrahl'nwaeroi ghidrodinameecheskiy institoot - Central Aerodynamics & Hydrodynamics Institute named after Nikolay V Zhukovskiy) in 1946. Assisted by G BOschgens and other scientists, he conducted research on swept-wing aerodynamics. Basic concepts for swept-wing aircraft stability and controllability analysis were formulated. TsAGI embarked on a major programme to study a wing swept 35°. This was exactly the wing later recommended for the La-160 (the first Soviet swept-wing aircraft) and the Mikoyan/Gurevich 1-310 (the MiG-15 prototype).
A full-scale mockup of the 1-310 covered with wool tufts in the TsAGI T-102 wind tunnel. Yefim Gordon archive
Initially swept wings were tested on gliding models dropped from a Tu-2 mother ship. However, during 1945-48 Pavel Vladimirovich Tsybin designed the LL-1 , LL-2 and LL-3 gliders. As the designations imply, these were research aircraft for studying transonic aerodynamics at about 1,150km/h (621kts). The LL-1 had straight wings and the LL-2 had forward-swept wings; the LL-3, which was never completed, was to have 30° sweepback. The gliders had water ballast and a solid rocket booster. The experiment was conducted in a dive with the booster operating for maximum speed. After the end of the Second World War, German aircraft designers in Soviet-occupied territory were deported to the USSR to develop new-generation aircraft. Two new design bureaux were established in the Podberez'ye settlement near the town of Doobna. One of them (OKB-2 headed by Hans Rossing, with the Soviet engineer Aleksandr Yakovlevich Bereznyak as his deputy)'· continued work on the DFS 346 rocket-powered Mach 2.5 research aircraft, which was almost complete by the end of the war." The aircraft (referred to in Soviet documents as 346) was transported to TsAGI in 194q for full,scale aerodynamic tests in the T-1 01 wind tunnel. The 346 was an all-metal, mid-wing monoplane with 45° wing sweep, an unswept Hail and retractable skid landing gear. To reduce drag the pressurized cockpit was placed in the
extreme nose, the pilot lying prone. The cockpit was attached by explosive bolts, with a catapult that ejected the pilot after it was detached. The Walther HWK 509-109 twin-chamber liquid-fuel rocket engine provided 4,000kgp (8,818Ibst) thrust. Total fuel and oxidizer capacity was 1,900kg (4,188Ib), permitting 2 minutes of engine operation. The aircraft could accelerate to approximately Mach 2.0 - in theory at least. Flight tests began in 1948 at an airbase in Tyoplyy Stan (now a residential district in the south-western part of Moscow) and later at the new factory airfield in Lookhovitsy, some 100km (62 miles) south-east of Moscow. A modified B-29-5-BW operated by L11 (serialled 256 Black) served as a mother ship;12 the 346 was suspended on a pylon between the bomber's Nos 3 and 4 engines. Three prototypes - the 346-P glider (P for plahner) , the 3461 with a mockup engine and the fully-equipped 346-3 - participated in the programme, piloted by Wolfgang Ziese and P A Kaz'min. The 346-3 made its first powered flight on 15th August 1951. However, the programme was plagued by accidents. In its third powered flight on 2nd September the aircraft exceeded 900km/h (486kts) indicated airspeed (lAS) but then became uncontrollable and Ziese was ordered to eject. Concurrently, Matus Ruvimovich Bisnovat continued work on his B-5 transonic speed research aircraft, also with 45° wing sweep. The B-5 was powered by a Dooshkin liquid-fuel rocket engine. Test flights began in 1948 with a Petlyakov Pe-8 bomber acting as the mother ship; the two prototypes made about ten flights. MiG-15
5
Meanwhile, Lavochkin built the La-160 fighter, a derivative of the earlier 'tadpole' designs. It differed from the earlier fighter prototypes in featuring 35° swept wings with a thin airfoil already validated in theory; hence the aircraft was dubbed Strelka (Arrow). Initial stability and handling trials were held from June to September 1947. Wing fences were fitted in the course of the flight test programme; these became a standard feature of Soviet designs - the higher the wing sweep, the larger the number of wing fences. The La-160 reached 1,050km/h (567kts) or Mach 0.92 in a dive. At the same time, Lavochkin tested the La-174TK with a thin, straight wing (hence the TK suffix standing for tonkoye krylo) and a more powerful RR Derwent engine." Despite the extra thrust, the La-174TK was slower than the swept-wing La-160, proving that swept wings were the way to go for high-speed aircraft. Gradually, experience with swept wing was accumulated. This experience was of great help in designing the MiG-15, La-15, and Yak-30 fighters. Ejection seats With the advent of jet aircraft capable of transonic speeds, bailing out in the old-fashioned way became sheer suicide. New crew rescue methods, such as ejection, were required. The first attempts to facilitate bailing out were undertaken in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s, but these did not progress beyond the ground test stage. Ejection systems were used for the first time during the Second World War in German high-speed piston-engined and jet aircraft. Two ejection systems were developed in Germany: a cartridge system and one using compressed air. The former system was used by Heinkel in the He162 fighter which had its engine atop the fuselage. Ejection time at a maximum G load of 11.5 was 0.178 seconds; ejection speed was 13.2 m/sec (2,640ft/min). The advantages of the cartridge ejection system were its low weight and structural simplicity; dependence on the powder charge (which might or might not function properly) was a shortcoming. The compressed air ejection system was used on the Heinkel He 280 jet fighter (which never entered production) and the He 219 twoseat piston-engined night fighter. This system was heavier and more complex and required air bottles, a fast-acting valve and piping. The He 219's ejection seat weighed 27.9kg (61.5Ib), compared to the He162's 20.5kg (45.2Ib) seat. After the war, the work of German designers was the object of close scrutiny by the Allies. Many German documents and prototypes were captured by the British, and German work was carefully analysed in the USSR and the United States. The first Soviet attempts to design an ejection seat date back to 1940. In the course of new fighter development, designers lI'ya Florent'yevich Florov and Aleksey Andreyevich Borovkov addressed the problem of pilot sur6
MiG-15
vival at speeds of 528 to 850km/h (285 to 459kts) and altitudes up to 6,000m (19,685ft). The fighter they designed was similar in configuration to the Saab J-21 , with a pusher propeller and twin booms supporting the tail unit but with ramjet boosters incorporated into the tailbooms. It featured an escape system of Florovand Borovkov's own design which rotated the seat and ejected it downwards pneumatically. The war interrupted the development of this aircraft and hence of the first Soviet ejection system. It was not until the end of the war that work on crew escape systems resumed in the USSR. The Mikoyan OKB teamed with TsAGI, L11 and the Aviation Medicine Institute to become a leader in ejection seat development. Trials were performed at L11, at first using a test rig with a trolley that moved along a vertical guide rail; the trolley was accelerated by an explosive charge and then slowed by powerful brakes. L11 engineers determined the size of the charge required to get the necessary G load. After tests with dummies and animals it was decided to carry out the first manned test. Six strong men were 'ejected' in the rig with the maximum G load. Flight tests came next. The engineers proceeded cautiously, using a dummy for the first actual ejections. A converted Petlyakov Pe-2 Buck dive bomber was used; its twin tails made it ideal for ejection seat trials, reducing the danger of the seat striking the vertical tail in the event of a failed ejection. The seat was installed in the former gunner's compartment immediately behind the pilot; initially, it was not stabilized and tumbled head over heels in the slipstream as it parted company with the aircraft. The ejection sequence and the seat's trajectory were recorded by a cine camera aboard the Pe-2. Modifications were made to the seat after the first ejections had been analysed, and by July 1947 manned tests could begin. Gavriil Kondrashov, an experienced parachutist with more than 700 parachute jumps to his credit, was chosen. On 24th July 1947, he successfully performed the first ejection in the USSR. The first ejection seat was of cartridge-fired design; the ejection gun and the seat pan were attached to the seat's frame. The pilot sat on his parachute which lay in the seat pan. There was no provision for automatic parachute opening; the parachute's static line was attached to the seat, which meant the pilot had to push the seat away forcibly after ejection in order for the parachute to open. This was clearly a shortcoming, reducing the pilot's chances of survival if he was wounded. The minimum safe ejection altitude was 200 to 300m (656 to 984ft). At speeds over 700km/h (378kts), the procedure often resulted in injuries because the seat offered no protection for the pilot's face or limbs. This first-generation Soviet ejection seat was fitted to the MiG-15, MiG-15bis, MiG-17, and La-15. It was to save a lot of lives when the MiG-15 and MiG-15bis saw action in Korea.
Acknowledgements The author wishes to express his gratitude to the following persons who have contributed to the making of this book: First of all, as usual, I would like to thank the translator, Dmitriy S Komissarov, without whose work and assistance the book would never have appeared. Also, my thanks go to Nigel Eastaway, one of the leaders of the Russian Aviation Research Trust, who provided a lot of valuable information on Chinese licence-built MiGs, and Helmut Walther and Keith Dexter who supplied photos which would otherwise hardly be obtainable.
Yefim Gordon Moscow March 2001
Russian Language and Transliteration The Russian language is phonetic - pronounced as written, or 'as seen'. Translating into English gives rise to many problems and the vast majority of these arise because English is not a straightforward language, with many pitfalls of pronunciation! Accordingly, Russian words must be translated through into a phonetic form of English and this can lead to different ways of helping the reader pronounce what he sees. Every effort has been made to standardise this, but inevitably variations will occur. While reading from source to source this might seem confusing and/or inaccurate but it is the name as pronounced that is the constancy, not the spelling of that pronunciation! The 20th letter of the Russian (Cyrillic) alphabet looks very much like a 'Y' but is pronounced as a 'U' as in the word'rule'. Another example is the train of thought that Russian words ending in 'y' are perhaps better spell out as 'yi' to underline the pronunciation, but it is felt that most Western speakers would have problems getting their tongues around this! This is a good example of the sort of problem that some Western sources have suffered from in the past (and occasionally even today) when they make the mental leap about what they see approximating to an English letter.
Chapter One
The 'MiG Menace' is Born 1-310 (izdeliye 5-1,5-2,5-3) the MiG-15 prototypes' The availability of new engines made for the development of second-generation jet fighters. On 11th March 1947, the Soviet government (Council of Ministers) approved the experimental aircraft construction plan for the year. Soon afterwards, on 15th April, the Ministry of Aircraft Industry (MAP - Ministerstvo aviatseeonnoy promyshlennosti) issued directive No 21 0 ordering the Mikoyan/Gurevich OKB to develop a jet fighter with a pressurized cockpit and to build two prototypes. A G Broonov was appointed chief project engineer for the new fighter, with A A Andreyev as the 'next in command'. The specific operational requirement (SOR) was quite tough. Maximum speed was to be 1,000km/h (540kts) at sea level and 1,020km/h (551 kts) at 5,000m (16,404ft). The fighter was required to climb to this altitude in 3.2 minutes and have an endurance in excess of one hour. Range in economical cruise at 10,000m (32,808ft) was specified as 1,200km (648nm) and take-off and landing run at 700 and 800m (2,296 and 2,624ft) respectively. The aircraft was to have adequate armament and avionics to cope with US and British warplanes of the era (since the Cold War was already brewing and the US and Great Britain were already regarded as potential adversaries). Initially, one 45mm (1.77 calibre) cannon and two 23mm (.90 calibre) cannons were envisaged, though the former was soon substituted by a 37mm (1.45 calibre) weapon. Provisions for carrying two 100kg (220 Ib) bombs on the regular drop tank hard points were also demanded. Last but not least, the new fighter was required to be easily maintainable. The Soviet Air Force (WS - Voyenno-vozdooshnyye seely) knew all too well that in a future war, combat aircraft would almost certainly have to operate from improvised tactical airstrips with little or no maintenance facilities. Finally, the aircraft was to present no insurmountable difficulties for the average pilot. Success hinged on fulfilling these often conflicting requirements. The powerplant issue had already been decided; the fighter was to be designed around the Rolls-Royce Nene which had entered licence production in the USSR. Development of the ejection system in 1946-47 also went successfully. However, as per usual, rigid convention came into conflict with pioneering concepts. Sometimes the convention-
alists prevailed, but, on the whole, progress triumphed over orthodox solutions. Thus, the Mikoyan/Gurevich OKB chose swept wings for its new fighter. It so happened that the Mikoyan/Gurevich OKB was not tasked with mass production during the Great Patriotic War (production of the MiG-3 interceptor ended in late 1941). Its efforts at the time were devoted to research and development work. This resulted in some advanced fighters, including the izdeliye A series (1-220/ 1-225) which exceeded 700km/h (387kts) in level flight. Though none of these aircraft was to see production, they became stepping stones towards the early post-war jets. Mikoyan engineers got their first swept-wing experience with the Ootka experimental tail-first aircraft' (often called MiG-8). Development, testing and production of the 1-250/MiG-13 (izdeliye N) mixed-power fighter and the purejet straight-wing MiG-9 gave them experience with turbojet-powered fighters. The straightwing, rocket-powered 1-270 (izdeliye Zh)3 experimental interceptor became the first Soviet aircraft to reach 1,000km/h (540kts) lAS in 1947. Still, combining all this (swept wings, jet propulsion and high speed) in a single aircraft called for a lot of effort on the part of both Mikoyan and the numerous other research and production establishments involved. The MiG-15's road to becoming a production aircraft was long and winding. The aircraft which was eventually to fly was preceded by several preliminary development. (PD) projects. The first of these envisaged a twinengined fighter which was promptly dropped when it became obvious that Soviet engine plants could not provide enough engines for mass production. In 1947, after A I Mikoyan had returned from his visit to England and 25 Nene-1 engines had been delivered, the OKB started work on the 1-320 (izdeliye FN) - the first aircraft to bear this designation - as an insurance policy in case the swept-wing fighter should fail. The 1-320 'Mk l' was a straightforward modification of the MiG-9 (izdeliye FS) with the two side-by-side RD-20 axial-flow turbojets replaced by a single Nene - hence the N in the manufacturer's designation. However, work on the more promising swept-wing design seemed to progress quite nicely and izdeliye FN was abandoned at the prototype construction stage 4 For a while, Mikoyan engineers also considered a twin-boom arrangement reminiscent of the de Havilland Vampire. However, a layout
with a single fuselage, swept wings and conventional swept empennage seemed simplest and most aerodynamically efficient and was eventually selected for the new fighter designated 1-310 in official documents. The aircraft's in-house designation was 'izdeliye S', said to be derived from strelovidnoye kry/o (swept wings). The wings proposed by TsAGI, featuring 35° sweep at quarter-chord and 2° anhedral, turned out to have an extremely poor lift/drag ratio in take-off and landing mode, which meant the aircraft would not meet VVS field performance requirements. To cope with the problem the OKB contemplated variable geometry (VG) for a while. This was in 1947, thirty years before the 'swing wing' izdeliye 23-11 (the 'true' MiG-23S Flogger-A prototype) flew for the first time.' Though Mikoyan engineers had very probably studied German VG research, the time for a 'swing wing' aircraft had not yet come (VG wings were then considered too complex and rather unreliable), so the engineers selected another solution, reducing wing loading. This made for acceptable landing speeds even with a poor LID ratio. It has to be said here that the Soviet aircraft industry had a few quirks. The all-pervasive secrecy wrapped around the industry by the notorious KGB (Komitet gosoodahrstvennoy bezopahsnosti - State Security Committee) sometimes proved detrimental. Soviet experts were well-versed on American advanced development projects but knew almost nothing about what their colleagues in other Soviet OKBs were doing. For this reason, designers often wasted time and state money, duplicating each other's efforts. This problem got worse when high-tech systems and avionics came on the scene. In developing the 1-310, the designers found that providing the required CG position was quite a problem. With the engine in the aft fuselage, the CG was too far aft, impairing stability and handling. The problem was partly cured by slightly increasing wing area aft of the rear false spar, resulting in a kinked trailing edge right (its innermost portion was unswept). The final solution was to move the engine forward so that it was located immediately aft of the main spar and use a long extension jetpipe. This created a bonus in the form of a fuselage made up of two sections (forward and rear); the entire aft fuselage could be easily detached, leaVing the engine completely exposed for maintenance or removal. MiG-15
7
A lot of problems were caused by the engine's inlet duct. It had a complex shape because of the numerous obstructions it had to bypass, including cockpit and fuel cells. Outside air entered a subsonic intake with a centre splitter. Here, it separated into two flows passing along narrow ducts on either side of the front avionics bay, nosewheel well, cockpit and main fuel cell; the two flows met at the engine's compressor face. Maximizing thrust and preventing the aft fuselage from being overheated by exhaust gases were two of the conflicting requirements facing Mikoyan engineers. The problem was solved in the course of the first prototype's flight tests. TslAM engineers proposed shortening the aft fuselage and extension pipe, reducing thrust losses at full military power by 7to 9%. Another challenge with the 1-310 was how to accommodate the main landing gear units in the relatively thin wings (stowing them in the fuselage was out of the question - these was simply no room). The problem boiled down to the fact that the thin, high aspect ratio wings were of three-spar stressed-skin aluminium construction and the structure would be excessively weakened by the mainwheel wells. This prompted studies on how to develop a light, yet rigid structure. Eventually a stiff and lightweight one-piece stamped main spar was introduced, but not before the aircraft experienced lateral stability problems caused by insufficient wing torsional stiffness (these will be described later). 1-310 wing static testing took place at the Moscow Aviation Institute. With the initial wing design, skin cracks appeared at 120% of the maximum design load, clearly indicating that the structure was way too heavy. The OKB's structural department considered it possible to reduce structural weight by 180kg (396Ib) but overdid it - the wings failed at only 70% of the maximum load. Finally, in a compromise between high strength and low weight, the wings were lightened by 162kg (357Ib) versus the original design; now the structure failed at exactly the maximum design load. The engineers had to proceed by trial and error because there was no established method of predicting structural strength characteristics of a swept wing at the time. Lavochkin OKB engineer I Sverdlov created this technique while the La-160, La-168, and La-174 were under development. His work titled 'Aircraft Structural Strength Calculation' is considered a classic work on the subject in Russia. Since jet engines enabled fighters to climb to 15,000m (49,212ft) and higher, ordinary oxygen masks were not enough; the future MiG-15 was going to need a cockpit pressurization and heating system. The limited experience the OKB had amassed with the wartime 1-212 and 1-214 clearly was not enough. Therefore, Mikoyan joined forces with their competitor in the jet fighter development programme, the Lavochkin OKB, to develop a viable pressurized cockpit. 8
MiG-15
July 1947 saw the appearance ofthe MiG-9M (izdeliye FR), an experimental version of the Fargo with a redesigned forward fuselage. Apart from having a totally new weapons arrangement, the MiG-9M had a ventilationtype pressurized cockpit. Actually the first Soviet aircraft to fly with a pressurized cockpit was the straight-wing, single-engined Yak-25 experimental fighter which flew for the first time on 31 st October 1947.' The ventilation-type cockpit was pressurized with engine bleed air. This system ensured normal pressure, temperature and humidity conditions in the cockpit and was perhaps closer to what the future MiG-15 would have. The Yak-25 also a pneumatic canopy jettisoning system designed by Leonid L Selyakov who went on to work at the Myasischev OKB, participating in the development of the M-4 and 3M Bison and M-50 Bounder heavy bombers and, later still, became chief project engineer of the popular Tu-134 Crusty airliner. Just about all Soviet fighter canopies, including those of the La-15 and MiG-15, were based on Selyakov's work with the Yak-25. Another problem facing designers of the 1-310 was how to place the armament. As on the MiG-9, the armament comprised one 37mm Nudel'man N-37 cannon and two 23mm Nudel'man/Sooranov NS-23KM cannons. Initially, these were to be mounted in similar fashion to the MiG-9, with the big cannon mounted in the intake splitter and one 23mm cannon protruding beyond the intake lower lip on each side. However, armament trials on the MiG-9 promptly showed that this arrangement was no good - the engine often surged after ingesting gun blast gases when the cannons were fired. The problem was aggravated by the MiG-9's powerplant, as axial-flow turbojets are extremely sensitive to gun blast gas ingestion. This was not too critical on the MiG-15 with its centrifugal-flow turbojet; still, the engineers chose to relocate the armament. To facilitate access, engineer N I Volkov invented a simple and ingenious solution: all three cannons and their ammunition boxes were neatly mounted on a single tray under the cockpit, the N-37 to starboard and the two NS-23KMs to port. This tray could be winched down quickly by means of a hand crank and four pulleys for reloading and maintenance, decreasing turnaround time dramatically. The avionics suite included an OSP-48 instrument landing system (ILS) for use in instrument meteorological conditions. The ground part of the system included two range beacons, three marker beacons, communications radios and an HF or VHF radio direction finder to facilitate approach, descent to landing, and touchdown in bad weather. The part of the system installed on the fighter comprised an ARK-5 Amur (a river in the Soviet Far East; pronounced like the French word amour) automatic direction finder, an RV-2 Kristall (Crystal) low-altitude radio altimeter and an MRP-48 Dyatel (Woodpecker) marker beacon receiver.'
The system was fairly simple and had few components, which rendered the ground part suitable for use on ad hoc tactical airfields (in truck-mounted form). Construction of the first prototype 1-310, designated S-1 (ie, iZdeliye S No 1), began at MMZ 'Zenit' in the spring of 1947; the aircraft was powered by a RR Nene-1 turbojet (c/n 1036) rated at 2,230kgp (4,916Ibst). By then, a mockup had been reviewed and approved by a WS commission. By 19th December the prototype had been completed and trucked to L11's airfield in Ramenskoye south of Moscow.· Viktor Nikolayevich Youganov, who had worked for Mikoyan since 1946 and had flown the 1-270, was appointed project test pilot. He was an excellent airman; in fact, he was often compared to the famous test pilot Valeriy Pavlovich Chkalov for his flying skills - and his devil-maycare attitude as well, as will become apparent. To keep to the planned schedule, the S-1 's maiden flight had to take place by the end of December. However, the weather was poor and it was clearly better to alter the plan than risk losing the only aircraft available. The OKB leaders decided to postpone the first flight until the beginning of 1948. But Youganov was short of money (at the time, a Soviet test pilot making the first flight of a new aircraft was paid 10,000 roubles - quite a lot of money) and insisted that the first flight be performed before the year was out. On 30th December 1947 the cloud base was at 2,000m (6,560ft), which meant the first flight could not be performed under the rules then in force. Still, Yuganov decided he would fly anyway, so he nonchalantly climbed into the cockpit, had the aircraft towed to the holding position to save fuel, started the engine and took off. Retracting the landing gear, he made two circuits of the field below the cloudbase and landed. Unfortunately, Artyom I Mikoyan was not there to witness the first flight of the future MiG15; nobody had expected it to fly in that kind of weather. The General Designer" congratulated Youganov on the phone. Manufacturer's flight tests proceeded for the next five months and were completed on 25th May 1948. Meanwhile, work continued on the second prototype (S-2) which was 75% complete by the time the S-1 flew. The second prototype differed mainly in being powered by a Nene-2 engine (c/n 1039) rated at 2,270kgp (5,004Ibst) and having the wings moved 80mm (3.15in) aft, with a new airfoil at the root. Other detail changes included thinner forward fuselage skins, wing spars made of V-95 aluminium alloy instead of Type 30KhGSA steel, increased aileron area and a simplified canopy frame for better all-round visibility. An ASP-1 N automatic gunsight (avtomateecheskiy strelkovyy preetsel) , was installed, along with an S-13 gun camera on the air intake upper lip. The main gear units were modified in order to increase landing gear wheelbase, internal fuel volume was increased and provision was made
The 1·310 (also known as the 5·1), the first prototype MiG·15, during the course of manufacturer's flight tests in December 1947. Yefim Gordon archive
for 250 litre (55 Imperial gallon) slipper tanks immediately outboard of the outer wing fences. (Some sources give the drop tank volume as 260 litres/57.2 Imperial gallons) (It should be noted that - in the USSR, anyway - early prototype aircraft often differed considerably in avionics fit from the production version. As a rule, some of the radio and navigation equipment was omitted; if radar was envisaged, it was not fitted at all or a tried and tested production radar from an earlier aircraft was temporarily fitted instead of the planned modeL) The S-2 was completed on 5th April and first flew on 27th May 1948 with Sergey N Anokhin at the controls. It was intended for State acceptance trials to be held by the Air Force Research Institute (Nil WS - Naoochno-issledovatel'skiy institoot voyenno-vozdooshnykh see0. In the summer of 1948, both prototypes were flown to the Nil WS facility at Chkalovskoye airbase east of Moscow.'o Typically of the period, the decision to launch production of the fighter was made even before trials were completed; usually this approach paid off. The State acceptance trials proceeded in two stages (Stage A, 27th May to 25th August 1948; Stage B, 4th November to 3rd December 1948). In the course of the trials the 1-310 received the service designation under which it was to make its mark in history (and make the Mikoyan OKB world famous) - the MiG-15. The third prototype, S-3 (which was in effect a pre-production aircraft), was completed in March 1948. Like the S-2, it was also earmarked for State acceptance trials and powered by a Nene-2. This aircraft introduced hydraulically-powered airbrakes of almost triangular shape on the rear fuselage sides, with
an area of 0.48m' (5.16ft') each. Wing anhedral was increased from _1° to _2°, minor changes were made to the fin and ailerons, and the elevators were fitted with mass balances. Fuel capacity was increased to 1,460 litres (321.2 Imperial gallons) versus 1,340 litres (294.8 Imperial gallons) on the first prototype and provision was made for carrying bombs on wing hardpoints, giving the MiG-15 a secondary attack role. An AFA-IM reconnaissance camera (AFA = aerofotoapparaht - aerial camera) covered by a hinged door was installed in the forward fuselage. The weapons tray was beefed up and the N-37 cannon was fitted with a flash suppressor, receiving the designation N-37D (dorabotannaya - revised). For technological reasons the aircraft also used different structural materials, which resulted in a slight increase in empty weight. The S-3 took to the air on 17th July 1948 at the hands of test pilot I T Ivaschchenko who had joined the Mikoyan OKB in 1945. The manufacturer's flight test programme lasted until 15th October; 48 flights were made by Ivaschchenko and Sergey N Anokhin, in the course of which the aircraft attained a top speed of Mach 0.934.
On 4th November, 1948 the third prototype was transferred to the Nil WS facility at Novofyodorovka airfield (Saki, the Crimean Peninsula) where it underwent so-called checkout tests" until 3rd December. Stage B of the State acceptance trials ended on the same day. Test pilots Yuriy A Antipov and Vasiliy G Ivanov made 35 flights at Novofyodorovka. On 23rd December, Air Marshal K Vershinin, Commander-in-Chief of the WS, signed an order to introduce the MiG-15 into the WS inventory. Despite this order, Nil WS pilots were still charged with determining whether the MiG-15 or the La-15 was better suited to the Air Force's requirements. The La-15 was faster and more stable at speeds approaching Mach 1, but its main shortcoming, in the opinion ofthe air force test pilots, was its narrow-track undercarriage which made the aircraft difficult to control during crosswind landings, especially in the wet. While having a lighter structure, the La-15 rated poorly on ease of manufacturing and maintainability. Its wing manufacturing process (involving machining large components from solid slabs of metal and mating them with complex joints) contributed to the downfall ofthe aircraft, as its production was very labour-intensive. MiG-15
9
... - .
The second prototype (5-2) with spin recovery rockets under the wings. Mikoyan OKS The same aircraft with drop tanks. Mikoyan OKS Close-up of a slipper tank under the wing of the 5-2. Mikoyan OKS
10
MiG-15
Opposite page: One of the first two prototypes which had no airbrakes on the aft fuselage. Mikoyan OKS The third prototype (5-3) nearing completion in the Mikoyan OKB's experimental shop (MMZ No 155). Mikoyan OKS
It was decided to perform comparative spinning trials of the MiG-15 and the La-15. By then Nil WS had some experience with this kind of trials, having conducted them with pistonengined aircraft. To be certain of safe recovery it was decided to increase spin entry altitude from 5,000m (16,404ft) to 7,000m (22,965ft), and anti-spin rockets were fitted under the wings of both aircraft. Nil VVS test pilots Yuriy A Antipov flying the MiG-15 and A Kochetkov flying the La-15 reported that the aircraft behaved strangely at high angles of attack. The tests demonstrated that both fighters pitched up during spin entry. This meant the aircraft was in danger of entering a flat spin; this was a peculiarity of the swept-wing configuration with high-set horizontal tail which the two fighters shared. To add a further safety margin, the spin entry altitude was increased to 10,000m (32,808ft). During one of the test flights in the La-15 Kochetkov delayed spin recovery and had to use the anti-spin rockets. In the pilots' opinion, the MiG-15's spinning behaviour was unconventional: during one turn, the aircraft combined two different spin modes during a single turn. After turning through 180°, the fighter switched from a conventional steep spin to a flat spin, then going back to a steep spin after the next half turn. At an early stage of the inverted spin trials Nil VVS test pilot Yakov Bogdanov could not recover and crashed in the S-2, losing his life. His colleague S Brovtsev who specialized in sweptwing fighter spinning trials continued the programme, flying the MiG-15 and the La-15 in turn, and investigating both conventional and inverted spin modes. During one of the flights the MiG-15 proved reluctant to recover from an inverted spin. As altitude decreased, Brovtsev made repeated efforts to recover but to no avail. Finally, he had an inspiration and applied spin-provoking control inputs instead of typical anti-spin inputs. That did the trick; the rotation stopped when the aircraft was down to a dangerous 600m (1,968ft). Brovtsev brought the fighter into straight and level flight and landed. Using flight data recorder readouts to reconstruct the pilot's actions, the engineers confirmed some of the MiG-i5's handling peculiarities. Changes were made to the flight manual and a spin recovery procedure developed which saved the lives of many MiG-15 pilots. After completing the Nil WS trials both fighters joined the Soviet Air Force inventory; however, the La-i5 did not last long in front-line service because of its production complexity. The MiG-15 was to have a far longer and more distinguished career. After the West got wind of the type's existence the MiG-i5 was allocated the reporting name Falcon by the NATO's Air Standards Co-ordinating Committee (ASCC). This was promptly changed to Fagot because it was too laudatory; 'knock 'em' was part of the idea with all those reporting names!
..,
*
MiG-15
11
Chapter Two
The Aluminium Rabbit MiG·15 Version Briefing MiG-15 (izdeliye S) production prototype Bearing the construction number (c/n) 101003, the first production MiG-15 was built by aircraft factory No 1 named after losif V Stalin in Kuybyshev (now Samara) in southern Russia.' This was the only aircraft to have the manufacturer's designation 'izdeliye S'. It took to the air on 30th December 1948 - exactly one year after the first flight of the 1-310 (S-1) - and became one of the 'dogships' on which various improvements were tested. The production MiG-15 differed in some respects from the S-3 (mainly in local structural reinforcement); for instance, the airbrakes were skinned with EI-100N steel instead of duralumin and the shiny airbrake panels were plainly visible. Concurrently the Nene II turbojet entered production at plant No 45 as the RD-45F. MiG-15 Fagot-A tactical fighter (izdeliye SV; izdeliye 50) The first major production version ofthe MiG-15, known in-house as izdeliye SV, was rolled out in June 1949 and attained initial operational capability with the WS in the same year. (No one seems to know what the V in the manufacturer's designation stands for!) Initial production MiG-15s were not yet equipped with an automatic engine control system, and the ailerons were still manually-controlled. The earliest production batches had push-button circuit breaker panels in the cockpit; these looked nice and neat but were extremely inconvenient, promptly earning the nickname bayahn (Russian accordion). Standard circuit breakers were introduced later, after which early and late MiG-15s were referred to by the pilots as the knopochnW and neknopochnW ('push-button' and 'non-pushbutton') variety respectively. The OSP-48 ILS took some time coming, and familiarising pilots with it took even longer. The guns' rate of fire was inadequate, which meant a change of armament was needed. There were other bugs to be eliminated as development proceeded. For example, the aircraft's never-exceed speed (V NE) as per manufacturer's specifications was Mach 0.92 but initially (based on test flight results) it was restricted to Mach 0.88. The reason for this restriction was the MiG-15's tendency to drop a wing, called val'ozhka in Russian, which had first manifested itself on the third prototype (S-3). At 925km/h (500kts) indicated airspeed the aircraft would start rolling; the stick force required to counter this motion grew qUickly as 12
MiG-15
speed increased, reaching 18.5kg (40.78Ib) at 960km/h (519kts), and the pilot was physically unable to keep the aircraft 'on a straight keel'. On one occasion it nearly caused two MiG-15s to collide right over Red Square in Moscow during the 1950 May Day parade! Actually there were two variants of this phenomenon: the so-called 'low-altitude val'ozhka' appearing below 3,000m (9,842ft) and 'highaltitude val'ozhka'. The former condition was caused by torsional stiffness asymmetry in the port and starboard wings and the latter by aerodynamic asymmetry - the wings had slightly different airfoils. This structural asymmetry meant that the wings produced different amounts of lift; this was not critical at low speeds, but as airspeed increased the difference became appreciable. The whole affair was a result of the learning curve during initial production; on the production line it was quite difficult to make both wings absolutely identical due to variations in skin thickness, riveting, inaccurate manufacturing and so on. The Mikoyan OKB tried to eliminate this deficiency by toughening manufacturing discipline at aircraft factories and by adding bendable trailing edge trim tabs (referred to as nozhee - 'knives' - in OKB parlance) which were adjusted indiVidually after each aircraft's first flight. Still, the problem persisted until the MiG-15bis entered production and structural modifications were made as described later. Soon after production commenced the first production aircraft (c/n 101003) was modified in order to correct deficiencies noted during State acceptance trials. It featured numerous detail improvements which were introduced progressively and became standard in later MiG-15 versions. The two Nudel'man/Sooranov NS-23KM cannons with a 550rpm rate of fire gave way to Nudel'man/Rikhter NR-23 cannons of identical calibre which offered a much higher rate of fire (850 rounds per minute) for virtually no increase in weight. A breechblock accelerator was introduced, along with a bilateral belt feed mechanism which enabled the NR-23 to be mounted on either side of the fuselage. The new guns were located closer to the fuselage centreline, requiring some changes to frames 3 to 5a. An ASP-3N automatic gunsight replaced the earlier ASP-i. Outwardly aircraft armed with NR-23 cannons could be recognized by an enlarged gun blast plate, part of which was on the nose gear doors, and by two small teardrop fairings around the spent case exit slots. The
fairings covered deflectors introduced to stop spent cases and belt links from striking the airbrakes when these were deployed. The aircraft was carefully balanced, which allowed the Mach 0.88 speed restriction to be lifted. A single B-7 hydraulic actuator was introduced in the aileron control circuit; it was located in the cockpit, just aft of the ejection seat. This was not adopted for production, but the 20th and final Kuybyshev-built batch of 'pure' MiG-15s had an improved BU-1 actuator in the starboard wing serving both ailerons, making izdeliye SV the first Mikoyan aircraft with powered controls. Elevator aerodynamic balance was increased from 18% to 22% and the slot between the elevator and the fin was narrowed to reduce drag. The cockpit featured a new instrument panel and a DGMK-3 remote gyromagnetic compass (distantseeonnw gheeromagnitnw kompas) replacing the earlier PDK-45 compass. The airbrakes were actuated by a push-button control system and the nose gear unit featured a new shimmy damper. The PS-2 engine starting control panel was installed on the aircraft at the fuselage break point (frame 13); earlier, it had been located on the power cart (which was inconvenient, rendering engine starting impossible unless the appropriate power cart was available). BANO45 port and starboard navigation lights (bortovoy aeronavigatseeonnw ogon') were fitted instead of the original BO-39 model. Initial production MiG-15s were prone to engine flameouts above 8,000m (26,246ft) caused by insufficient fuel pressure. The first step to fix the problem was the introduction of fuel tank pressurization by engine bleed air from Kuybyshev-built Batch 6 onwards. Still, this was a temporary measure and the problem was ultimately cured by adding a PNV-2 fuel transfer pump in the forward fuel cell; this ensured stable fuel pressure throughout the aircraft's speed and altitude range. The pump was tested on MiG-15 cln 106017 starting on 22nd June 1949 and recommended for production. Also, a special tank was introduced to prevent engine flameout in inverted flight and at negative G. The engine starting system was modified to allow relight at up to 5,000m (16,404ft), and a fire extinguishing system was added. The MiG-15 (izdeliye SV) went through a twostage test programme from 14th June 1949 and 7th January 1950. Shortcomings were discovered during 1949. Generally the impression
The MiG-15 (SV) - the first production aircraft (c/n 101003) - during checkout tests at Nil VVS following an upgrade. Note the small teardrop fairings on the forward fuselage portside characteristic of the new NR-23 cannons; the inner skin of the flaps is perforated to save weight. Mikoyan OKS
was favourable; stick forces were perceptibly decreased but this made the control system as a whole less harmonious because the rudder pedals were still 'heavy'. This took some getting used to. (It should be noted at this point that pilots flying early MiG-15s with manual ailerons ran into problems immediately after transitioning to the MiG-15bis with powered ailerons. It was easy to lose track of airspeed in the heat of the battle and flick into a spin because there was no time to watch the ASI and aileron forces told you nothing.) The chief complaint, however, concerned the new armament; the gun mounts were insufficiently rigid, resulting in high shell scatter and poor accuracy. Hence the WS' Chief Engineer Col Gen I V Markov suspended the trials on 10th August at Artyom I Mikoyan's request and the aircraft was returned to the manufacturer for modifications. Yet when Stage 2 began on 19th October it capitalised on handling improvements; the armament problem had not been corrected. In the summer of 1950 the aircraft was tested with recalibrated landing gear shock absorbers. Main gear oleo pressure was reduced from 85kg/cm 2 (1 ,214psi) to 60kg/cm 2 (857psi) and stroke increased to 180mm (7in). The modified shock absorbers worked well but did not enter production for some reason. The MiG-15 rolled off the production lines with standard main gear oleos, a reduced-pressure nose gear oleo (23kg/cm 2 or 328.5psi instead of 30kg/cm 2 or 428.5psi) and low-pressure tyres (2.5kg/cm 2 or 35.7psi instead of 4.2kg/cm 2 or 60.0psi).
This major effort with shock absorbers was brought about by complaints from the WS that the aircraft sometimes bounced uncontrollably during heavy landings. Hence A P Sooproon (brother of the famous test pilot Stepan P Sooproon) was tasked with deliberately making all kinds of screwed-up landings with excessive landing speed, premature flare-out etc in order to get to the core of the problem. The aircraft, a Novosibirsk-built MiG-15 seriailed 616 Red (c/n 0615316), had the canopy removed and a massive structure fitted immediately aft of the cockpit to protect the pilot in case the fighter rolled over. Sooproon found that the MiG-15 forgave even a heavy three-point landing after a premature flare-out but had a tendency to bounce when landing too fast. On his twenty-fifth try, he made a particularly hard landing, greatly exceeding all limits set by the flight manual. This time he 'succeeded' in bending the aircraft which nearly flipped over on its back, collapsing the nose and starboard main gear units. The message was clear: the problem was caused by poor airmanship rather than any deficiency of the aircraft. Still, this led the OKB to experiment with shock absorber pressures as described above.
The MiG-15 (izde/iye SV) replaced the MiG-9 on the production line at the Kuybyshev aircraft factory. This was initially the leading manufacturer of the type. Incidentally, in 1949 the factory received official thanks from Vasiliy I Stalin, the Soviet leader's son and Commander of the Moscow Defence District, for its persistent efforts to improve the quality of MiG-15s. So great was the Soviet Air Force's demand for the new fighter (partly because of the war in Korea) that eight more plants (!) joined in shortly afterwards. They were factory No 21 in Gor'kiy (nameo after Sergo Ordzhonikidze), factory No 31 in Tbilisi (named after the Bulgarian Communist Gheorgi Dimitrov), factory No 99 in Ulan-Ude, factory No 126 in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur, factory No 135 in Khar'kov (named after the Young Communist League), factory No 153 in Novosibirsk (named after Valeriy P Chkalov), factory No 292 in Saratov and factory No 381 in Moscow! At most factories the initial production version was allocated the in-house product code 'izde/iye 50'. Each of the factories which built the fighter had its own system for the allocation of construction numbers (manufacturer's serial numbers), and this is explained in detail on the following page. MiG-15
13
System 1 925 Red, cln 109025 1 Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1 batch number 09 (1 to 20 - MiG-15, 2110 37 - MiG-15bis) 025 number of aircraft in batch (up to 140?) The cln is stencilled on the fuselage, fin and rudder, gun barrel fairings andlor main gear doors. System 2 1 12 40
(UTI-MiG-15): cln 11240 Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1 batch number number of aircraft in batch
System 3 768 Red, cln 0715368 07 batch number (1 to 6- MiG-15, 6to 30- MiG-15bis) 153 Novosibirsk aircraft factory No 153 68 number of aircraft in batch (up to 100?) The cln is stencilled on the ailerons and sometimes on the port side of the fuselage nose. System 4 381 01 02
no serial, cln 3810102 Moscow aircraft factory No 381 batch number number of aircraft in batch (10 per batch?)
The cln is sometimes stencilled on the port side of the fuselage nose. System 5 53 21 05 46
546 Red, cln 53210546 in-house product code (izdeliye 53 =MiG-15bis) Gor'kiy aircraft factory No 21 batch number number of aircraft in batch (up to 100?)
The cln is usually stencilled on the fin and rudder and sometimes on the fuselage nose. Also, until the mid-50s, Gor'kiy-built Fagots had acharacteristic 'MiG-15 - 21' badge on the nose. System 6 (factory No 126): 317 Red, cln 3317 33 batch number 17 no. of aircraft in batch (20 per batch?) The cln is sometimes stencilled on the port side of the fuselage nose. System 7 (factory N0292): 421 Red, cln 2104 21 no. of aircraft in batch (50 per batch?) 04 batch number. System 8 31 53 09 81
981 Red, cln 31530981 Tbilisi aircraft factory No 31 in-house product code (izdeliye 53 =MiG-15bis) batch number number of aircraft in batch (up to 100?)
System 9 10 99 09 07
cln 10990907 in-house product code (izdeliye 10 =UTI-MiG-15) Ulan-Ude aircraft factory No 99 batch number number of aircraft in batch
System 10 02 135 10
(UTI-MiG-15): cln 0213510 batch number Khar'kov aircraft factory No 135 number of aircraft in batch
System 11 (UTI-MiG-15, factory No 135): cln 09009 09 batch number 009 number of aircraft in batch The cln is stencilled on the fin and rudder. 14
MiG-15
•
Top and centre: Early-production MiG-15s in the final assembly shop at the Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1 named after losif V Stalin, 1949. Yefim Gordon archive
A Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (c/n 115002) during checkout tests at Nil WS. Yefim Gordon archive
Workers align the RD-45F engine of an early-production Fagot-A at the Kuybyshev aircraft factory, 1949. Yefim Gordon archive
Here, a Novosibirsk-built example is nearing completion. Yefim Gordon archive
The type was also manufactured under licence in China, Czechoslovakia and Poland (foreign production is described separately). Indeed, the MiG-15 family turned out to be so prolific (no fewer than 13,131 of all versions were built in the USSR alone!) that, paraphrasing the title of a science fiction novel by Harry Harrison, The Steel Rat, one might be tempted to call it the Aluminium Rabbit. (No disrespect intended.) Early-production MiG-15s were still armed with NS-23KM cannons, and few had the OSP48 ILS. In the final batches of izdeliye SV, the push-button circuit breakers were replaced by conventional switches. These late 'non-pushbutton' aircraft were assigned to Soviet units fighting in Korea where the MiG-15 was to prove its worth in combat. Typically of Soviet military aircraft, testing at Nil WS continued even after the type became operational as air force test pilots explored the fighter's potential. Fagots used by Nil WS included a Kuybyshev-built aircraft serialled 719 Red (c/n 107019). Speaking of serials, in the early 1950s Soviet fighters had three- or four-digit serial numbers. These allowed more or less positive identification, since they tied in with the aircraft's construction number (usually the last one or two digits of the production batch number plus the number of the aircraft in the batch). In 1955, however, the WS switched (probably for security reasons) to the current system of two-digit tactical codes which, as a rule, are simply the aircraft's number in the unit operating it, making positive identification impossible. (Three- or four-digit tactical codes are rare and are usually worn by development aircraft only, in which case they still tie in with the cln or fuselage number (manufacturer's line number). On military transport aircraft, however, three-digit tactical codes are usually the last three of the former civil registration; many Soviet/Russian Air Force transports were, and still are, quasicivilian.) At the same time the star insignia on the aft fuselage were deleted, remaining on the wings and vertical tail only. The MiG-15s (izdeliye SV)'s trials programme included tests at speeds in excess of Mach 0.92 held at L11 in the early 1950s. The main purpose of these tests with a Moscowbuilt MiG-15 (c/n 381 0203, no serial) was to find out how the aircraft behaved beyond the prescribed VNE . At 12,500 to 13,500m (41,010 to 44,291ft), test pilot AM Tyuterev accelerated to maximum speed in level flight, then entered a shallow dive with the engine running at 12,300rpm, reaching the planned Mach number, and pulled out of the dive with the engine at flight idle. These tests showed that control forces increased considerably at speeds approaching VNE ; still, the programme was duly completed. The high-speed flights also demonstrated that at speeds above Mach 0.86 the intensity of the wing-drop problem was different for different MiG-15s. Thus, the pilot had to be aware of the peculiarities of each individual aircraft. MiG-15
15
In service, some MiG-15s (izdeliye SV) were retrofitted with improved avionics and equipment. The type also spawned a multitude of versions described below, some of which were one-off aircraft and were not developed further. MiG-15 (izdeliye SA-1/SA-2) development aircraft In order to verify the OSP-48 ILS the complete system was retrofitted to the second Moscowbuilt MiG-15 (c/n 3810102, no serial). This aircraft was unusual in being powered by a VK-1 engine as on the MiG-15bis (which see), being developed in parallel with the latter. Yet it was still a 'pure' MiG-15, not a bis; for instance, it retained the original triangular 0.48m' airbrakes. The ARK-5 AOF had a loop aerial buried in the aft fuselage and a whip aerial on the starboard side immediately aft of the cockpit. The MRP-48 marker beacon receiver aerial was in the aft fuselage and the RV-2 low-range radio altimeter aerials flush with the lower fuselage skin. This necessitated a redesign of the aft integral fuel tank which consisted of two halves (port and starboard) with an avionics bay in between. The AOF and marker beacon receiver aerials were fitted flush with this bay's access hatch cover, while the AOF unit was installed in place of the AFA-IM recce camera. In addition, the RSI-6 HF radio was replaced by the RSIU-3 Klyon (Maple) VHF radio, an SRO-1 Bariy-M (Barium-M) identification friendor-foe (IFF) transponder' was fitted and a BU-1 hydraulic aileron actuator was installed in the starboard wing leading edge. A new cockpit air conditioning system was introduced and the canopy had a single layer of thick Perspex instead of the standard two thin layers with a gap in between. In order to cut empty weight the aircraft was stripped of the SOPO dangerous pressure differential warning indicator, VS-46 altitude indicator, ammunition counter and the armour plate attached to fuselage frame 5a. Called izdeliye SA-1 by Mikoyan, the modified MiG-15 underwent manufacturer's flight tests from 4th February to 10th March 1950. These were followed by preliminary State acceptance trials from 29th to 31 st March and 6th to 19th April in the course of which the aircraft made 24 test flights, including three at night.
Top: 616 Red (c/n 0615316), one of the last Novosibirsk-built Fagot-As, with NS-23KM cannons. Yefim Gordon archive Centre and below: SA-1, the second Moscowbuilt MiG-15 (c/n 3810102), a development aircraft powered by a VK-1 engine. This aircraft was fitted with an OSP-48 ILS, an RSIU-3 radio and a Bariy-M IFF. Yefim Gordon archive Bottom: A close-up of the NS-23KM cannons on 616 Red. Note the thin and angular serial style characteristic of Novosibirsk-built aircraft. Yefim Gordon archive
16
MiG-15
Yet, even though the OSP-48 system performed acceptably it was not recommended for production as fitted to the SA-1 (mainly because of low component reliability) and development work continued. A similarly converted second aircraft designated izdeliye SA-2 was not submitted for State acceptance trials. MiG-15 (izdeliye SA-3) development aircraft Another MiG-15 designated izdeliye SA-3 was also used to test the OSP-48 ILS and find the best possible locations for the system's components, primarily the aerials. For example, the aerial of the RSI-6 radio doubled as the aerial for the ARK-5 ADF. As on the SA-1, the aft fuel tank was replaced by two smaller tanks to make room for the ADF and MRP-48 marker beacon receiver units, and the AFA-IM reconnaissance camera was deleted. In 1950, sixteen production RD-45F-powered MiG-15s were retrofitted with the OSP-48 ILS in order to perform the system's service trials and operated by regular WS units with good results. These aircraft have sometimes been misidentified as izdeliye SA-3. Soon the system became standard equipment for all MiG-15 versions.
Top and above: Another Moscow-built MiG-15 (c/n 3810203) powered by an RD-45F. LII test pilot Aleksandr M Tyuterev attained Mach 1.01 in this aircraft in a dive from 11,750m (38,550ft). Yefim Gordon archive
Below: The cockpit of izdeliye SO, a MiG-15 (619 Red, cln 106019) equipped with a sliding ASP-3N gunsight. The installation was intended to improve the gunsight's efficiency but failed dismally. Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-15 (izdeliye SA-4) development aircraft This version was likewise powered by the RD-45F and equipped with the OSP-48ILS. The instrument panel was revised yet again, featuring a generator failure warning light, a KI-11 compass (kompas indooktseeonnw) and a Mach meter reading up to Mach 0.95. The DGMK-2 gyrocompass and the AGK-47B artificial horizon were powered by separate PAG-1 F transformers. The aircraft also had automatic airbrake extension if the Mach 0.95 speed limit was exceeded, and in-flight engine starting capability was added. The SA-4 completed manufacturer's flight tests in August 1950 and was transferred to Nil VVS for further testing. Some of the improvements verified on the SA-4 were incorporated in production MiG-15s. MiG-15 (izdeliye SO) development aircraft In 1949 an early-production Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (619 Red, cln 106019) was fitted with an experimental sliding mount for the standard ASP-3N gunsight consisting of a telescopic tube and an inverted U-shaped support attached to the windshield frame. From its standard position the sight could move 160mm (6.3in) towards the pilot so that he could use the target lead angles offered by the sight more efficiently. It was also possible to use the sight in the normal way. Designated izdeliye SO (the 0 possibly stood for oroozhiye, weapons), the aircraft commenced State acceptance trials on 16th June 1949. However, Stage 1 which ended on 6th August showed that the sliding gunsight was unsatisfactory: its optical axis tilted from +0° 20' to -1 0 30' as the aircraft climbed, affecting the shooting results. MiG-15
17
More modifications were made pursuant to MAP directive No M-40/3300 (14th October 1949); the sliding mount was revised and additional armour installed for better pilot protection. The thickness of the bulletproof windscreen was increased from 64mm (2.5in) to 105mm (4.3in), and an armoured seat back and armoured headrest - both 16mm (0.62in) thick - were added. In this form the aircraft resumed State acceptance trials during the following year, but the sliding gunsight was rejected again and the SO programme was terminated in July 1950. Two views of izdeliye SU (e/n 109035), a testbed for the V·1·25·Sh·3 experimental elevating weapons system. "Mikoyan OKS
18
MiG-15
MiG-15 (izdeliye 5U) development aircraft/weapons testbed Pursuant to MAP directive No 658 issued on 14th September 1950, the Mikoyan OKB began working on movable cannon armament for the MiG-15. Usually a fighter pilot had to take aim by pointing the whole aircraft, which took considerable time. In a dogfight, this put him at a disadvantage: he had to provide target lead by aiming at a point ahead of the target on its anticipated course. If the target was more agile than his own aircraft, the pilot had no choice but to break off the attack and start anew - and the few seconds lost in so doing could prove fatal. Conversely, on a fighter with movable armament the pilot could bring his guns to bear
on the target much more quickly and more accurately - even when pointing the aircraft itself was impossible. Ideally, this gave him firstshot, first-kill capability. Hence a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (izdeliye SV) serialled 935 Red (c/n 109035) was converted to take the V-1-25-Sh-3 experimental weapons system replacing the standard armament. The system was developed by the OKB under Boris Shpital'nyy, the man behind the ShKAS machine gun and ShVAK cannon of Second World War vintage; the Sh in the designation stood for Shpital'nyy and 25 was the number of the plant where his OKB was based. The system comprised two 23mm Sh-3 guns with 115 rpg in faired flexible mOl,lnts on the
-
r
lower forward fuselage sides, giving the aircraft a jowly, bulldog-like appearance in a head-on view. The guns could elevate +11°/-7". The aircraft received the in-house designation 'izdeliye SU', ie, izdeliye S oopravlyayemym [vo'orouzheniyem] - with movable armament. The V-1-25-Sh-3 system comprised a movable sight and remote-controlled electric actuators that moved the guns. The guns were reloaded by a purpose-built electropneumatic mechanism and elevation was controlled by two knobs, one on the stick and one on the throttle. Gun and sight movement was synchronized via an electromechanical elevationaiming synchro transmission. The prototype was completed on 29th December 1950. Manufacturer's flight tests began on 2nd January 1951 and were completed on 27th March. On 20th June, test pilot Yuriy A Antipov ferried the prototype to Nil WS for State acceptance trials which began ten days later and continued until 10th August. Nil WS test pilots Trofimov, Makhalin, Ye I Dzyuba, Lookin, Kotlov, Toopitsyn and Filippov made 63 flights in the SU, including several flights to test the new gun installation. In the course of the trials, large gun blast panels made of heatresistant steel were riveted to the underside of the fuselage nose and nose gear doors when it turned out that firing the guns damaged the aluminium skin. The State commission's report said that the movable cannon armament enhanced the MiG-15's combat potential. For example, headon attacks could be made without the danger of collision and the pilot could bring his guns to bear on the target for longer periods. The V-1-25-Sh-3 system could be mastered by the average pilot in 20 to 25 flights. Still, izdeliye SU did not enter production because the system was too complicated and the elevation angle was too small. It is perhaps worth noting that in 1953, Mikoyan dusted off the movable gun idea, developing the izdeliye SN prototype, a heaVily-modified MiG-17. MiG-15 (izdeliye SSh) development aircraft In 1950, two RD-45F-powered MiG-15s built in Kuybyshev were fitted with a single 23mm Shpital'nyy Sh-3 cannon replacing the portside NS-23KMs. The conversion involved changes to the cannon mounts, access hatches and fairings, and the installation of a new ammunition box, new spent case and link chutes, and new barrel mounting collars for the Sh-3. The standard N-37 installation on the starboard side was retained. The aircraft was known as izdeliye SSh, the Sh probably referring to the Shpital'nyy cannon. The first aircraft was used to test the reliability of the new Sh-3 cannon between 13th July and 25th August 1950. The second aircraft was submitted for State acceptance trials on 1st July 1950. The trials resulted in some modifications to the Sh-3 cannon which, in improved form, was fitted to the MiG-15 (izdeliye SSh) described above.
5 Red (c/n 105015), the MiG-15bis prototype converted from a Fagot-A, during State acceptance trials at Nil WS. Vefim Gordon archive The Klimov VK·1 turbojet. Vefim Gordon archive
MiG-15bis Fagot-B tactical fighter (izdeliye SO; izdeliye 53, izdeliye 55) The advent of the VK-1 engine rated at 2,700kgp (5,952Ibst) in early 1949 enabled the Mikoyan OKB to radically upgrade the MiG-15 and improve its performance. It also meant the end of the road for jet fighters powered by other engines, to say nothing of the piston-engined fighters which were still in plenty in the WS inventory, causing huge maintenance problems. The idea of a single, 'standard' fighter (and 'standard' tactical bomber, the IL-28 which was also powered by the VK-1) seemed both feasible and attractive, and on 14th May 1949 the Council of Ministers issued directive No 1889-699 ordering production of the La-15 and Yak-23 to be terminated. Built in 1949 and assigned the in-house designation 'izdeliye SD' (the 0 probably standing for dorabotannoye - revised), the new fighter incorporated the results of a year's production and operational experience with early MiG-15s. The VK-1 had slightly larger dimensions than the RD-45F and an extension jetpipe of bigger diameter, necessitating changes to the internal
contours of fuselage frames 21 to 28 and a 60litre (13.2 Imperial gallon) reduction in the capacity of the aft fuel tank. The tail cone above the engine nozzle was enlarged and the aft end of the fuselage adjacent to the nozzle was redesigned, with a kinked edge in side view instead of a straight one. A GS-3000 startergenerator and a modified oil filler incorporating a wire mesh filter were introduced. A BU-1 reversible hydraulic actuator was installed in the starboard wing as part of the aileron control circuit. Elevator area was enlarged by increasing relative elevator chord to 21 % of the wing chord to improve aileron efficiency and elevator aerodynamic balance was increased to 22%; elevator and rudder leading edges were reshaped to improve their aerodynamic balance. The airbrakes were enlarged to 0.5m' (5.37ft') and recontoured (the upper edge was upswept instead of horizontal). Their hinge line was inclined 22° 30' forward instead of vertical to alleviate the MiG-15's annoying tendency to pitch up when the airbrakes were deployed, complicating gun aiming. A solenoid-operated valve controlled by a button on the control stick was introduced in the airbrake control channel to improve control efficiency. A four-barrel ESKR-46 signal flare launcher was installed on the starboard side of the rear fuselage, with a control panel showing the colour (green, red, white and yellow) and number of used flares. MiG-15
19
20
MiG-15
Pursuant to the abovementioned directives the prototype izdeJiye SO was to be submitted for State acceptance trials on 1st July 1949. However, the aircraft was not completed until late July due to the late delivery of a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (c/n 105015, originally no serial, later serialled 5 Red) to Mikoyan for conversion. Manufacturer's flight tests began on 22nd July and were successfully completed on 9th September; four days later the prototype was transferred to Nil WS. As might be imagined, the new engine proved troublesome, being prone to surge at full military power above 8,000m (26,246ft) and high-frequency vibration which reverberated through the airframe and set your teeth on edge. Three engine changes were made in the course of the trials and modifications made to the VK-1 's design; this alleviated the problem but did not cure it completely. The engine control system also drew a lot of criticism because it did not ensure stable engine operation at flight idle and did not permit sharp acceleration and deceleration (which might be necessary in combat) without the risk of surge or a flameout. Vladimir Klimov was strongly urged to rectify this fault, while Artyom Mikoyan was suggested to incorporate self-contained engine starting so as to reduce dependence on ground support equipment. Trials showed an overall improvement in performance, with the exception of range which was 180km (97nm) shorter because of less internal fuel and a thirstier engine. Compared to the basic Fagot, the VK-1-powered version' was 26km/h (14kts) faster, maximum speed at sea level being 1,076km/h versus 1,050km/h (581 kts versus 567kts). Rate of climb at sea level increased from 42 m/sec (8,400ft/min) to 46 m/sec (9,200ft/min) and service ceiling improved from 15,200m (49,868ft) to 15,500m (50,853ft) .
Opposite page: Top: Kuybyshev-built MiG-15bis '235 Red' (c/n 122035) during manufacturer's tests. Yefim Gordon archive Centre left: A close-up of the NR-23 cannons on 235 Red. Yefim Gordon archive Centre right, lower left and lower right: The lowered cannon tray of MiG-15bis '235 Red', showing the staggered arrangement of the NR-23s, the starboard-side N-37D cannon, the ammunition boxes and the cocking mechanism air lines. Yefim Gordon archive Bottom left: The muzzle of the N·37D cannon on MiG·15bis '235 Red'. Note the large blast panel for the portside NR·23s. Yefim Gordon archive Bottom right: The aft fuselage of a Gor'kiy-built MiG-15bis (c/n 53210668), showing open airbrake (the original 0.5m' version). Yefim Gordon archive
Takeoff run was reduced by about 100m (328ft), being 504m (1 ,653ft). Conversely, landing roll increased by 70m (230ft), reaching 880m (2,887ft) and making Mikoyan engineers consider the addition of a brake parachute. As usual, as an aircraft matures it tends to grow fatter; the new engine, equipment and armament added 238kg (524Ib) to the Fagot's normal take-off weight which reached 5,044kg (11,120Ib). On the whole, the results were deemed satisfactory and the fighter was recommended for production, with an order to submit a production-standard aircraft for checkout tests by 1st July 1950. The Kuybyshev factory switched to the new version from Batch 21 onwards and the Novosibirsk factory in the middle of Batch 6; Gor'kiy, Tbilisi, Komsomol'sk-on-Amur and Saratov built the new model from the start. Soon the VVS began taking delivery of what was originally known as the 'VK-1-powered MiG-15'. From 1951 onwards, however, this version became the MiG-15bis. In Gor'kiy the MiG-15bis received the product code 'izdeJiye 53', while in Kuybyshev it was referred to, somewhat confusingly, as izdeJiye 55 (see MiG-15bisR entry). In the Westthe subtype was assigned a separate reporting name, Fagot-B, the original 'pure' MiG-15 becoming the Fagot-A. The slipper tanks of the original MiG-15 which came in three sizes - 250, 300 and 600 litre (55, 66 and 132 Imperial gallon) were replaced by 400 litre (88 Imperial gallon) drop tanks mounted in more conventional fashion on tandem pylons and braced on both sides at the front to stop them from rocking during manoeuvres. Unlike the slipper tanks, the new tanks were interchangeable (port and starboard). Originally they were of simple cigar shape, but triangular tail surfaces were soon added to facilitate separation from the aircraft. (However, the early-model slipper tanks continued in use for a while after the MiG-15bis became operational.) Like the original MiG-15 (izdeJiye SV), early production bises retained NS-23KM cannons but in July 1951 they were substituted by rapidfiring NR-23s, with appropriate changes to fuselage frames 3 to 5a to accommodate the new cannons, once the shell scatter problem had been fixed. Following trials on half a dozen aircraft, including 235 Red (c/n 122035), the new armament was fitted in Kuybyshev from Batch 28 onwards, in Novosibirsk from Batch 15 onwards, in Gor'kiy and Saratov from Batch 10 onwards and in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur from Batch 29 onwards. Bises manufactured in Tbilisi had the new cannons from the start. The ASP-3N sight replaced the ASP-1 N, paralleling armament development on the Sv. The MiG-15bis was a considerable improvement over the Fagot-A as a weapons system: the rate of fire was more than 50% higher, the weight of fire was increased and firing accuracy improved. The wing drop problem experienced during
flight tests and operations of the basic MiG-15 became even more serious on the MiG-15bis because of this version's higher speed. Once again, different aircraft were affected to a different degree; some bises could reach 960 to 980km/h (519 to 529k1s) ·IAS while others became completely uncontrollable at 850 to 950km/h (459 to 513kts) lAS. Anyway, this behaviour led to accidents, and on 11th September 1950 the WS C-in-C issued an order limiting the Fagot-B's true airspeed below 2,500m (8,202ft) to 1,040km/h (562kts). Even before this order the Mikoyan OKB and Nil WS began a special programme to eliminate the tell-tale wing drop problem. For the first time ever the institute held a series of stability and handling tests with a view to developing specific recommendations for service pilots. The tests involved three Gor'kiy-built aircraft serialled 45 Red, 46 Red and 47 Red (c/ns 53210345, 53210346 and 53210347). Test flights began on 4th August 1950 and were terminated on 29th September, by which time the aircraft had logged 66hrs 20min in 100 flights. This first stage of the anti-val'ozhka programme led to the development in the same year of a version designated izdeJiye SYa, which is described separately. Apart from val'ozhka, the MiG-15 had a few quirks discovered by Nil WS pilots. Above Mach 0.87 the aircraft displayed reverse roll reaction to rudder inputs (ie, it rolled right instead of left when left rudder was applied). Also, aileron efficiency was poor at speeds in excess of Mach 0.86 and Mach tuck appeared; this was not dangerous but made flying a little more complicated. Based on these findings the MiG-15's flight manual was suitably amended. In 1951 the OKB undertook an effort to improve rearward vision for the MiG-15 pilot. The canopy received 1Omm (0.39 in) thick glazing. The W-shaped internal upright at the rear of the sliding canopy was deleted and the transverse canopy frame member adjacent to it was replaced with steel strips. The new canopy was tested successfully in September 1951 and recommended for production. Actually, MiG-15s with the new canopy began rolling off the production lines in 1952. Also in 1952, MiG-15bis pilots received the PPK-1 G-suit (protivoperegroozochnW kostyum) and appropriate modifications were made to the aircraft's systems. Air for the G-suit was bled from the engine compressor and fed through a filter. An automatic pressure control unit adjusted the pressure differential in the chambers of the G-suit, depending on how much G the aircraft was pulling. The PPK-1 operated with loads of 1.75 to 8 G, making it easier for the pilot to fly in a combat environment involving high-G manoeuvres. Pursuant to MAP directive No 10 (3rd January 1952) the airbrakes were redesigned to improve manoeuvrability. Airbrake area was increased from 0.5m' (5.37ft') to 0.8m' (8.6ft') with no change to the aft fuselage structure (by simply incorporating a new, larger skin panel MiG-15
21
i-
extended upwards, downwards and aft) and the hydraulic actuators were beefed up. The deflection angle remained unchanged at 55°. The modified airbrakes were tested on a Gor'kiy-built MiG-15bis (c/n 53210668), starting on 20th March of the same year. Trials showed that the arrangement was more effective, improving diving characteristics at high altitude, and the new design entered production on 1st September. Special teams were dispatched from Kuybyshev and Novosibirsk to the Soviet units fighting in Korea in order to retrofit their aircraft with the new airbrakes on site. Other changes introduced in 1952 pursuant to the said directive included a new.retractable LFSV-45 landing light in the port wing root ahead of the mainwheel well replacing the earlier FS-155 landing/taxi light in the air intake splitter and changes to the ejection seat that allowed the pilot to use either hand to eject (introduced on 1st july). The first Soviet rear-view periscopes for fighters were introduced in the 1950s. The Soviet Defence Ministry awarded a contract to the State Optical Institute named after S Vavilov to develop three models of periscopes (TS-23, TS-25 and TS-27); these were tested on the MiG-15bis's double-glazed canopy and the later MiG-17's canopy with single glazing. In June 1952 one MiG-15bis (235 Blue, c/n 122035) was experimentally fitted with the TS-23 periscope and another with the TS-25. Tests showed that both models were unsuitable for operational use: the TS-23 proved very inconvenient with its inverted image and the TS-25 lacked electric defrosting essential for combat at various altitudes and in different temperature conditions. To rectify this, the Vavilov Institute developed the TS-27A periscope with a powerful electric defrosting system which proved successful and was widely used on the MiG-17 fighter. The brand-new Sirena radar homing and warning system (RHAWS) came next. Fifteen aircraft of the 133rd and 216th Fighter Divisions fighting in Korea were equipped with it for service trials in October 1952. The results were excellent and before long all MiGs fighting in Korea had the Sirena RHAWS.
Fagot-Bs in the assembly shop at the Novosibirsk aircraft factory. Yefim Gordon archive The aft fuselages of bises (c/ns 1115332, 1115333,1115335 etc) on the Novosibirsk production line; note empty jig where the rear end of No 1115334 should be. Yefim Gordon archive 421 Red (c/n 2104), a MiG-15bis built by the Saratov aircraft factory No 292. Yefim Gordon archive Izdeliye SD-ET, a Novosibirsk-built MiG-15bis (1141 Red cln 1115341) used to test the self-starter system developed for the Fagot-B. Yefim Gordon archive 22
MiG-15
201 Blue, a MiG-15bis equipped with an RSI-6 radio and a Bariy-M IFF, on test at L11. Note that the barrel fairing of the N-37D cannon has been removed. Yefim Gordon archive
Fagot-Bs '570 Red' (c/n 53210570) and '497 Red' (c/n 53210497) during trials. Note the characteristic serial style of Gor'kjy-built aircraft and the factory's badge on the nose - a stylised aircraft silhouette with the inscription 'MiG-15 - 21'. Like most Fagots, Gor'kiy-built MiG-15s usually had three-digit serials. Yefim Gordon archive 37 Red (c/n 53210337), a Nil VVS trials machine, is unusual in having a two-digit serial. Yefim Gordon archive
During the next month the standard ASP-3N gunsight was replaced by an improved ASP3NM. The new model featured an electromagnetic damper increasing aiming accuracy and reducing aiming time during sharp manoeuvres. Likewise, the new sight made its service debut in Korea. The MiG-15bis was the most numerous version of the Fagot. It served with the WS, the air forces of Warsaw Pact countries and Third World countries, earning a reputation as a reliable and effective weapons system. Like the MiG-15, the bis was built under licence abroad; some licence-built aircraft had minor local modifications.
1
MiG-15bis (izdeliye SYa) The next stage of the effort to cure the wing drop problem began in September 1950 when three bises (c/ns 122040, 122067 and 53210434) were handed over to Nil WS. The two Kuybyshev-built aircraft had a stiffened wing structure, a 'knife' (bendable trim tab) 40mm (1.57in) wide on the wing trailing edge and a similar tab 30mm (1 .18in) wide on the starboard aileron, while the Gor'kiy-built example was used for comparison and featured only the 'knives' to represent a field modification. Test flights made from 26th September to 9th October gave disappointing results. On the 'field-modified' MiG-15bis c/n 53210434, wing drop was easily countered at up to 1,020km/h (551k1s) lAS at 700 to 2,000m (2,296t06,561ft). However, the prescribed limit of 1,040km/h TAS could only be reached with full stick deflection to keep the wings level, which of course was totally unacceptable; as per the said order the required stick travel was not to exceed a third. The two aircraft with stiffened wings fared better, showing an improvement of 30 to 60km/h (16 to 32kts) in speed at which wing drop was easily countered as compared to unmodified bises. Still, they could not reach 1,065km/h (575kts) lAS at 700m - conditions at which, according to Kuybyshev engineers, wing drop was not felt at all! All three aircraft showed no signs of val'ozhka up to Mach 0.92 in straight and level flight above 3,000 to 4,000m (9,842 to MiG-15
23
633 Blue, a Saratov-built MiG-15bis. In Saratov the serial was written 'back to front' in relation to the cln, since the last digit of the batch number always came first. Yefim Gordon archive
'/E~
-.
Izdeliye SD-UPB, the prototype MiG-15bisS escort fighter (c/n 53210114) with 600 litre (132 Imperial gallon) drop tanks. Yefim Gordon archive
, -~\ . ._=="""
The manufacturers' fair - a line-up of bises produced by different factories on comparative trials at Nil WS. These are Kuybyshev·built '341 Red' (c/n 130041), Gor'kiy-built '239 Red' (c/n 53211239), '317 Red' (c/n 3317) from Komsomol'sk-on-Amur, Novosibirsk-built '1776 Red' (c/n 1715376) and Saratov-built '201 Red' (c/n 0112). Yefim Gordon archive
Photograph on the opposite page: Two late-production Kuybyshev-built Fagot-Bs (c/ns 134017 and 134040) flown by Nil WS. Yefim Gordon archive
24
MiG-15
13,123ft); the second and third aircraft (c/ns 122067 and 53210434) were steady up to Mach 0.92 in straight and level flight at 9,000 to 10,000m (29,527 to 32,808ft). A fourth MiG-15bis (c/n 122058) was modified with an even stiffer wing structure which incurred a 47kg (1 03.6Ib) weight penalty compared to 30kg (66Ib) for the previous two aircraft. The new wings were designed by Vladimir P Yatsenko, a designer best known for the 1-28 fighter of 1938. Hence the three FagotBs with reinforced wings came to be known as izdeliye SYa, the letter Ya referring to the designer (izdeliye S s krylom Yatsenko - with Yatsenko wings). MiG-15bis c/n 122058 was tested during 11 th to 28th November 1950 with good results and the reinforced wings entered production. But even though the wing drop problem was cured, poor roll control and reverse roll reaction to rudder inputs at high speed remained. Hence the same aircraft was used to investigate lateral stability and aileron efficiency at high speeds during 7th-20th December; there was a pause in the tests between 8th December and 16th December when the starboard wing was shipped to TsAGI for measuring torsional stiffness. TsAGI specialists noted that the wing drop problem might be due in part to poor manufacturing discipline - eg, careless aligning and balancing during final assembly. Hence, in addition to the customary 'knives', late MiG15bis batches featured adjustable wing/fuselage joints that allowed port and starboard wing incidence to be altered individually for neutralising val'ozhka. MiG-15bis (izdeliye SO-P) Between 20th May and 20th July 1951, Mikoyan undertook a trials programme aimed at shortening the MiG-15's landing roll. The UA-11 anti-skid unit was tested. So were three models of brake 'chutes: two single-canopy models TP-1453-50 (tormoznoy parashoot) and TR-20 with an area of 7.2m 2 (77ft2) and 20Am 2 (219ft2) respectively - and twin TP-1453-50 'chutes with
a total area of 14Am 2 (154ft2 ). None of the 'chutes was judged to be satisfactory. A fourth parachute, the 15m2 (161ft2) PT2165-51, was also tested at Nil WS between 4th September and 20th September 1951 . This model worked well and was recommended for production. The parachute was housed in a special bay under the jetpipe; the dual bay doors and the parachute release lock were actuated pneumatically. A small batch of bises equipped with PT2165-51 brake 'chutes and UA-11 anti-skid units was built by the Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1 in 1952 and delivered to the WS in 1952. These aircraft were sometimes referred to as izdeliye SD-P, the P standing for [s tormoznym] parashootom - with brake parachute. MiG-15bisS Fagot-B (izdeliye SO-UPS) escort fighter The advent in the late 1940s of the first Soviet jet tactical bombers, the IL-28 and Tu-14, created a need for an escort fighter capable of reaching 900km/h (486kts), with a range of at least 2,500km (1,351nm). The La-11 escort fighter - the ultimate Lavochkin prop-driven aircraft - had the range but was nowhere near fast enough (its top speed was 674km/h or 364kts). Hence a requirement for an escort fighter derivative of the MiG-15bis with a range of 2,000km (1,081 nm) at 10,OOOm (32,808ft) was drawn up in 1950. The Mikoyan OKB took delivery of the 14th Gor'kiy-built MiG-15 (c/n 53210114, no serial) which was fitted with huge slipper tanks of allmetal welded construction holding 600 litres (132 Imperial gallons) each. These were carried on new and stronger 04-48 shackles5 which necessitated changes to the wing structure. The fighter had provisions for carrying production drop tanks or bombs on BD248MiG pylons.· Because of the greater endurance oxygen system capacity was increased from 6 litres (1.32 Imperial gallons) to 8 litres (1.76 Imperial gallons). This aircraft and subsequent MiG-15s were fitted with expander-tube wheel brakes
and more durable tyres to cope with the higher gross weight (6,010kg/13,249Ib). Designated izdeliye SD-UPB (s oovelichennymi podvesnymi bahkami - with enlarged drop tanks), the aircraft was tested by the OKB from 10th June to 21 st July 1950. Manufacturer's tests showed the aircraft was prone to rocking fore and aft during taxying and the take-off/landing run; to remedy this, nose gear shock absorber pressure and nosewheel tyre pressure was reduced to 23 bars (328psi) and 2.5 bars (35.7psi) respectively. On 8th August the aircraft was delivered to Nil WS for State acceptance trials. Test flights began on 14th August but were suspended five days later after nine flights (including four with drop tanks) because the pilots complained that the landing gear was too stiff. The OKB authorised operations with nose gear oleo and tyre pressure increased to 30 bars (428psi) and 4.2 bars (60psi) respectively; however, the rocking problem reappeared and the pressure had to be reduced again to 26 to 27 bars (371 to 385psi) and 3.5 bars (50psi) respectively before taxying behaviour was satisfactory. Testing resumed on 20th September and was completed five days later. The SD-UPB had a range of 2,220km (1,200nm) and a service ceiling of 13,400m (43,963ft). The take-off run increased to 805m (2,641 ft) due to the higher gross weight. G loads with full drop tanks were limited to 3.76 at speeds above 450km/h (243kts) lAS; otherwise, the aircraft was no different in performance and handling from the standard MiG-15bis. Even though the specified range target was met, the aircraft was rejected by the WS. The reason was that speed with drop tanks was limited to 650km/h (351 kts) , which was not good enough for escorting IL-28 and Tu-14 jet bombers; the required speed was at least 700km/h (378kts). Conversely, the pistonengined Tu-4 was unable to keep up with the fighter; at its minimum speed in stable flight with drop tanks (350km/h or 189kts), the SD-UPB was 30 to 67km/h (16 to 36kts) faster than the bomber in economical cruise mode.
MiG-15
25
The cockpit became extremely cold and uncomfortable in prolonged cruise at high altitude. Finally, the fighter lacked ILS and IFF equipment. There was an incident with the new tanks during the trials. The venting system apparently malfunctioned, creating a partial vacuum inside the tanks as fuel was used up. When the aircraft descended from 10,000m (32,808ft) to 1,500m (4,921ft) in 4.5 minutes with the engine at low rpm, the quickly rising external air pressure crushed the noses of the drop tanks completely. This led Mikoyan to develop new 600 litre slipper tanks with a blended shape for the SO-UPS. As compared to the standard slipper tank, the new tank was 100mm (3.93in) narrower at the top but of 30mm (1.18in) greater diameter; the forward portion was reinforced and skin thickness was increased from 1.2mm (0.047in) to 1.5mm (0.059in), resulting in a 1.5kg (3.3Ib) weight increase to 31 kg (68.34Ib). The new tanks were carried on 04-50 shackles. The SO-UPS completed initial flight tests with the redesigned 600 litre tanks in November 1950. In January 1951 the aircraft was turned over to Nil WS for checkout tests and passed them satisfactorily. The test report said that the MiG-15bis could be flown with the 600 litre drop tanks at up to 820km/h (443kts) or Mach 0.85, which was acceptable. However, violent manoeuvring was out of the question; G loads with full drop tanks were again limited to 3.76. On 11th April 1951 the Council of Ministers issued directive No 1169-586, ordering the aircraft into service as the MiG-15bisS; the S denoted soprovozhdeniye (escort). (The aircraft has been referred to as 'MiG-15Sbis' in some publications but this is incorrect, since the aircraft was a development of the basic MiG-15bis and there was no such version as 'MiG-15S'.) Council of Ministers directive N03099-1454 (23rd August 1951) and MAP directive No 849 (1 st September) ordered the production of 100 Fagot-Bs to this standard in
Saratov in the same year, but only 49 were actually built. With 600 litre production drop tanks MiG15bisS had a maximum range of 2,520km (1,362nm) at 12,000m (39,370ft); endurance was 3hrs 52min. In comparison, the basic Fagot-B without external tanks had a range of only 1,330km (718nm) and an endurance of 2hrs 6min at the same altitude. Total fuel capacity of the MiG-15bisS was 2,612 litres (574.64 Imperial gallons); take-off weight increased to 6,106kg (13,461Ib). MiG-15bisR (izdeliye SR; izdeliye 55) photo reconnaissance aircraft Early MiG-15s carried an AFA-IM recce camera with rather limited capabilities which was removed in 1950 to make room for new equipment. Later, however, plans evolved to create a photo reconnaissance (PHOTINT) version of the MiG-15bis. Over the years, the Soviet Air Force had had no specialised tactical PHOTI NT aircraft; this role was traditionally filled by inservice fighters, attack aircraft and light bombers fitted with cameras and extra fuel tanks to extend range. This tried and tested approach was applied to the MiG-15bis as well. On 25th April 1950 the Council of Ministers issued directive No 1706-663, followed by MAP directive No 316 three days later. Soth documents ordered the Mikoyan OKS to develop a short-range tactical reconnaissance version of the MiG-15bis equipped with an AFA-SA/40 camera and submit it for State acceptance trials in July. The prototype, assigned the manufacturer's designation 'izdeliye SR' - ie, izdeliye S, [samolyot-] razvedchik, reconnaissance aircraft' - was converted from a production ILSequipped MiG-15bis (the 20th Gor'kiy-built Fagot-B, c/n 53210120, no serial). The AFASA/40 camera with a 40mm focal length was mounted on the weapons tray between frames 8a and 9 and 'fired' from a control panel in the
cockpit. The inboard NS-23KM cannon had to be deleted, since the new camera was bulkier than the original AFA-IM. The camera installation incurred virtually no weight penalty. State acceptance trials began later than planned, on 15th August 1950. The delay was due to the OKS making several changes aimed at improving working conditions for the pilot. A canopy with single glazing was fitted instead of the standard double-glazed canopy which was prone to misting and icing, and a GF-1103 chemical filter was introduced in the cockpit pressurization system to stop kerosene fumes. Also, hydraulic pressure was reduced from 140 bars (2,000psi) to 125 bars (1 ,785psi) to extend the service life of hydraulic system components. The trials were completed on 16th September, and the result was a thumbs-down. The reasons were the camera installation's insufficient coverage width (mainly due to the lack of a tilting camera mount for two-strip photography), the impossibility to perform reconnaissance below 2,400m (7,874ft) or tactical reconnaissance below 1,600m (5,249ft) because the AFA-SA/21 wide-angle camera could not be fitted, and inconvenience of operation. The upgraded cockpit was also deemed unsatisfactory because the canopy misting/ icing problem persisted and the chemical filter was inefficient. The cockpit was excessively hot during climb to 5,000m (16,404ft) but became too cold for comfort after 30 or 40 minutes at 1O,OOOm (32,808ft). One feature the military did like was the heating system for the pilot's feet. On the other hand, the aircraft's performance and armament were considered to be adequate. For instance, combat radius with 10% fuel reserves on a typical mission involving cruise at 10,000m (32,808ft) and 10 minutes of air-to-air combat was 366km (198nm) in highspeed reconnaissance mode and 414km (223nm) in maximum-range mode on internal fuel only; with drop tanks it increased to 557km (301 nm) and 626km (338nm) respectively. Range became even greater when the standard S02-48MiG weapons racks were replaced by 04-50 racks, enabling 600 litre (132 Imperial gallon) drop tanks to be carried.
View from the cockpit of the MiG-15bisR reconnaissance prototype. Yefim Gordon archive
Photographs on the opposite page: 501 Red (c/n 135001), a very late Kuybyshev. built bis, with standardised 400-lit (88 Imperial gallons) drop tanks at L11 in 1954. Yefim Gordon archive These two shots illustrate the different serial styles worn by Kuybyshev·built Fagots. The style used on 182 Red (c/n 121082) was rarely used; most aircraft had the serial painted on in the manner shown on 588 Red (c/n 125088). Note that 182 Red has the RV·2 radio altimeter aerial located under the belly. Yefim Gordon archive 26
MiG-15
MiG-15
27
Oxygen system capacity was increased to 8 litres (1.76 Imperial gallons) and an SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder fitted at the same time. Development of the aerial camera continued during 1951. After ground rig tests the camera was reinstalled and the aircraft was ferried to Nil WS for renewed tests which ended on 10th July 1951. In early August the Council of Ministers stated that the Soviet Air Force was ill-equipped for reconnaissance duties. It also stated that the Ministry of Defence and MAP had underestimated the importance of state-of-the-art tactical and long-range jet recce aircraft without which tactical aviation would be blind and the strategic bomber a~m unable to hit its targets accurately. Hence on 3rd August the .SR was included int9 the WS inventory pursuant to directive No f817-1338 as the MiG-15bisR (ie, MiG-15bis-raZvedchik; the designation MiG15Rbis quot$d sometimes is incorrect). The recce\iersion ente,red production at the Gor'kiy aircraft factory aimost simultaneously with the basic Fagot-B, rElceiving a separate inhouse product code, 'izdeliye 55'; the first production aircraft had the cln 55210101. All production MiG-15bisRs had NR-23 cannons. The MiG-15bisR usually flew with 600 litre slipper tanks but other types of drop tanks could be used as well. The aircraft remained in service for a long time until replaced by PHOTINT aircraft based on later-generation combat jets. MiG-15bis (izdeliye SD-ET) development aircraft As noted earlier, the lack of self-contained engine starting had been a standing complaint ever since the MiG-15 first flew. On 16th February 1952 the Council of Ministers issued directive No 3169rs concerning the introduction of this capability. After the new 12SAM-25 DC battery had been successfully tested, a Novosibirsk-built MiG-15bis (1141 Red, cln 1115341) was fitted with an ST2-48 starter (the same model as on the IL-28). Tests held during 5th-10th March, 1952 showed that the 12SAM-25 battery enabled at least ten sorties lasting 30 to 40 minutes with self-contained engine starting. With the 12A-30 battery, engine starting was slow, but the old battery could still be used until the 12SAM-25 entered production. As a 'belt-and-braces policy', provisions for engine starting in the usual way (from a ground power source) were retained. The modification did not require major changes to the electric system and added only 7kg (15.43Ib) to the aircraft's empty weight. The aircraft was also used to test a series of improvements - eg, an ART-8V engine acceleration control unit (avtomaht regooleerovaniya topliva - automatic fuel [flow) control device) instead of the earlier ART-1 V, which allowed the pilot to move the throttle sharply at high altitude in order to put on a burst of speed. A PN-2FAK fuel flow limiter was added to prevent engine overspeeding and a DK-6K minimum fuel pres28
MiG-15
sure limiter to provide steady engine operation at low rpm. The back-plates of the NR-23 cannons were reinforced. Nose gear oleo pressure and tyre pressure were reduced. Hydraulic pressure was reduced from 140kg/cm2 (2,000psi) to 130kg/cm2 (1 ,857psi) to improve hydraulic system operation. A Mach meter was installed that automatically initiated airbrake deployment at a preset speed. The drop tank jettisoning pattern was changed, enabling the pilot to set the tanks for self-destruction (!) after jettisoning. A GF1103 chemical filter was introduced in the air conditioning system to clean the air supplied to the cockpit. The aircraft, which was assigned the company designation 'izdeliye SD-ET', passed its State acceptance trials successfully and the go-ahead was given to many features tested on this MiG-15bis. MiG-15bisP (izdeliye SP-1) experimental interceptor During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the air forces of NATO nations re-equipped with jet bombers capable of nuclear strikes against the USSR from European and Asian bases. The high speed of these aircraft made visual interception almost impossible in anything but the clearest weather, so the Soviet Union was faced with the task of equipping its interceptors with radar. The first Soviet airborne radars - the Gneys (Gneiss) series developed during the Second World War - enabled the fighter pilot to detect the presence of the target but could not be used for gun-aiming. This meant the pilot could not open fire until he was within visual range of the target. (And here we are, back where we started.) The objective was to develop an aircraft radar which allowed interception in instrument meteorological conditions without unduly compromising the fighter's performance. The officials were quick to react. On 17th December 1948, even before the would-be enemy bombers entered service, MAP issued directive No 939 ordering the development of an airborne radar for interceptors. Considering the complexity of the task, the research establishments and OKBs with the greatest expertise were entrusted with radar development. All four Soviet fighter OKBs joined in the program. The Mikoyan team chose the Toriy (Thorium) radar developed by NII-178 under chief project engineer A B Slepooshkin, the Soviet radar technology pioneer. It was a single-antenna centimetre-waveband unit specially designed for the MiG-15. Mikoyan engineers favoured the Toriy because, having just one antenna, it did not require radical changes to the MiG-15's structure and aerodynamics. However, it had no automatic target tracking mode, which was a major shortcoming. Tracking had to be performed manually by the pilot - or by a radar intercept officer (RIO) if a two-seat version was developed, so the Mikoyan OKB explored both single-seat and two-seat concepts.
The single-seat aircraft was to be based on the MiG-15bis and designated izdeliye SP-1 ie, izdeliye S, perekhvahtchik (interceptor), version 1. In contrast, the two-seater - the 1-320 'Mk 2' (izdeliye R) twin-engined h,eavy interceptor - was designed from scratch and lies outside the scope of this book. Both were equipped with the Toriy radar. The original SP-1, however, was converted from a very early Kuybyshev-built Fagot-A (c/n 102005, no serial), not from a bis. The forward fuselage up to frame 9 was redesigned to accommodate the radar set and dish. The radar dish was located in a large bullet-shaped fairing on top of the air intake which, despite its bulk, reduced intake cross-section only slightly but protruded perceptibly above the nose contour. The radome increased the aircraft's overall length by 120mm (4.72in). The S-13 gun camera was moved from its usual location on top to the starboard side of the air intake. The nose gear unit was moved forward 80mm (3.15in) and reinforced to absorb the weight of the radar. This required the lower portion of the intake splitter to be widened to accommodate the wheel well, which was closed by a single door opening to port instead of the usual twin doors. A special dielectric material had to be developed for the radome. The canopy was modified to accommodate the radar display and PKI-1 collimator gunsight, featuring a new windscreen with the 64mm thick bulletproof windshield farther forward than usual. The standard RD-45F engine was replaced by a VK-1 which necessitated changes to the aft fuselage structure la MiG-15bis. Enlarged MiG-15bis-style airbrakes were fitted. The wings and tail unit were similar to those of the production MiG-15, except for wing anhedral increased to 30 and increased elevator and rudder aerodynamic balance. A B-7 hydraulic actuator was introduced in the aileron control circuit. To make up for the weight penalty incurred by the radar the two portside NR-23 cannons were deleted, leaving the SP-1 with a single 37mm N-37D cannon with 45 rounds (some sources state 60 rounds). This was located as close to the fuselage centreline as possible (closer than on the standard aircraft) in order to maintain balance; hence the nose gear unit had to be redesigned with half-fork on the port side instead of the usual fork. The cannon was fixed and accessed via simple hinged cowls, the usual weapons tray being dispensed with. A 6kW GS-6000 DC generator supplanted the standard GSK-1500, and a separate SGS7,5/3 AC generator powered the radar. Other equipment included an MRP-48 marker beacon receiver, an ARK-5 ADF and an RSIU-3 UHF radio. The aircraft was completed in April 1949 and test-flown by Mikoyan test pilots A N Chernoboorov and Gheorgiy A Sedov from 23rd April 1949 to 20th January 1950. The tests lagged behind schedule because of problems
a
- - - - _...
__
..•
-----------------------~--------------------
The SP-1 was Mikoyan's first attempt to create an all-weather interceptor. Both Mikoyan OKB
The aircraft's nose is dominated by the bulbous radome of the Toriy-A radar. Yefim Gordon archive
with the new VK-1 engine and late delivery of the radar (for which Slepooshkin was twice reprimanded). This was followed by State acceptance trials which lasted from 31 st January to 20th May 1950. Tests showed that the wing drop problem affected the SP-1 as well; the aircraft became uncontrollable at 940 to 950km/h (508 to 513kts). Hence the inboard boundary layer fences on both wings were reinforced, increasing wing torsional stiffness and alleviating the problem. Besides, the radar was rather unreliable, shutting down of its own accord if engine rpm dropped below 7,600 to 8,000 and 'acting up' when the cannon was fired. From 23rd to 29th August, 1950 the SP-1 went through further tests, after which MAP issued directive No 999 on 28th December ordering the construction of a small batch of these aircraft for service trials. Work on conversion blueprints began in 1951. During the same year five new-build Fagot-Bs were converted by the Kuybyshev factory to SP-1 standard; these aircraft have sometimes been called MiG15bisP. As a point of interest, five Lisunov Li-2 Cab transports (licence-built Douglas C-47s) were converted into radar trainers equipped with the Toriy radar by their manufacturer, the Tashkent aircraft factory No 84. One of the five production SP-1 s was turned over to Nil WS on 25th November 1951 for checkout tests. Test pilots Stepan P Sooproon, Yuriy A Antipov, A Blagoveschchenskiy, Ye I Dzyuba, Piboolenko, Kalachov and Vasiliy G
Ivanov made successful intercepts, with IL-28 and Tu-4 bombers acting as practice targets. The Toriy radar could be mastered only by highly experienced pilots because they were required to fly the aircraft and track the target simultaneously. This was too difficult for the average pilot, so the Mikoyan OKB switched to a twin-antenna Izumrood (Emerald) radar system developed by Viktor V Tikhomeerov, NII-17 Director since June 1950, leaving work on a single-antenna system for a future time when reliable automatic target tracking equipment would be available. (Developrnent of the Izumrood radar had been intiated by MAP directive No 933 on 23rd November 1949.) Meanwhile, A B Slepooshkin continued refining his radar. An improved Toriy-A prototype was built, which later evolved into the Korshoon (Kite, a bird of prey) airborne radar. Both were flight-tested on the 1-320 and SP-2 (the latter was a follow-on to the SP-1 , a similarly converted MiG-17F). Neither model entered production and went into service because Soviet electronic components were, putting it mildly, less than state-of-the-art and the radars worked unsatisfactorily. After Stalin's death and normalization in the country, advanced technologies began developing rapidly, enabling the USSR to compete with the West in the race for technological superiority. This led to quick development of fire control radars using reliable electronics, allowing operational radars to be installed on Soviet interceptors by the late 1950s.
MiG-1Sbis (izdeliye SP-S) experimental interceptor In the early 1950s the Mikoyan OKB continued the development of radar-equipped interceptors. Two types of radars (referred to as 'radio sights' in Soviet terminology of the time) were then under development in the USSR: the socalled autonomous, or single-antenna, radars and twin-antenna radars integrated with ordinary optical gunsights. Unlike the former type which had its own computer, the twin-antenna radar fed target data to the computing gunsight which displayed the target as a blip, the size of which depended on target range. NII-17 started designing the RP-1 Izumrood1 radar (RP = rahdiopreetsel - radio sight) in 1948. This project was considered to be of minor importance, mainly as an insurance policy in case the Toriy autonomous radar turned out to be a lemon (which it did). The lzumrood provided target search, autotracking and attack in the fighter's forward hemisphere (in conjunction with the ASP-3N optical sight) and identified the target in conjunction with the IFF system. The main advantage of the new radar was that it could be installed quite easily in a single-seat aircraft, since pilot workload was significantly lower than with the Toriy. Designing the lzumrood took three years of hard work. It was a centimetre-waveband (S-band) radar with a 50 to 60kW transmitter, two aerials and two modes of operation: search and aiming (tracking). In search mode the radar had a 12km (6.48nm) range9 and a field MiG-15
29
of view of ±60° in azimuth and +26/-16 0 in elevation, scanning through the entire field of view in 1.33 sec. Tracking mode was switched on automatically when the target was in a yo forward cone and at approximately 2km (1.08nm) range. At this range, autotracking accuracy was 10 and 150m (492ft). The radar featured a cathode-ray tube (CRT) with a high retention (viewing) time enabling the pilot to observe multiple targets simultaneously; it also showed artificial horizon markers for attitude reference. The CRT was originally viewed through the ASP-3N sight by means of mirrors, though on production aircraft equipped with the RP-1 it was a separate unit. Interception was performed as follows. Assisted by ground control, the interceptor pilot entered the area where the intruder was supposed to be and switched on the radar, scanning the forward hemisphere in search mode. When the target was acquired the ASP3N showed it as a blip of varying shape - 'T' if the target was above the fighter's flight level, 'inverted T' if it was below the fighter's flight level or '+' if it was on the same level. The pilot
The SP-5 interceptor prototype during manufacturer's tests. Mikoyan OKS The same aircraft during State acceptance trials. Note the test equipment fairing under the centre fuselage. Yefim Gordon archive
was to make sure he was on the same level with the target and close in on it so that the blip crossed the CRT's centreline, entering the radar's autotracking zone. Then the gunsight showed the target as a blip with wings (==0==). known in pilot slang as the ptitsa (bird), the wingspan depending on the target's range. When the range was right the computer gave the OK to fire. The radar not only indicated target range and position relative to the fighter but also target motion, enabling the pilot to make an attack manoeuvre and cut across the target's path. The Mikoyan OKS decided to try the Izumrood-1 radar for its all-weather interceptor. The main challenge in fitting the RP-1 was in finding the best locations for the two antennas in the forward fuselage. At length, the engineers incorporated the search antenna into the air intake upper lip and the tracking antenna into the air intake splitter. This arrangement with its characteristic twin radomes ('fat lip' and small bullet-shaped intake centrebody) became standard for all Mikoyan aircraft equipped with the Izumrood radar. To implement this upgrade, a production MiG-15bis was converted to take the Izumrood1 radar. The changes to the airframe were less extensive than in the case of the SP-1 ; the forward fuselage was redesigned up to frame 9. Interestingly, the search antenna radome built into the air intake upper lip had a downturned
lower edge; this was to change on later aircraft equipped with the Izumrood radar." The modified nose housed 15 radar equipment modules, including an MA-1500 transformer for the radar. The canopy windscreen was redesigned in a similar manner to the SP-1 to accommodate the radar display but had two additional frame members on top. The armament was reduced to two NR-23 cannons (left and right) with 120 and 90 rounds respectively; the starboard cannon protruded while the port one was buried. The cannons more or less balanced each other and did not have to be placed so close to the fuselage centreline as on the SP-1, which meant the standard nose gear unit could be retaiped. In a similar manner to the SP-1, the S-13 gun camera was relocated to the starboard side of the intake; an identical camera was arranged in a prominent thimble fairing atop the windscreen to photograph a pilot's eye view of the target through the sight reticle. The aircraft was fitted with an OSP-48 ILS and an RSI-6 HF radio set; provision was made for the Sariy-M IFF transponder. Known in-house as izdeliye SP-5 (and likewise referred to by some sources as MiG15bisP), the interceptor prototype with the Izumrood radar was completed in mid-1950. Manufacturer's trials were performed by NII-17, with the Mikoyan OKS providing technical support. Initial flight tests at the hands of V M
*
30
MiG-15
Malyugin took place from 22nd August to 9th September 1950, with A E Ber as project engineer. These were followed by radar performance tests which lasted until 30th July 1951. At this stage of the trials a sizable fairing housing test equipment was added under the centre fuselage. After that, the aircraft was turned over to Nil WS for State acceptance trials at the hands of Air Force test pilots N Zakharov and V Levko, with good results. For instance, from 30th August to 7th September 1951 the SP-5 successfully passed cannon firing trials at the Kooshalino test range near Moscow, destroying unseen towed targets in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The radar's efficiency in IMC was judged to equal that of the standard ASP-3N gunsight in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and six or seven times greater than that of the Toriy radar. Given the lack of other comparable equipment for night/all-weather targeting, the State commission recommended the Izumrood-1 radar for production. Still, the RP-1 was not fitted to production MiG-15s, entering service in 1952 on the more capable MiG-17P/PF FrescoBID fighters. It was subsequently developed into the RP-2, RP-3 and RP-5 Izumrood-2 radars; the latter model was fitted to late MiG-17PFs, as well as to the MiG-17PFU and MiG-19PM interceptors armed with RS-2US (K-5) semi-active radar homing (SARH) missiles. Thus, the SP-5 may well be regarded as an avionics testbed. MiG-15bis (izdeliye SL-5) engine testbed In June and July 1951 the Mikoyan OKB converted a production MiG-15bis aircraft to take the new Klimov VK-5 centrifugal-flow engine rated at 3,000kg (6,613Ib). To this end the main engine bearers were changed, the fuselage tail cone was modified and a new extension jetpipe installed. The manufacturer's designation was izdeliye SL-5, the L obviously standing for [/etayuschchaya] laboratoriya - in this instance, engine testbed.
The converted aircraft was delivered to L11 on 20th July 1951 for flight tests which lasted from 15th August to 31 st October 1951. The idea was not pursued further because axial-flow engines were clearly superior to centrifugalflow engines. MiG-15bis (izdeliye SYe, LL) aerodynamics research aircraft In order to eliminate the MiG-15's reverse roll reaction to rudder inputs at high speeds L11 engineers I M Pashkovskiy and D I Mazoorskiy proposed offloading the ailerons and increasing rudder area. Following TsAGI recommendations, a Mikoyan OKB team under V P Yatsenko designed new wingtips with a modified airfoil and an angular trailing edge. The ailerons were also modified so that their span and area was increased but overall wing span remained unchanged. Also, the height and area of the vertical tail were increased to improve controllability. The redesign was initiated by MAP directive No 939 issued on 2nd December 1950. Blueprints for the changes were issued in December 1950. Since the MiG-15's mid-set horizontal tail required the fin and rudder to be built in two sections to simplify manufacturing, the engineers chose not to design an all-new vertical tail but simply fitted a new upper fin and rudder section to the existing lower fin. The new assembly was taller and the upper fin section had increased and constant chord (unlike the tapered standard fin). This resulted in a kinked leading edge and made the aircraft look rather incongruous with its outsize tail. The aircraft received the manufacturer's designation 'izdeliye SYe', the letter Ye probably standing for yedinitsa (lit. 'single unit' but more appropriately translated as 'one-off'). It was also known as LL (Ietayuschchaya laboratoriya) - in this instance, aerodynamics research aircraft - and has also been referred to in some sources as MiG-15LL, though this designation is doubtful. Three Fagot-Bs - two flying prototypes, including 510 Red (c/n 125010), and a
static test airframe - were built in this form in Kuybyshev in March 1951; the static test airframe was delivered to TsAGI on 23rd March. The aircraft were tested at L11 in June and July 1951 by Anatoliy M Tyuterev. Tests revealed that the structural changes <;lid not resolve the reverse roll reaction problem and the program was abandoned. MiG-15bis avionics testbed with SRO-3 Grad gun ranging radar In mid-1952 the Mikoyan OKB converted a production MiG-15bis into a testbed for the SRD-3 Grad (Hail; pronounced grahd) gun ranging radar, a reverse-engineered copy of the AN/APG-30 fitted to the North American F-86 Sabre, an example of which had been captured in Korea (see Chapter 4). No separate designation has been quoted. Little is known of this aircraft except that the forward fuselage was redesigned up to frame 4; the radome was built into the intake upper lip, causing the S-13 gun camera to be relocated to the starboard side of the intake. The SRD-3 was later tested on a modified MiG-17 designated izdeliye SG.
MiG-15M target drone When the MiG-15 was phased out by the WS, a number of Fagots with some airframe life left on them were converted into target drones with remote control equipment replacing the ejection seat. Conversion took place at the Air Force's aircraft overhaul plant in L'vov. Designated MiG-15M (mishen' - target), they were used until the early 1990s along with the Soviet Air Force's principal target aircraft, the La-17MM drone for training Air Defence Force (PVO - Protivovozdooshnaya oborona) interceptor pilots and surface-to-air missile crews. The designation M-15 has also been used; curiously, this coincides with the designation of a Polish jet-powered agricultural biplane (PZL M-15 Belfegor) used on a small scale in the Soviet Union. Several MiG-15Ms were operated by GLiTs (the State Flight Test Centre, ex-Nil WS) in Akhtoobinsk. MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-21) development aircraft On 15th December 1951 the Council of Ministers issued directive No 5119-2226, followed by MAP directive No 1264 eleven days later. These documents ordered the Mikoyan OKB to expand the MiG-15's tactical envelope by enabling it to carry external stores for use against both ground and aerial targets (I). The first of these was to be a ground attack version armed with two heavy unguided rockets.
A gliding scale model of the izdeliye SYe aerodynamics research aircraft was used to verify the changes before the real thing was built. Note landing skid. Yefim Gordon archive MiG-15
31
To meet this objective the Mikoyan OKB fitted a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15bis serialled 407 Red (c/n 134007) with 03-40 shackles on small pylons located about halfway between the main gear units and the drop tank attachment points. These carried 212mm (8.35in) ARS-212 (S-21) rockets on APU-O-212 launchers developed in April 1952. 10 S-13 gun cameras were mounted aft of the pylons to record test launches. The aircraft featured a special AP-21 sight based on the standard ASP-3NM. Accurate sighting range was 400 to 800m (1,312 to 2,624ft) for the rockets and 180 to 800m (590 to 2,624ft) for the standard cannons. However, the sight did not enable simultaneous. cannon fire and rocket launch, which meant one of two sighting modes (cannons or rockets) had to be selected before commencing an attack. The maximum payload comprised two rockets and two 300 litre (66 Imperial gallon) slipper tanks; the latter had to be jettisoned before the rockets were fired. Designated izdeliye SO-21 (ie, izdeliye SO armed with 21-cm rockets), 407 Red was turned over to Nil WS on 31 st May 1952. The aircraft passed its State acceptance trials with flying colours and was recommended for production. However, the AS-21 weapons system was never actually used by the MiG-15bis for some reason; instead, it was fitted to MiG-17s operated by fighter-bomber units of the WS. Thus the SO-21 can be regarded as a weapons testbed.
Above: 510 Red (c/n 125010), one of the two izdeliye 5Ye research aircraft. Both Yefim Gordon archive
a;;;rr:::::
===--
i. •~·
t
MiG-15bis (izdeliye SO-57) development aircraft In June 1952 a MiG-15bis serialled 803 Red was fitted with two experimental rocket pods, each with twelve ORO-57 launcher tubes" for 57mm (2.24in) ARS-57 Skvorets (Starling; pronounced skvorets) folding-fin aircraft rockets. The pods were carried on 04-50 shackles at the standard drop tank attachment points. The aircraft received the designation 'izdeliye SO-57' (ie, izdeliye SO armed with 57mm rockets). The programme was undertaken under contract with OKB-16, a weapons design bureau. The ARS-57 FFAR (also designated S-5) was widely used on later Soviet tactical aircraft. MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-5) development aircraft In November 1952 another MiG-15bis was converted at plant No 21 in Gor'kiy. The aircraft had 03-40 shackles for carrying two FFAR pods, each with eight ORO-57 launcher tubes for ARS-57 FFARs. Firing was electrically controlled; AKS-2 gun cameras were fitted aft of the pods to record test launches. Designated izdeliye SO-5, the aircraft was tested but did not enter production.
Left: 407 Red (c/n 134007), the 50-21 weapons testbed with AR5·212 (5-21) rockets. Mikoyan OKB
32
MiG-15
i
--r
t
•
/
The latter aircraft (possibly both) had a small fairing aft of the nose gear housing cine cameras which recorded mine separation. After Stage 1 of the State acceptance trials in 1952 both aircraft were returned to OK8-115 for correction of deficiencies (the .mines struck the pods and wings when dropped, causing damage, and in several cases the parachutes of the individual mines got entangled with each other). The problems were cured by introducing a pneumatic mine ejection system; compressed air was supplied by a cylindrical bottle in the pod's nosecone. Renewed manufacturer's tests conducted by Fyodor L Abramov showed that the system worked excellently and was easy to use. Still, in August 1953 MAP issued a directive terminating further development of the Grad system. MiG-15bis (Fagot-B) attack and fighter-bomber versions
MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-10) development aircraft A version of the MiG-15bis with the designation izdeliye SO-10 was developed with the inten-
tion that it would be used in combatting enemy bomber formations by dropping two 100kg (220Ib) PROSAB-100 anti-aircraft bombs (protivosamolyotnaya aviabomba). The bombs were carried on 04-50 shackles. In other respects, the aircraft did not differ from the production Fagot-B. The aircraft commenced its State acceptance trials at Nil WS on 29th February 1952. It has to be said that the idea was nothing new, having been pioneered on the Petlyakov VI-100 high-altitude fighter (the immediate predecessor of the Pe-2 dive bomber) back in 1939; however, it was Germany that used the concept operationally against Allied night bombers during the Second World War. MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-25) development aircraft Another MiG-15bis armed with two 250kg
(551 Ib) PROSAB-250 bombs commenced State acceptance trials in late March 1952; this aircraft was designated izdeliye SO-25. Tests showed that the thin shell of the anti-aircraft bombs was deformed by the shackles in flight. Modifications were made to the shackles to cure the problem and this rather unorthodox weapons system was recommended for service use.
The SO-57 weapons testbed (803 Red) was used to test ARS-57 Skvorets FFARs. Mikoyan OKS 539 Red (c/n 135039) was used to test the Grad aerial minelaying system. The minelaying pods were converted from standard slipper tanks. Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-15bis (izdeliye SO-??) 'aerial minelayer' development aircraft
The Yakovlev design bureau (OKB-115) tried a slightly different approach to killing off bombers in large numbers, developing the Grad (hail; pronounced grahd) system for the MiG-15. The system consisted of two pods converted from standard 260 litre (57.2 Imperial gallon) MiG-15 slipper tanks. Each pod incorporated seven cassettes and contained 56 parachute-retarded mines dropped in packs of eight through two sets of ventral clamshell doors. The port and starboard pods 'fired' simultaneously. Two drop modes were possible - the four rearmost packs followed by the remaining three or all seven packs at once. In both cases the cassettes were discharged in reverse order (7 through 1). A warning system was activated if any pack of mines got stuck in the pod (and could come unstuck on landing, blowing the fighter to bits). Two late-production Kuybyshev-built bises 511 Red (c/n 135011) and 539 Red (c/n 135039) were used to test the Grad system.
After the Second World War, the Soviet Air Force attack units re-equipped first with Ilyushin IL-10 Beast piston-engined attack aircraft (a development of the IL-2M-3 Bark of Great Patriotic War fame) and then the improved IL-10M. These aircraft had adequate performance to meet the requirements for close air support (CAS) aircraft in the early postwar years. The advent of jet fighters, however, necessitated the development of faster and more survivable CAS aircraft. The heaVily armed and armoured 'flying tank' attack aircraft concept found ready acceptance in the USSR. A number of strike aircraft prototypes were built, including the piston-engined IL-20 of 1948 which was obsolete by the time it appeared, the twinjet IL-40 Brawny of 1953 and the turboprop Tu-91 Bychok (Goby fish)/Boot shipboard attack aircraft of 1956 which was at least ten years ahead of its time. However, these aircraft fell victim to the Soviet leader Nikita Sergeyevich Khruschchov's predilection towards intercontinental ballistic missiles and his lack offaith in manned strike aircraft which killed off many promising designs. Thus, by the early 1950s the WS was left with virtually no operational battlefield support aircraft. This gap was filled by re-equipping attack units (and fighter-bomber units from 1957 onwards) with Fagot-Bs transferred from fighter units. To this end the MiG-15bis was retrofitted with two 803-56 pylons about halfway between the main gear units and the drop tank attachment points. Possible weapons options were two ORO-57K rocket pods with S-5M or S-5K FFARs, two S-1-0F" HVARs on ORO-212K launchers, and up to four bombs of 50 to 250kg (110 to 551 Ib) calibre (including two on the standard drop tank attachment points). The cannon armament remained unchanged. All weapons were aimed using the standard ASP-3N gunsight. The prototype (24 Blue, ex-2811 Red, cln 2815311) was converted at plant No 21 in Gor'kiy in early 1958, using documents supplied by the MiG-15
33
Mikoyan OKB. Together with a similarly converted MiG-17 (15 Blue, c/n 54210565) the aircraft went directly to Nil WS for trials which lasted from 4th March to 30th June 1959; the MiG-15bis was flown by test pilots V S Seryogin and V G Plyushkin who made a total of 114 flights on both aircraft. It was discovered that, while enhancing the aircraft's combat potential, the increased weapons load impaired performance somewhat. With two 250kg bombs and two 400 litre (88 Imperial gallon) drop tanks, take-off weight increased to 6,441 kg (14,200 Ibs), with the resulting increase in take-off run to 805m (2,641 ft). True airspeed with external stores was limited to 805km/h (435kts). Maximum G load was 7 without drop tanks (regardless of other stores), 4.5 with full drop tanks and 6 with empty drop tanks (regardless of other stores). With four 250kg bombs or two 250kg bombs and two S-1 HVARs, landing was impossible and two of the stores had to be jettisoned before landing. Maximum fuel in the event of a landing with external stores was limited to 500 litres (110 Imperial gallons). Generally the results were satisfactory and the conversion was recommended for service. The Fagot-B served with fighter-bomber regiments of the WS until 1960, when it was progressively replaced in the CAS role by Su-7B Fitter-As and MiG-17s - likewise transferred from fighter units.
As a fighter-bomber, the MiG-15bis was handicapped by its modest bomb load of only two 100kg (220Ib) bombs and the lack of adequate navigation and weapons-aiming equipment. Another disadvantage was the Fagot's vulnerability to ground fire due to poor armour protection consisting only of the bullet-proof windshield, an armour plate installed in front of the cockpit and the armoured headrest (the armoured seat back was fitted to late-production aircraft only). On the plus side, the MiG15bis was well armed with two 23mm cannons and one 37mm cannon. In addition, it could carry 57mm FFAR pods and powerfUl 190mm (7.48in) and 212mm HVARs. MiG-15bis (ISh) experimental fighter/attack aircraft In an attempt to enhance the combat potential of the MiG-15bis, the Air Force's Aircraft Operations and Repair Research Institute (Nil ERAT WS - Naoochno-iss/edovatel'skiy institoot eksplooatahtsii i remonta aviatseeonnoy tekhnikl) developed a specialised attack version in 1958-64. The aircraft was designated MiG-15bis (ISh), the suffix standing for istrebitel'-shtoormovik (fighter/attack aircraft). The MiG-15bis (ISh) differed from the basic Fagot-B in having reinforced wing spars and huge weapons pylons extending far beyond the wing leading edge about halfway between
the main gear units and the drop tank attachment points. These were fitted with triple weapons racks located in line, permitting the carriage of three 50 to 100kg (110 to 2201b) bombs, FFAR pods or heavy unguided rockets under each wing. In order to fire the rockets all six weapons racks could be inclined downwards 15°; it was also possible to fire rockets with zero deflection from the two forward racks. The MiG-15bis (ISh) was tested at Nil WS and the 4th TsBPiPLS (Tsentr boyevoy podgotovki i peeroochivamiya Iyotnovo sostahva Combat and Conversion Training Centre) in Lipetsk, but did not enter service for three reasons. Firstly, Soviet military doctri~e called for a dedicated fighter-bomber and this requirement was filled by aircraft developed by the Sukhoi OKB in the 1960s. Secondly, the MiG-15 was getting long in the tooth and was due for retirement by the time the trials were completed. Finally, conversion to MiG-15bis (ISh) standard was much more complicated and expensive than the Mikoyan OKB's option. An experimental batch of twelve aircraft was built; some sources, though, quote a much lower figure (three flying prototypes and a static test airframe). One of them, a Novosibirskbuilt aircraft coded 27 Red (ex-2168 Red, c/n 2115368), survives at the Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, east of Moscow.
24 Blue (ex-2811 Red, c/n 2815311), a MiG-15bis converted into the 'production' fighter-bomber prototype at the Gor'kiy aircraft factory in early 1958. The aircraft carries two 400 litre drop tanks and two S-l heavy unguided rockets on extra pylons. Yefim Gordon archive
34
MiG-15
l
MiG-15bis captive long-range escort fighter (Project Burlaki) When the Tu-4 Bull long-range heavy bomber entered service with the WS in 1948, the problem of fighter escort arose. The USSR had never had operational escort fighters; those that were developed in the 1930s and 1940s the MiG-5 (aka DIS-200, dahl'niy istrebite/' soprovozhdeniya, long-range escort fighter), the Myasischchev DIS, the Polikarpov TIS (tyazholw istrebite/' soprovozhdeniya, heavy escort fighter) and the Tairov Ta-1 (OKO-6) - did not progress beyond the prototype stage. The reason, apart from development problems and the wartime shortage of engines, was that the escort fighter role could be filled quite nicely by production tactical fighters of the time. In 1948, however, the situation was different. Since the potential adversary had jet fighters capable of flying nearly twice as fast as the TU-4, the bomber's prospects of reaching its targets seemed doubtful. This was clearly demonstrated by USAF experience in the Korean War, where the B-29 (from which the Tu-4 was copied) sustained heavy losses from North Koreari MiG-15 fighters. In the USSR, the Tu-83 long-range escort fighter based on the Tu-82 experimental twinjet tactical bomber of 1949 was conceived but abandoned at the PO stage. There were no escort fighter modifications of Soviet interceptors. The production Fagot was clearly unsuited for this role; even with 600 litre (132 Imperial gallon) drop tanks, the MiG-15bisS had a range of only 2,520km (1 ,362nm). This was adequate for escorting IL-28 tactical bombers with a range of 2,400km (1 ,297nm) but not enough to escort the Tu-4 with its 5,400km (2,919nm) range. One way to crack the range problem was for the bombers to carry captive or 'parasite' fight-
ers with them. In 1931-39, a Soviet design team under Vladimir Sergeyevich Vakhmistrov developed seven fighter/bomber combinations called zveno (flight, as a tactical unit), consisting ofTupolev 1-4, Polikarpov 1-15 and 1-16, and Grigorovich I-Z fighters carried in various combinations by Tupolev TB-1 and TB-3 bombers. The ultimate Z-7 combination (TB-3 plus two 1-16s fitted out as dive-bombers) even saw limited operational use in the early stages of the Great Patriotic War. In the United States, experiments were carried out after the Second World War with B-29s carrying the minuscule McDonnell XF-85 Goblin parasite fighter in the bomb bay or towing Republic F-84 Thunderjet fighters. There were also the FICON (fighter conveyor) and 'TomTom' programmes involving modified Convair B-36Peacemaker bombers and F-84s. Created to develop an escort capability, the FICON programme was used for long-range reconnaissance rather than escort duties, RF-84K Thunderflash PHOTINT aircraft being carried in the bay of the B-36 in service. A similar programme was conducted in the USSR. In 1950, responding to a Long Range Aviation (Dahl'nyaya aviahtsiya - long-range aviation)" headquarters proposal, the Yakovlev OKB began investigating ways of increasing the range and endurance of escort fighters without resorting to drop tanks. The argument was that a fighter weighed down by drop tanks becomes slow and sluggish, which spoils its chances in a dogfight with enemy fighters. The solution was a system enabling the Tu-4 to tow MiG-15bis fighters, with automatic coupling and uncoupling. In theory, it offered two advantages: the bomber would still be able to carry a full payload and the fighter would be 'travelling light', its performance unaffected by extra fuel. The system was code-named
27 Red (ex-2168 Red, c/n 2115368), the sole surviving MiG-15bis (ISh) fighter·bomber, at the Russian Air Force Museum in Monino. This view shows the huge extra pylons to advantage. Yuriy Popov
Burlaki (pronounced boorlakee). In 19th Century Russia, the bur/aki were teams of strongmen whose job was to haul barges up rivers by means of ropes; the analogy with the towed fighter concept was obvious. The Yakovlev/OKB-30 system utilised a drogue deployed by the Tu-4, the towing cable running through an external conduit on the rear fuselage portside to a winch in the fuselage operated by the tail gunner. A pneumaticallyoperated telescopic probe with a barbed tip was installed atop the fighter's nose on the fuselage centreline; it was promptly dubbed 'harpoon' and the appellation found its way into official documents as well. The modus operandi was as follows. The bomber paid out 80 to 100m (262 to 328ft) of cable, the fighter closed in on the drogue and 'fired' the 'harpoon' into it; then the pilot shut down his engine and the fighter was towed by the Tu-4 like a glider. If enemy fighters attacked, the fighter pilot started his engine, broke contact with the bomber and engaged the enemy, subsequently hooking up to the bomber again for the journey home. (Incidentally, the Lockheed company tested a similar system in mid-1947 on a modified P-80A-1-LO (44-84995I'PN-995'). Much has been said about the apparent Soviet custom of copying Western designs. However, this was very probably one of the many cases when engineers working on the same problem in different parts of the world arrive at the same solution independently.) MiG-15
35
Initially the system was tested on the first prototype straight-winged Yak-25 'Mk l' (15 Yellow) and a modified lend-lease North American B-25J Mitchell bomber with a 150m (492ft) cable. Stage 1 lasted from 1st June 1949 to 30th September 1950; nine successful contacts were made, with Sergey N Anokhin flying the bomber and Valentin Chapov flying the Yak-25. Stage 2 involved 'the real thing'. The 51st Tu-4 manufactured by the Kazan' aircraft factory No 22 (46 Black, c/n 221001) was equipped with a BLI-50E winch and drogue holder, and a Gor'kiy-built MiG-15bis (408 Red, c/n 53210408) was fitted with a 'harpoon' identical to that of the Yak-25. The 'harpoon' was 945mm (3ft 1.2in) long in the collapsed position and 1,372mm (4.5ft) long when fully extended. The S-13 gun camera was deleted to make room for . the 'harpoon', and a second 12A-30 DC battery and an extra 4 litre (0.88 Imperial gallon) air bottle were provided for actuating it. The bomber was converted by OKB-30 (the design bureau of the MMZ No 30 aircraft factory at MoscowKhodynka), using Yakovlev drawings, and the fighter by Yakovlev's experimental shop (MMZ No 115). Tests began at L1I, Zhukovskiy, on 2nd February 1951 and were completed on 26th March. The results looked ,encouraging; the conversion had almost no adverse effect on either aircraft's performance, and reliable and safe contact could be made day and night without any trouble. The MiG-15's engine could easily
be restarted at upto 6,000m (19,685ft). Contact was so smooth that the bomber's crew hardly felt anything at all, and the bomber's speed was reduced by only 10 to 12km/h (5.4 to 6.48kts) if engine rpm remained constant. S N Anokhin reported that the MiG-15bis handled well when under tow and the procedure could be mastered by the average pilot in two or three flights. From 28th July to 24th August 1951 the Burlaki system passed its State acceptance trials - again with good results. According to the Nil WS report, connection and disconnection was possible in level flight at 300 to 360km/h (162 to 194kts) lAS and 200 to 9,OOOm (656 to 29,527ft), during turns with 15 to 20° bank and climb/descent at up to 10m/sec (1 ,968ft/min). In clear weather the 'air train' could briefly cruise at its service ceiling of 9,650m (31 ,660ft). The bomber/fighter combination's top speed was 392km/h (211.89kts) at sea level and 490km/h (264.86kts) at 9,000 m; maximum range at 6,000m was 3,920km (2,119nm). Yet the trials also revealed that the Burlaki system had serious shortcomings. The MiG-15's cockpit heating and pressurization system did not work with the engine shut down, and sitting for long hours in a cockpit which became bitterly cold at 7,000 to 10,OOOm (22,965 to 32,808ft), wearing an oxygen mask, was a sore trial for the pilot. The drag generated by the towed fighter slowed the TU-4, and a slow bomber in the formation would inevitably slow down the entire formation, which was unacceptable. Worse, the fighter had little hope of
reaching its home base if it became separated from the bombers during a dogfight with enemy fighters. The trials report contained many suggestions - eg, providing a secure telephone link allowing the fighter pilot and the bomber crew to communicate while maintaining radio silence and adapting the system for the new and faster bombers then under development (the twinjet Tu-16 and the four-turboprop Tu-95). The main proposal, however, concerned changing the ideology of the system completely and using the probe and drogue for flight refuelling rather than towing. This led to the next phase of development work described below. Despite the system's shortcol")1ings, the Council of Ministers issued a directive on 30th October 1951, ordering the conversion of five more Tu-4s and five more Fagot-Bs to Burlaki standard for service trials. The bombers (c/ns 1840848, 2805003, 2805005, 2805110 and 2805203) were converted by plant No 18 in Kuybyshev where they had been built in 195152, while the fighters were built as such in Novosibirsk. They were serialled 2170 Red, 2175 Red, 2176 Red, 2190 Red and 2204 Red (c/ns 2115370, 2115375, 2115376, 2115390 and 2215304 respectively). The trials were held in the 50th VA (vozdooshnaya armiya - Air Army, == air force) at Zyabrovka airbase in the Belorussian Defence District between 9th July and 8th September 1952. The bombers were flown by five crews of the 57th Smo/enskaya TBAD/171 st Smo/ensko-
Left and below left: MiG-15bis '408 Red' (c/n 53210408), the first to be fitted with the Burlaki system, during State acceptance trials. The lower photo shows the 'harpoon' in retracted position as used for towing. Yefim Gordon archive Below right: MiG-15bis '408 Red' with 400 litre drop tanks as seen by the tail gunner of the Tu-4 which tows it. Yefim Gordon archive
36
MiG-15
Top pair left: MiG-15bis '408 Red' about to engage the towing drogue of a Burlaki-equipped Tu-4. Yefim Gordon archive Centre pair left: MiG-15bis '2175 Red' (c/n 2115375), the first of the preproduction Burlaki-equipped Fagots, under tow. Yefim Gordon archive Bottom left: View from the cockpit of a Burlaki-equipped l)IIiG-15bis about to make contact with the towing drogue deployed by a Tu-4 bomber. Yefim Gordon archive Below: The first flight refuelling system tested on the MiG-15 was an adaptation of the Burlaki system. Here, MiG-15bis '2204 Red' (c/n 2215304) is shown during the system's ground tests. Note how the fuel transfer drogue and hose slide along the towing cable, making contact with the towing drogue. Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-15
37
Berlinskiy GvTBAP/3rd AE, while the fighters were operated by ten crews (ie, pilot and technicians) of the 144th IAD/439th IAP/1 st AE. 14 The objective was to evaluate the system's reliability and 'user-friendliness', fighter/bomber rendezvous techniques and formation flying techniques. The trials involved 142 hook-ups (including 17 at night) and went without incident. The manoeuvring envelope was slightly narrower than during Nil WS trials, with bank angles up to 15° and rates of climb/descent up to 7 m/sec (1 ,378ft/min). The longest towed flight lasted 2hrs 30 min, inCluding 2hrs 27 min with the engine shut down. Before making contact the fighters zeroed in on the bombers by means of their ARK-5 ADF which zeroed in on the bomber's 1RSB-70 radio transmitter used as a short-range navigation (SHORAN) system. During landing .approach the fighters stayed connected right down to 300m (984ft). After extending the landing gear and lowering the flaps 20° the fighter pilot waited for the signal from the bomber crew or the tower to break contact; having received the go-ahead, he disengaged the 'harpoon' at 2 to 3km (1.08 to 1.62nm) from the runway threshold and landed. The system was ultimately put to the test in two sessions of mock combat on 5th August 1952. A flight of fighter-towing Tu-4s was 'attacked' by four MiG-15s representing the 'bad guys'. The attackers were gUided to their target by a ground controlled intercept (GCI) station using target information from an air defence radar. On the first occasion, the towed fighters lost; paraphrasing the system's 'strongman' name,
the Burlaki turned out to be strong in the arm but weak in the head. The bombers' flight leader spotted the 'enemy' fighters at 12 to 15km (6.48 to 8.1 nm) range as they were making their first attack and gave the command to start the engines, disengage and repel the attackers. However, as the towed fighters did so the attackers managed to make a second 'firing pass'. If this had been for real, the bombers would have been shot down - probably taking their captive protectors with them! The second try was more successful; two pairs of MiGs took turns patrolling (flying top cover) and resting (ie, being towed). This time one pair of escort fighters was ready to repel an incoming attack; yet again the 'enemy' fighters were discovered a little too late and the protective pair just couldn't cope with them. However, the 'bad guys' did not manage to repeat the attack before they found themselves counterattacked. The conclusion was that incoming enemy fighters needed to be spotted at least 4 minutes before they got within firing range so that the towed escort fighters could get ready. This could be done by fitting the bomber with a search radar, enabling the crew to spot enemy fighters at 60 to 80km (32 to 43nm) range. Technology quickly made the Burlaki system obsolete and it never entered service. Firstly, the Tu-4 was replaced by the Tu-16 jet bomber capable of cruising at 1,000km/h (540kts), equalling the speed of many fighters. Its heavy defensive armament and electronic countermeasures (ECM) equipment gave it a good chance of reaching its target. Secondly, experiments began with flight refuelling systems for fighters; some of them are described below.
MiG-15bis flight refuelling system testbeds The first Soviet experiments with flight refuelling date back to the 1930s when gravity transfer of fuel from a higher to a lower aircraft was tried with T8-1 and TB-3 bombers; this method was not adopted for service. Interest in flight refuelling systems was revived by the desire to increase the Tu-4's range and by the debut of jet aircraft with thirsty engines. Tactical aircraft were also viewed as candidates for flight refuelling. This could enhance their combat potential in many ways, such as extending on-station loiter time; escorting heavy bombers; delivering tactical strikes (including nuclear strikes) at ranges exceeding the aircraft's unrefuelled combat radil,ls; extending the range of interceptors; and increasing the chances of coming back safely from a longrange mission by means of refuelling on the way home . Flight refuelling studies in the USSR began in earnest in 1948. A team headed by V S Vakhmistrov developed the so-called 'system of crossing ropes' based on a system developed by the British company Flight Refuelling Ltd. But this proved cumbersome, unreliable and difficult to maintain. Once again, fuel was transferred by gravity; this meant the tanker had to stay directly above the receiver in formation flight, which was most inconvenient. The next step was a wing-to-wing refuelling system developed by a team headed by L11 test pilots Igor' Shelest and Viktor Vasyanin. The tanker deployed a hose stabilised by a small parachute from one wing and the receiver aircraft placed its opposite wing over the hose. Then the hose was rewound until the fitting at
Above left: The aft end of Tu-4 '41 Red' (c/n 1840848), one of the original Burlaki 'mother ships', following conversion to tug/ tanker configuration. Yefim Gordon archive Above right: MiG-15bis '2204 Red' taking on fuel from the Tu-4 tug/tanker. Yefim Gordon archive
Left: The entire pre-production batch of a Burlaki-equipped MiG-15bis fighters during service trials. Yefim Gordon archive
38
MiG-15
the end engaged a receptacle under the receiver aircraft's wingtip. The receiver increased speed so that the hose formed a loop and rotated the receptacle, opening a valve, whereupon fuel transfer under pressure could begin. Tests of a mock-up installation began in the summer of 1949, initially with on a pair of Tu-2 bombers, later with a Tu-2 as the 'tanker' and a Yak-15 coded 47 Yellow as the 'receiver'. The ShelestNasyatin (or wing-to-wing) system did not find application for fighters, as the brandnew MiG-15 was then considered to have an adequate combat radius. However, the system was adopted by the strategic bomber arm of the WS for the Tu-4 and later for the Tu-16. However, the wing-to-wing system had some serious shortcomings, including a fairly complicated engagement procedure and a low fuel transfer rate. Despite the stabilising parachute, the hose thrashed around like mad in the tanker's wingtip vortex and could get caught in the receiver aircraft's aileron - with disastrous results. Hence, as mentioned earlier, the WS considered using a probe-and-drogue system based on the Bur/aki towed fighter concept. Initially OKB-30, OKB-134 and the Yakovlev OKB modified the existing Bur/aki system by adding new elements. The fighter's 'harpoon' incorporated a valve and plumbing to the fuel system. The bomber was equipped with three kerosene tanks, a pump and a neutral gas pressurization system to reduce the risk of fire and explosion if hit. After the fighter made contact with the tanker's towing drogue, a hose terminating in a smaller drogue was paid out along the towing cable and the fighter accelerated, locking the two drogues together. (The original drogue was modified so as to allow fuel to pass through it into the probe.) 1,210 Iitres (266.2 Imperial gallons) of fuel could be transferred in six minutes. When refuelling was completed the smaller drogue was automatically disengaged and the hose rewound. Two of the aircraft used for service trials of the Burlaki system - Tu-4 '41 Red' (c/n 1840848) and MiG-15bis '2204 Red' (c/n 2215304) - were converted for flight refuelling trials which were held at L11 between 24th September 1954 and 2nd March 1955. The tanker was piloted by A Yefimov, with A I Vershinin as the refuelling system operator; the fighter was flown by S N Anokhi"n and F I Boortsev. The programme involved ten flights on the MiG-15bis, including five contacts at 2,000m (6,561ft) and 4,000m (13, 123ft); on three occasions, fuel was actually transferred. An attempt to repeat the performance at 8,500m (27,887ft) failed, however, because the system's rubber components froze up and became inflexible. Generally the 'wet Bur/aki' system was considered excessively complex, and as early
as in December 1952 another design bureau, OKB-918 led by Semyon Mikhailovich Alekseyev, took on the flight refuelling problem. This bureau (which absorbed the entire Vakhmistrov team) later became the Zvezda (Star) company best known for the K-36 ejection seat fitted to almost all current Russian combat aircraft. Once again a late-production Kuybyshevbuilt Tu-4 - this time not one of the Bur/aki testbeds (c/n 2805204) - was converted for the tanker role at plant No 18. The arrangement proposed by OKB-918 differed from the OKB-301 Yakovlev system in two important respects. Firstly, it was much simpler, with only one drogue and hose Gust like the system developed by Flight Refuelling Ltd which is in worldwide use today). Secondly, the aircraft was a two-point tanker. Two hose drum units (HDUs) were installed in the forward bomb bay, with the hoses running inside the wings and exiting from specially-modified wingtips. The refuelling operator sat in the tail gunner's station; the tail guns were replaced by a cine camera unit to record the refuelling sequence. Three Fagot-Bs serialled 17 Red, 342 Blue (c/n 123042 or 133042) and 618 Red were fitted with fixed telescopic refuelling probes offset to port on the intake upper lip; the conversion work was done by the Novosibirsk factory in May 1952. Test flights began in 1953, with a considerable delay because of late equipment deliveries for the tanker conversion; S N Anokhin and V N Pronyakin flew the fighters. At first, Mikoyan engineers were apprehensive about having the probe near the intake, fearing the drogue would generate excessive turbulence at the air intake lip and provoke a compressor stall. These fears were possibly caused by knowing that in the USA, an F-84 fitted experimentally with the probe-and-drogue refuelling system had the probe mounted on the starboard wing, well clear of the air intake. However, trials showed these fears were unfounded. Several versions of the hose had to be tried before the system was satisfactory. The original hose incorporating a reinforcing wire spiral proved not durable enough. A 'soft' hose with no reinforcing wire, on the other hand, flexed excessively and fighter pilots found that just a little turbulence made 'hitting the tanker' very
difficult. Another problem was the considerable amount of fuel remaining in the hose after the transfer pumps were shut down; immediately after breaking contact with the tanker the fighter was liberally doused with fuel, some of which even entered the cockpit. Still, the system was simple, reliable and offered a high fuel transfer rate. The combination ofTu-4 tanker and two MiG15bis receivers was presented twice for State acceptance trials but failed both times because of problems with the supporting rollers inside the wings which caused hose oscillation and failure of the fighters' refuelling probes due to the whiplash effect of the hose. Also, unlike the USAF, the WS had no need to fly its fighters over long distances. However, once again the probe-and-drogue refuelling system was used successfUlly on strategic aircraft - the Myasischchev 3MN/3MS Bison-B and 3MD Bison-C heavy bombers, most members of the Tu-951 Tu-142 Bear family, the Tu-126 Moss airborne warning and control system (AWACS), the Tu-22KD/RD/PD/UD B/inder and Tu-22M2 Backfire-B supersonic long-range bombers and their versions etc. Experiments continued with the MiG-19 fighter, using both the wing-to-wing and the probe-and-drogue systems (these development aircraft will be described later), but in the 1960s, development work was put on hold. It was not until the early 1980s that Soviet tactical aircraft received flight refuelling capability at last. Four decades earlier, it seemed that the solution lay just a few years ahead. MiG-15bis aerodynamics research aircraftlflight control system testbeds In 1952 two Fagot-Bs were modified' to test flight spoilers assisting the ailerons for roll control; the spoilers were 1m (3ft 3.37in) long on one aircraft and 0.22m (8.66in) long on the other one. MiG-15bis aerodynamics research aircraft An early-production Luybyshev-built MiG-15bis serialled 172 Blue (c/n 121072) was converted for aerodynamics research by L11. The aircraft had a non-standard rounded fin tip and redesigned upswept wingtips with a modified airfoil. Unfortunately, nothing is known about the time frame and the results of these tests.
,
MiG·15bis '342 Blue', one of the 'pure' hose·and· drogue refuelling system testbeds. Mikoyan OKS MiG-15
39
Left: 172 Blue (c/n 121072), a MiG-15bis converted for aerodynamics research by L11. Note the modified wingtips and fin top. Yefim Gordon archive Centre and bottom left: The ST-1 (c/n 104015), the first prototype of the UTI-MiG-15 trainer, during manufacturer's flight tests. Originally the aircraft was designated 1-312. Mikoyan OKB
UTI-MiG-15 Midget advanced trainer (1-312, izdeliye ST-1 and ST-2) The need for a trainer version of the MiG-15 became obvious even as the S-1 and S-2 prototypes were going through their State acceptance trials. Hence on 6th April 1949, the Council of Ministers issued directive No 1391497 tasking the Mikoyan OKB with designing such an aircraft, followed on 13th April by MAP directive No 266 to the same effect. The trainer was to have maximum commonality with the standard RO-45F-powered MiG-15, differing mainly in seating and control arrangement, and have no appreciable deterioration in performance. The aircraft received the preliminary service designation 1-312 and the manufacturer's designation izdeliye ST (ie, izdeliye S, treneerovochnyy [variahnt] - trainer version). Work on the trainer proceeded fast; Artyom I Mikoyan 40
MiG-15
signed the general arrangement drawings on 27th February 1949. Somewhat surprisingly, the first prototype, ST-1, was built not at Mikoyan's experimental shop (MMZ No 155) but at the Kuybyshev aircraft factory by converting a brand-new Fagot-A (c/n 104015). Prototype construction proceeded rapidly, and the unserialled aircraft was rolled out in late May 1949. The ST-1 differed from the MiG-15 in having tandem seating, with the student pilot up front and the instructor in the rear cockpit. The onepiece canopy with multiple frames originally envisaged was replaced by a two-piece canopy, the forward portion of the canopy hinging open to starboard and the rear portion sliding aft. Both parts of the canopy could be jettisoned manually or pyrotechnically in an emergency; the cockpits were equipped with identical ejection seats of the type fitted to the standard MiG-15. The new canopy necessitated changes
to the detachable rear fuselage. Changes were also made to the rudder and elevator aerodynamic balances, and stabilizer incidence was changed to +2°. The aircraft had full dual controls and complete sets of flight instruments in both.cockpits, and the landing gear and flaps could be operated from either cockpit. The instructor could override the trainee during landing gear, flap or airbrake operation. The trainee's cockpit featured a blind-flying hood for instrument flight rules (IFR) training. An SPU-2M intercom (samolyotnoye peregovornoye oostroystvo) was also provided. The fuel system was also modified, featuring a 95 litre (20.9 Imperial gallon) fuel cell under the trainee's cockpit and an L-shaped 760 litre (167.2 Imperial gallon) fuel cell between fuselage frames 9 and 13. The U-shaped 268 litre (59 Imperial gallon) No 3 integral tank located under the engine jetpipe between frames 21 and 24 was identical to that of the single-seater. Total internal fuel capacity was 1,123 litres (247 Imperial gallons)'5 For longer flights, 250 litre (55 Imperial gallon) or 300 litre (66 Imperial galIon) slipper tanks could be carried. The armament initially consisted of one NR-23 cannon with 80 rounds on the starboard side and one portside 12.7mm (.50 calibre) Berezin UBK-E machine gun'· with 120 rounds (some sources say 150 rounds) mounted on a common weapons pallet, just like on the single-seater. In all other structural details the ST-1 was identical to the production MiG-15 (izdeliye SV). An ASP-3N gunsight (some sources say ASP-1 N) was installed in the forward cockpit. The aircraft had an RSI-6 two-way VHF radio, an RPKO-10M OF, an AFA-IM reconnaissance camera and an S-13 gun camera. The ST-1 underwent initial flight tests from 22nd June to 18th August 1949 (some sources say 23rd May to 20th August) at the hands of Mikoyan test pilots I T Ivaschchenko, Konstantin Konstantinovich Kokkinaki and A N Chernoboorov. Between 27th August and 25th September of the same year the aircraft passed Stage 1 of its State acceptance trials at Nil WS and was returned for modifications. In October 1949 the prototype was delivered to the fighter regiment at Kubinka airbase near Moscow for evaluation which lasted until 1st April 1950. After that the ST-1 returned to the OKB's experimental shop for maintenance and elimination of defects discovered in the course of the trials. From 3rd to 15th May, 1950 the aircraft was further tested at the OKB; two days later it commenced Stage 2 of the State
The ST·l during State acceptance trials. Yefim Gordon archive
acceptance trials, passing them successfully, and was recommended for production under the service designation UTI-MiG-15 (UTI = oochebno-trenirovochnw istrebitel' - training fighter)." In the West the trainer was code-named, rather unkindly, Midget. Until the 1970s, NATO had a habit of allocating reporting names in the 'Miscellaneous' category to trainer versions of Soviet fighters. Later this gave way to a more logical approach - the code name of the singleseat version in the fighter category followed by a suffix letter. Apparently, however, Mikoyan - or the WSwere not quite happy, and soon afterwards the prototype underwent a series of modifications. These were relatively minor but numerous enough to warrant a new manufacturer's designation, ST-2 (ie, izdeliye ST, version 2). Unlike the initial-production UTI-MiG-15, the upgraded prototype had an OSP-48 ILS (with appropriate changes to the trainee's instrument panel) and a KI-11 compass. The NR-23 cannon was deleted and the ammunition capacity of the USK-E machine gun was increased to 150 rounds, which necessitated a reduction of the No 1 fuel cell's capacity to 76 litres (16.72 Imperial gallons); total internal fuel capacity was 1,104 litres (242.88 Imperial gallons). Other changes included an ASP-3N gunsight, a new oil filler and a chemical filter in the cockpit pressurization/air conditioning system. After completing manufacturer's flight tests August 1950 the ST-2 passed its State acceptance trials and was recommended for production, becoming the standard-setter for late-production Kuybyshev-built UTI-MiG-15s from c/n 10444 onwards. The trainer's design and systems were continuously updated; this was partly because the MiG-15bis, MiG-17 and MiG-19 had no trainer versions of their own. For example, the Afanas'yev A-12,7 machine gun
---......
--
(
*
was included into the Soviet Armed Forces inventory in September 1953 and replaced the USK-E on the Midget shortly afterwards. In March 1952 a production UTI-MiG-15 was modified to test several equipment updates. These included an RSIU-3 UHF radio replacing the RSI-6K VHF radio, an improved ASP-3NM gunsight, an SPU-2R intercom and a 3kW GSN-3000 DC generator replacing the earlier 1.5kW GSK-1500. An SRO-1 Sariy-M IFF transponder was added and the landing light was relocated from the air intake splitter to the port wing. Most of these changes were incorporated on late-production Midgets. A custom-built UTI-MiG-15 was delivered to the Cosmonauts' Detachment at Chkalovskaya airbase near Moscow for zero-G training as part of the training programme for manned space flight. The aircraft had a reinforced airframe to withstand the considerable stress and strain experienced when the aircraft followed a special parabolic trajectory to create weightlessness. Later it was supplanted in the 'Vomit Comet' role by three specially-modified Tu104AK Camel airliners (46 Red, c/n 8350705; 47 Red, c/n 8350704; and 48 Red, c/n 86601301). There are persistent rumours that the zero-G Midget now resides at the Russian Air Force Museum in Monino with the tactical code 03 Red; the c/n has been quoted as 22013, indicating Khar'kov production.
The UTI-MiG-15 was produced in large numbers at several plants, staying in service with the WS well into the 1970s until finally replaced by the MiG-21 U/US/UM Mongol-A/B. Even after that, it soldiered on in the weather reconnaissance role at Air Force flying schools and in combat units. It was also operated for a long time by DOSAAF, an organization that prepared Soviet youth for service with the armed forces.'· The UTI-MiG-15 is still in service in third-world countries. UTI-MiG-15P interceptor trainer (izdeliye ST-7 and ST-8) After the RP-1 Izumrood radar successfully passed its trials, the Council of Ministers issued directive No 2460-933 on 24th May 1952, ordering the Mikoyan OKS to equip two UTI-MiG-15 trainers with this radar in order to help Soviet pilots master IFR intercept techniques. This was followed by MAP directive No 624 to the same effect on 2nd June. Originally the Kuybyshev factory was to build both prototypes pursuant to MAP directive N0836 (18th July 1952), and the OKS turned over a set of project documents to the plant in September. However, the aircraft were never built there because factory No 1 was terminating UTI-MiG-15 production and gearing up to build the Tu-16 Badger bomber. Hence the Ministry of Defence Industry (MOP - Ministerstvo MiG-15
41
oboronnoy promyshlennostl) requested on 26th March and 24th June,1953 that the Mikoyan OKB convert the two aircraft in house. The OKB reacted quickly. A new set of project documents for the conversion was completed in June and the two radar trainers designated izde/iye ST-7 were rolled out in August. The ST-7 had a modified forward fuselage similar to that of the MiG-15bisP (izdeliye SP-5), but the lower edge of the search antenna radome was now almost horizontal - in fact, even slightly upturned. The canopy had a nonstandard sharply-raked extended windshield providing room for the radar display. The armament consisted of one UBK-E machine gun, with a largish fairing on the starboard side (probably housing part of the radar set) where the NR-23 cannon used to be. The first prototype was damaged beyond . repair in the course of the manufacturer's flight tests on 15th September 1953, apparently experiencing problems with spin recovery. This conclusion can be drawn from the fact that TsAGI conducted a special wind tunnel programme to determine the ST-Ts spinning characteristics in connection with the accident investigation panel's findings. The second prototype was submitted for State acceptance trials during April and May 1954 and found unsatisfactory. The reason was that in the meantime the WS had changed its requirements, requesting that a second radar display and sight be installed in the rear cockpit. On 9th August 1954 the Council of Ministers issued directive No 1651-747, followed by MAP directive No 523 on 23rd August. These tasked the OKB with developing a version of the UTIMiG-15 incorporating the improved RP-3 Izumrood-3 radar, ASP-3NM sight and other changes specified by the military. Designated iZdeliye ST-8, a UTI-MiG-15 was suitably converted in 1955. Apart from the radar, it differed from the production Midget in many subtle ways. The No 1 fuel cell was removed and the nose gear unit was beefed up to absorb the weight of the radar. Comms radio, ILS and IFF
equipment modules were repositioned, a 6kW GSR-6000 generator replaced the standard GSN-3000, and an A-12,7 machine gun was fitted. The cockpit pressurization/air conditioning system incorporated changes based on the production MiG-17. The ST-8 was effectively a testbed for the RP-3 radar which was fitted to some MiG-17P interceptors and later evolved into the RP-5 radar. UTI-MiG-15 drone director aircraft As remote-controlled target drone conversions of obsolescent fighters and bombers were developed and tested, the need for a drone director aircraft arose. Hence two Kuybyshevbuilt UTI-MiG-15s were converted into director aircraft for Yak-25MSh drones.'· The first aircraft coded 16 Red (c/n 106216) was converted by plant No 918, while the other Midget whose tactical code is unknown (c/n 106220) was modified by L11 personnel. The radio control equipment evolved from the land-based MRV-2M transmitter was installed on the weapons tray and the transmitting whip aerials were located on the horizontal tail. The drone operator sat in the front cockpit; part of the standard flight instruments and the gunsight were replaced by a DK-16RS controller (DK = dahtchik komahnd). Three Yak-25MSh drones were tested successfully from 7th to 22nd December 1959 and 11 th January to 2nd February 1960. The Yak25MSh had higher performance than the drones then in service and the UTI-MiG-15 director aircraft allowed it to be landed successfully when the mission was completed (unless, of course, the drone was actually to be destroyed). UTI-MiG-15 (izdeliye ST-10) ejection seat testbed Experience with first-generation ejection seats showed that pilots were often injured in highspeed ejections because the seat offered no protection from the slipstream. Besides, the seats were not stabilized and tumbled head
over heels after separation from the aircraft, increasing the risk of injury. The engineers examined several means of increasing the chances of safe egress at high speed, including detachable crew modules (as, for instance, on the General Dynamics F-111). Eventually, however, it was decided that improved ejection seats were the cheapest and simplest solution to the problem. In particular, the second-generation seat was to be fired together with the forward-opening canopy which would protect the pilot from the slipstream. As a first step, a ground rig was built to test the seats, ejecting dummies at speeds up to l,OOOkm/h (540kts). This installation verified the seat's stabilization system ens.uring safe ejection at high speed. Another ground rig was used to study the effects of G loads on human . pilots during ejection. The efficiency of the canopy doubling as a protective visor was tested on a Tu-2 bomber converted into an ejection testbed. In 1954 the first production Kuybyshev-built UTI-MiG-15 serialled 101' Blue'" (c/n 10101) was converted by L11 for conducting ejection seat tests with both dummies and pilots. The aircraft was designated izdeliye ST-1 O. The aircraft was flown in two configurations with the experimental ejection seat fired from the front and rear cockpits; it is hard to say which came first. In the former configuration 101' Blue was a nearly-standard Midget with the prototype seat installed in the forward cockpit. The hinged forward canopy was replaced by a metal fairing with a large opening through which the seat was ejected. This was an attempt to kill two birds with one stone (to avoid jettisoning the canopy and facilitate installation and removal of the ejection seat while reducing turbulence around the forward cockpit). High-speed cine cameras were installed in small teardrop fairings on the wing upper surface near the wingtips to record the ejection sequence. The aircraft had phototheodolite calibration markings on the forward and rear fuselage and upper and lower fin.
The trainee's (left) and instructor's instrument panels of the UTI-MiG-15. Yefim Gordon archive
Photographs on the opposite page: Two production UTI-MiG·15s operated by a Naval air arm unit. Yefim Gordon archive The ST-7 radar trainer based on the UTI-MiG-15. Yefim Gordon archive The ST-10 ejection seat testbed was converted from the first production Kuybyshev-built UTI-MiG·15 (101' Blue, c/n 10101). Yefim Gordon archive 42
MiG-15
MiG-15
43
In its other configuration the aircraft had the sliding rear canopy replaced by a large shallow metal fairing extending almost all the way to the fin. Initially the ST-10 fired a standard MiG-15 ejection seat suitably modified for the experiment, with a non-standard canopy over the rear cockpit (ie, inside the abovementioned fairing). During rotation two clamps on the seat headrest engaged two lugs on the canopy, causing it to rotate up and forward. The front end of the canopy slid aft along guide rails until it locked into position on the seat pan, disengaging itself from the guide rails in so doing; the canopy now offered protection for the pilot. The seat complete with canopy weighed 225k.g (4961b) and was ejected by a telescopic ejection gun at an initial speed of 18.5 to 19.0 m/sec (60.7 to 62.3ft/sec). Tests began in the second half of the 1950s. Several stabilizing systems were tried, including stabilizing parachutes on telescopic booms extending aft of the seat. The programme was conducted by test pilot Edward V Yelyan and test parachutist V Golovin. As a result, an ejection mount with a sliding canopy for pilot protection from the airflow was recommended for all Soviet fighters capable of exceeding 1,000km/h (540kts). The designation ST-1 0 has also been quoted for two other UTI-MiG-15s converted into ejection seat testbeds. The second aircraft serialled 102' Blue (c/n 10102) had the prototype seat in the rear cockpit. The sliding rear canopy was replaced by a large shallow metal fairing extending almost all the way to the fin. As part of the MiG-21 development programme, the third UTI-MiG-15 (401' Blue) was converted into a testbed for its parachute-stabilised SK ejection seat (seeden'ye katapool'teerooyemoye - ejection seat, as simple as that). The forward canopy section complete with fixed windshield was replaced by a onepiece forward-hinged canopy developed for the MiG-21 F Fishbed-A (or perhaps, more precisely, its immediate precursor - the experi-
The ST·10 ejection seat testbed was converted from the first production Kuybyshev-built UTI·MiG·15 (101' Blue, c/n 10101). Note the calibration markings on the fuselage and fin. Yefim Gordon archive Another UTI·MiG-15 (401' Blue, c/n 10401) converted into an ejection seat testbed by 1I1 firing an 'experimental seat from the rear cockpit. Note how the canopy acts as a shield protecting the pilot from the slipstream. Yefim Gordon archive A close-up of the cockpit area of 401' Blue. Yefim Gordon archive This view clearly shows the modified rear cockpit of the UTI·MiG·15stk with low Perspex sidewalls instead of the sliding canopy. Yefim Gordon archive
44
MiG-15
mental swept-wing Ye-2 Faceplate). This was rather lower than the rest of the Midget's canopy, resulting in a pronounced step between it and the sliding rear canopy. 102Y Blue and 401 Y Blue had similar phototheodolite calibration markings. Curiously, the MiG-21 F's bulletproof windscreen was not part of the hinged canopy, being attached to the airframe under the canopy, and was left behind after ejection. On 401 Y Blue it obviously played no part in the ejection sequence and was very probably fitted in lieu of a windshield. With the forward canopy gone, the turbulent airflow around the forward fuselage might otherwise have excessively complicated flying for the man who stayed behind to land the aircraft! 401 Y Blue also had a different configuration with a standard forward canopy (including windshield) and a non-standard rear canopy resembling that of the Sukhoi Suo? Fitter-A; it was longer than the Midget's and a new fairing had to be installed between it and the fuselage. The rear canopy likewise acted as a protective visor and the seat was fired by a long telescopic ejection gun. Curiously, the canopy sported something like a large blade aerial, though this may have been a sort of stabilising surface. It is not known which configuration came first. 'UTI-MiG·15stk' Midget ejection trainer WS pilots flying the MiG-15 were apprehensive about its first-generation ejection seat, fearing serious injuries in the event of an ejection at low altitude or on landing when most accidents happen. To overcome this psychological obstacle and restore the pilots' confidence in the aircraft the WS decided that some of the UTI-MIG-15s were to be used as ejection trainers. Referred to by the Soviet MoD's daily newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) as 'UTI-MiG-15stk' (s treneerovochnoy katapool'toy - with training catapult; the designation is unofficial), these aircraft toured fighter regiments flying the Fagot, Air Force test pilots demonstrated the ejection sequence to service pilots and then challenged volunteers to try it. The back seat had a reduced powder charge (probably to avoid an almighty kick in the butt which might scare the ejectee to death!), but still permitted safe ejection, of course. Outw'ardly the 'UTI-MiG-15stk' differed from the standard Midget in having the sliding rear canopy replaced by low Perspex sidewalls so that the rear cockpit was an open one. Two aircraft thus modified, coded 15 Blue and 23 Blue, have been seen so far.
-
Top and centre: Sequence of still from a cine film showing an experimental ejection seat being fired from Lll's ST·10 testbed (101 Y Blue, cln 10101). Yefim Gordon archive Bottom: A trainee is catapulted from the rear cockpit of a Midget ejection trainer unofficially known as UTI·MiG·15stk. Yefim Gordon archive MiG-15
45
Above left and right: Two views of 32 Red, a MiG15bis converted to a MiG-15M (M-15) target drone. The ventral pannier with guidance equipment, the probe aerials on the stabilizers and the fairings on the aft fuselage are clearly visible. Yefim Gordon archive
*
Left and below: This MiG-15M coded '30 Red' has drop tanks to increase range and endurance. Yefim Gordon archive
..
46
MiG-15
Chapter Three
Foreign Production CHINESE·BUILT MiG·15s
CZECH·BUILT MiG·15s
In March 1950, the Chinese government decided that China should build modern jet aircraft and turned to 'Big Brother' - the USSR - for help. Assistance was promptly provided; in October 1951 (when Soviet and Chinese pilots had already been flying Soviet-built MiG-15s in the Korean war for a year), 847 Soviet specialists of varying rank were dispatched to China. They were to assist in organizing China's nascent aircraft industry - including MiG-15bis production under licence at the Shenyang aircraft factory (now the Shenyang Aircraft Industry Complex, SAIC). However, when everything was ready the Chinese made a logical decision to build the more modern MiG-17 which started coming off the production line at Shenyang in mid-1956. Thus, contrary to reports by some Western sources, the MiG-15bis was never built in China. Yet, during the Korean War, 534 battledamaged Fagot-As and -Bs were repaired at Shenyang. Interestingly, MiG-15s overhauled at Shenyang incorporated some equipment items from the MiG-17. Despite not being built locally, the MiG-15bis was allocated the local designation Jianjiji-2 (fighter aircraft, type 2), often shortened to Jian2 or J-2. Fagot-Bs were still operational in China in the early 1970s. Some aircraft were later resold (for instance, to Albania and Cambodia) under the export designation F-2 (F for Fighter).
5-102 (MiG-15) Fagot·A tactical fighter In 1950 the Soviet and Czech governments agreed to launch MiG-15 production in Czechoslovakia. The licence agreement was signed in Moscow on 17th April 1951 and deliveries of manUfacturing documents began in the following month, coincidentally with the preparations for delivery of Soviet-built MiG-15s to the Czech Air Force (CzAF). At first, MiG-15 production was assigned to the Rudy Letov plant at Letnany. On 6th May 1951 the Czechs took delivery of a Kuybyshevbuilt Fagot-A (c/n 119070) as a pattern aircraft. Soon after, a further ten fighters were delivered as completely-knocked-down (CKD) kits for the assembly of a pre-production batch; the first of these, bearing the cln 225101, made its maiden flight at Prague-Kbely on 6th November 1951.' After 160 aircraft had been completed by Rudy Letov, production was transferred to the newly-commissioned Aero-Vodochody plant at Vodochody (pronounced 'Vodokhody') 20km north of Prague in July 1953. Piloted by factory test pilot Antonfn Bartos, the first MiG-15 built at Aero-Vodochody (c/n 220503) flew on 28th April 1953, when the factory - including the runway - was still incomplete. Five more aircraft (c/ns 220505 through 220509) were completed on the same day but flown at a later date. In all, Czech production of the Fagot-A totalled 821 aircraft in twelve batches (like in the USSR, aircraft production in Czechoslovakia was usually
Shenyang JJ-2 (FT-2) Midget advanced trainer In contrast, the UTI-MiG-15 trainer was produced in China under the designation Jianjiji Jiaolianji-2 (fighter trainer aircraft-2), often shortened to Jianjiao-2 or JJ-2. The RD-45Fturbojet powering it was built under licence in Harbin as the Wopen-5 (turbojet engine Model 5), often shortened to WP-5 (or TJ-5 for export). Besides being supplied to China's People's Liberation Army Air Force, the trainer was exported to Albania, Bangladesh, North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan, Tanzania and North Vietnam under the export designation FT-2 (FT for Fighter Trainer).
organized in batches containing more or less equal quantities of aircraft). Until the mid-50s the CzAF had a habit of allocating its own designations to foreigndesigned andlor -built aircraft in Czech service. For example, the Messerschmitt Bf 109G was manufactured locally as the S-99 (a refined indigenous version was known as S-199); the IL-28 Beagle bomber and its trainer version, IL-28U Mascot, were built under licence by Aero as the B-228 and CB-228 respectively. In keeping with this practice the MiG-15 - Sovietbuilt and Czech-built aircraft alike - was initially designated S-102, the S denoting stfhacf [/etoun] (fighter). However, this designation was dropped in September 1956 and from then on the aircraft was referred to strictly as MiG-15, even though some locally-designed versions did have suffix letters unique to them. The RD-45F turbojet was also built under licence by Zavody Jana Svermy (formerly Waiter; later renamed Motorlet) at Prague-Jinonice (pronounced 'Yinonitse'). Like the aircraft itself, the engine had a local designation, M-05 (M for motor). No fewer than 5,094 engines were delivered between 1952 and 1962; the reason was that, apart from the MiG-15, the engine also powered the 1L-28. MiG-155B strike aircraft Under a reorganization and re-equipment programme in 1958 CzAF units flying the Fagot-A converted to the MiG-19S Farmer-C. The MiG-15 was relegated to the strike role and suitably converted by the overhaul plant at Prague-Kbely.
67973 Red, a Shenyang JJ-2 (Chinese-built UTI-MiG-15), on display at the Chinese Army Museum in Peking. Keith Dexter MiG-15
47
An air-to-air study of 3668, an 5-103 (MiG-15bis) built by Aero-Vodochody. Letectvi+Kosmonautika Czech Air Force technicians performing maintenance on several 5-1035 (MiG-15bises). Yefim Gordon archive A very new and shiny 5-103 with slipper tanks on the factory apron at Aero-Vodochody. Yefim Gordon archive A Czech Air Force 5-103 with the flaps down and the airbrakes open. (MiG-15bises). Yefim Gordon archive
Designated MiG-15SB (stfhacf-bombardovacf [letoun] - fighter-bomber), the aircraft had six wing hardpoints instead of the usual two. The inboard and outboard ones were used to carry indigenous 130mm (5.12in) LR-130 HVARs on launch rails (attached directly to the wing or via 03-40 pylons) or boxy ten-round SR-55 FFAR pods for 55mm (2.16in) LR-55 FFARs. Alternatively, the 03-40 pylons could be used to carry four 50kg (110 Ib) AO-50-100M, FAB-50 or OFAB-50 HE bombs, P-50 or CCP-50 practice bombs, four 1OOkg (220 Ib) FAB-1 00 or OFAB-100M bombs or two 250kg (551Ib) FAB250M-46 HE bombs or RBK-250 cluster bombs with eight AO-1 0 bomblets each. 2 The standard centre hard points were usually occupied by 400 litre (88 Imperial gallon) drop tanks but could also be used to carry OFAB100M bombs or experimental FFAR pods of Czech design looking like slipper tanks. These pods housing LR-55 rockets probably did not progress beyond the trials stage. An additional PBP-1 P sight was installed in the cockpit for aiming the unguided weapons. Normal take-off weight was 5,826kg (12,844Ib), rising to 6,270kg (13,822Ib) in overloaded condition. Hence the MiG-15SB was unique among the Fagot's many versions in having provisions for jet-assisted take-off (JATO). Two SRP-1 JATO bottles could be fitted to the aft fuselage sides for high gross weight take-offs (SRP = startovacf raketa pomocnii auxiliary take-off rocket). A brake parachute was provided to shorten the landing run. Starting in 1964, they were gradually supplanted by Sukhoi Su-7BMK Fitter-A fighter-bombers but it was not until 1983 that the MiG-15SB was finally retired. MiG-1ST target tug Several Fagot-As were converted for target towing duties. The MiG-15 was to work with the L-03 airplane-type target of all-wooden construction towed on a 2,000m (6,561ft) cable at 750kmjh (405kts). After a series of tests with quarter-scale and half-scale models towed by cars, Avia C-2 (Arado Ar 96B) primary trainers, Avia B-33 (licence-built IL-10) attack aircraft and finally MiG-15s it became clear that a 45-hp winch would be needed to fly with the real thing. The MiG-15's electric system could not provide enough power; an independent power source was required. 48
MiG-15
Czech engineers devised an elegant solution. The standard weapons tray was replaced by a modified one with a winch and cable cutter. The winch was powered via reduction gear by a 40-blade ram air turbine housed in a largish fairing immediately aft of the nose gear unit, the cable exiting from a smaller fairing further aft. After completing its trials programme the L-03 target entered production in 1957. The aircraft towing it was designated MiG-15T, the suffix denoting tahac (tug) - or possibly [pro vlekanfj tercu (for target towing). The modus operandi was as follows. The L-03 was placed on a dolly and hooked up to the aircraft with the towing cable at minimum extension (200 m/656ft). Then the MiG-15T took off, lifting the target off the dolly, and paid out the cable to its full 2,000m length. The L-03 was equipped with a landing skid so that it could be recovered and re-used, unless it was shot to pieces. The MiG-15T landed at 280km/h (151 kts); as soon as the target touched down a lock in its nose released the cable and a brake parachute was deployed, bringing the target to a halt in 500m (1 ,640ft). The target could also be released in the air if necessary. 5-103 (MiG-15bis) Fagot-B tactical fighter The MiG-15bis originally had the Czech designation S-103' and the later version with more comprehensive avionics was built under licence at Aero-Vodochody. The first aircraft (c/n 143051) first flew on 4th January 1954, and ten batches totalling 620 aircraft had been built when production ended in July 1957. The VK-1 turbojet was also produced by Zavody Jana Svermy (Motorlet) under the designation M-06, albeit on a much smaller scale; 1,028 engines were delivered between 1954 and 1957. A curious feature of some Czech bises (S103s) was the hooks near the cannons' case ejector chutes. These were used to attach spent case collectors which looked every bit like shopping baskets! Apart from serving the domestic market, licence-built Fagot-Bs were exported to East Germany, Egypt and Syria. MiG-15bis with PPZ-1 ILS Several CzAF Fagot-Bs, including 3058 (c/n 143058) and 8806, were fitted experimentally with the indigenous PPZ-1 ILS (pfesne pfistavacf zaffzenf - accurate landing equipment). Outwardly these aircraft could be recognized by the bullet-shaped dielectric fairing of the ILS antenna, usually painted dark blue, projecting from the intake splitter where the landing light used to be on early-production MiG-15s. These were not really avionics testbeds, as the aircraft are known to have been used operationally.
S-103 '3911' (c/n 423911) in an unknown German museum. Helmut Walther These views of the MiG-15bisSB show the extra pylons inboard and outboard of the drop tanks for carrying unguided rockets. U§tectvi + Kosmonautika MiG-15
49
MiG-15bisSB strike aircraft This was a fighter-bomber conversion of the Fagot-B similar to the MiG-15SB, except for the lack of JATO bottles and brake parachute. Normal TOW was 5,634kg (12,420 Ib) and MTOW 6,241 kg (13,758Ib). Conversion began in 1968. MiG-15bisSB weapons testbed Under a contract with North Vietnam AeroVodochody developed a version of the MiG15SB/MiG-15bisSB armed with R-3S (AA-1 Atoll) air-to-air missiles. The AAMs were carried on pylons borrowed from the MiG-21 F FishbedA installed at the usual drop tank positions; the N-37D cannon was replaced by an infrared search and track (IRST) unit. A single CzAF MiG-15bisSB serialled 3950 (c/n 713950) was converted to test the new armament but the idea was not pursued further; it is not known if the tests were successful. MiG-15bisR photo reconnaissance aircraft The CzAF operated two PHOTINT versions of the Fagot-B under the Soviet designation MiG15bisR. One was identical to the Soviet aircraft of the same name with one AFA-IM or AFP-
21 KT vertical camera installed on the gun mount in place of the inboard NR-23 cannon. This aircraft was also referred to in some sources as MiG-15bisR-F1, MiG-15bisF (fotopruzkumna verze - PHOTINT version) or, in air force slang, simply as 'fotobis'. The other version, MiG-15bisR-F3, differed from its Soviet counterpart in having two vertical cameras on the gun mount and two oblique cameras mounted one behind the other in the centre fuselage beneath the main fuel tank, resulting in a slight decrease in internal fuel capacity. Each of these two cameras had its own protective doors (the forward camera was closed by one door opening to starboard and the rear camera by double doors). The inboard NR-23 cannon was likewise removed. Depending on the mission, the aircraft could be configured with AFA-IM, AFA-21, AFP-21 KT, AFA-39 and AFA-40 day cameras or NFP-02 night cameras. MiG-15bisT target tug This was a target tug conversion of the Fagot-B similar to the MiG-15T. One aircraft serialled 3906 (c/n 623906) has been identified to date.
MiG-15/MiG-15bis target drone As in the USSR, time-expired Czech Fagots were converted into remote-controlled target drones similar to the Soviet MiG-15M. MiG-15V target drone One Czech source mentions that MiG-15s were converted into towed target drones designated MiG-15V (= vlecny terc - towed target). CS-102 (UTI-MiG-15) Midget advanced trainer Licence production of the UTI-MiG-15 trainer at Aero-Vodochody began in July 1954, initially under the designation CS-102 (cvicny stfhacf [Ietoun] - training fighter). The first aircraft (c/n 142600) was flown on 28th July. The trainer was by far the most numerous version; no fewer than 2,013 were built and the last aircraft off the line (c/n 022727) was delivered on 5th January 1961. Most Czech-built UTI-MiG-15s were exported; customers included most of the countries operating the MiG-15, MiG-17 and MiG-19. In fact, Czechoslovakia became the biggest Midget manufacturer outside the Soviet Union. Speaking of exports, a lot of Czech-built UTIMiG-15s were delivered to the Soviet Air Force. Later, as service units re-equipped with more modern trainers, they were turned over to DOSAAF. Crews recognized that these aircraft showed a higher level of workmanship than their Soviet counterparts due to the higher skill and ingrained working discipline of workers and engineers and the high level of European technology. In contrast, many Soviet plants had to make do with pre-war equipment well into the 1970s! Czech-built Midgets were also used in the USSR for cosmonaut training. It was in a such an aircraft coded 18 Red (callsign '625') that Yuriy Alekseyevich Gagarin, the first man in space, and instructor pilot V S Seryogin were killed in an accident on 27th March 1968.
Above: OK·10 (c/n 612744), the second CS·102 used as an ejection seat testbed by VZLU. Letectvi+Kosmonautika Top left: An array of armament laid out in front of a MiG·15bisSB. Lerectvi+Kosmonautika The removed camera tray of a MiG·15bisR reconnaissance aircraft. The aircraft was also known simply as fotobis. Letectvi+Kosmonautika
50
MiG-15
Caught by the camera seconds before becoming airborne, this Aero CS-102 '2601' (c/n 142601) was probably the second UTI-MiG-15 to be built in the Czechoslovakian factory. Uitectvi+Kosmonautika An unmarked CS-102 (c/n 142614) destined for the Soviet Air Force at the factory airfield in Vodochody. The Soviet Union was a major customer for Czech-built Midgets. Letectvi + Kosmonautika A brand-new CS-102 (UTI-MiG-15) on the factory apron. Yefim Gordon archive
UTI-MiG-15 with PPZ-1 ILS Several CzAF UTI-MiG-15s, including 2726 (c/n 0227267), were fitted with the PPZ-1 ILS with its distinctive bullet-shaped dielectric fairing on the intake splitter. UTI-MiG-15P radar trainer To fill a Czech MoD order, two late-production UTI-MiG-15s - 2626 (c/n 722626) and 2826 (c/n 7228267) - were converted into radar trainers designated UTI-MiG-15P' in 1959 for training MiG-17PF pilots. The conversion was undertaken by the military overhaul plant in Ceske Budejovice. The first aircraft received the temporary registration OK-10 during manufacturer's flight tests. Outwardly the Czech UTI-MiG-15P differed from its purpose-built Soviet namesake (izdeliye ST-7) in having a slightly thicker forward fuselage housing a different radar (RP-5 Izumrood-2, not RP-1), no S-13 gun camera and a standard windshield (because the radar display was located in the rear cockpit rather than up front). Thanks to an intensive weightsaving effort the converted aircraft was only 143.61 kg (316.6Ib) heavier than the standard UTI-MiG-15, with virtually no deterioration in performance. Range and endurance were decreased slightly due to less internal fuel (the forward fuel tank's capacity had to be reduced by 7.7% to provide room for the radar set). The Czech UTI-MiG-15P passed its tests successfully but did not enter production. This was considered uneconomical, since both the MiG-17PF and the MiG-19P equipped with the RP-5 radar were supplied by the USSR and not built urider licence in Czechoslovakia; besides, the MiG-17PF was by then considered a stopgap until more capable interceptors became available. One of the two converted trainers, 2626, now survives at the Czech aerospace museum (VM VHU, Vojenske muzeum Vojenskeho historickeho ustavu - Military Museum of the Military Historical Society) at Prague-Kbely airport. UTi-MiG-15 ejection seat testbeds In the early 1970s three Czech-built UTI-MiG15s were converted into ejection seat testbeds by VZLU (Vyzkumni a zkusebni letecky utvar Flight Test and Development Unit) in Prague, the local equivalent of L11. On all three the
experimental seat was fired from the rear cockpit which had a non-standard rear fairing. Only the first aircraft, 2528 (c/n 722528), wore military markings. It also had photo calibration markings in the form of stripes and crosses on the forward fuselage and fin and no less than 45 mission markings on the fin to mark successful ejections. This aircraft was destroyed in a crash on 30th April 1971. The other two examples wore two-or three digit civil registrations indicating test status. The second aircraft, OK-10 (c/n 612744), was hardly luckier than the first one, being damaged beyond economical repair and relegated to ground tests. The third testbed, OK-Ota (c/n 822210), was used to test the indigenous VS1BRI zero-zero ejection seat developed for the Aero L-39 Albatros advanced trainer (VS = vystfelovaci sedacka - ejection seat) and the later VS-2 model. It served on until supplanted in this role by a MiG-21 US (OK-004, ex-CzAF 0241).
POLlSH·BUILT MiG·15s
Lim-1 Fagot-A (produkt C) tactical fighter. In the early 1950s, coincidentally with the beginning of the Korean War and the resulting increase in international tension, Poland began a major upgrade of its air force and heavy industry. The Yak-17 Feather and Yak-23 Flora first-generation jet fighters gave way to the MiG-15 which was delivered to the Polish Air Force (PWL - Polskie Wojsko Lotnicze) in mid1951. Hence the Polish authorities decided the time was ripe for Poland to build its own combat jets. Licence production was the obvious choice under the circumstances. Since the MiG-15 was much more advanced and had the potential to remain the backbone of the fighter force in the foreseeable future, the original plans to build the Yak-23 were abandoned and manufacturing rights for the MiG-15 obtained. Manufacturing documents were supplied in mid-May 1951, and the Polish aircraft industry MiG-15
51
These views of one of the two UTI-MiG-15Ps show the radar installation clearly. Note that the machine gun appears to be missing. Vefim Gordon archive
S-103, the Lim-2 was a copy of the lateproduction MiG-15bis with an improved avionics suite (OSP-48 ILS, Bariy-M IFF etc). Once again, a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15bis was supplied as a pattern aircraft for licence production; the cln has been quoted in a Polish source as 1370086 but the correct rendering is probably 137086. The first Lim-2 (c/n 1B 001-01) was rolled out on 11th September 1954, seventeen days after the last Lim1. The aircraft was also referred to as 'produkt CO' (a corruption of the OKB designation 'izdeliye SO'). Originally Lim-2s were powered by Soviet-supplied VK-1 engines; the first aircraft to receive a locally-manufactured Lis-2 turbojet was 602 Red, the second aircraft of batch 6 (c/n 1B 006-02) completed on 24th February 1955. The 500th and final Lim-2 (1914 Red, cln 1B 019-14) rolled off the production line on 23rd November 1956. After that, WSK Mielec switched to the MiG-17F which was built in Poland as the Lim-5. Lim-1,5 tactical fighter Later, many Lim-1 s were upgraded to Lim-2 standard as regards avionics. The conversion took place at the Polish Air Force's overhaul plants. The upgraded aircraft were known unofficiallyas Lim-1,5! (One can only guess what code name the ASCC guys would have allocated to this 'one-and-a-half' aircraft - FagotA +, perhaps.) Outwardly such aircraft could be recognized by the blade aerial of the Bariy-M IFF atop the fuselage.
association WSK PZL (Wytw6rnia sprzf!tu komunikacyjnego - Panstwowe zaklady lotnicze, Transport equipment manufacturer State aircraft factories) began gearing up for production. The PZL plant in Mielec (pronounced 'Melets') was chosen to build the airframe, while the plant in Rzesz6w (pronounced 'Zheh-show') would manufacture the RO-45F engine. Production of the MiG-15 benefitted not just the aviation industry but the entire heavy industry in Poland, nurturing a highlyskilled cadre of workers and engineers. As in Czechoslovakia's case, several CKD kits were shipped to WSK Mielec as a 'starter set', along with a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (c/n 113074) as a pattern aircraft. On 17th July 1952, Maj Eugeniusz Pniewski successfully test-flew the first MiG-15 assembled in Poland (c/n 1A 01-001).5 Five more aircraft (up to cln 1A 01-006) were completed before the year's end, and production from locally-manufactured components began in January 1953, starting with batch 2. Twelve batches totalling 227 air52
MiG-15
craft had been built when production ended on to 1st September 1954. Again, as in Czechoslovakia's case, the aircraft was produced under a separate designation. The Polish-built MiG-15 was designated Lim-1 (licencyjny mysliwiec -licence-built fighter), while the RO-45F was produced as the Lis-1 (licencyjny silnik - licence-built engine). (A different presentation, liM and liS, would have been more logical perhaps -Auth.) Some Polish documents also referred to the aircraft as 'produkt C'. This code was derived from the Mikoyan OKB designation 'izdeliye S' and was thus a case of misunderstanding, since the Cyrillic letter S is identical to the Roman C! Lim-2 Fagot-B (product CD) tactical fighter The MiG-15bis joined the PWL inventory in late 1953. Concurrently with the first deliveries of Soviet-built Fagot-Bs it was decided to launch production of the type at WSK Mielec as the Lim-2; accordingly, the VK-1A engine would be built by WSK Rzesz6w as the Lis-2. Like the
Lim-2R photo reconnaissance aircraft Some Lim-2s were built as PHOTINT aircraft designated Lim-2R (rozpoznawczy - reconnaissance, used attributively). They featured an AFA-21 camera installed in a bulged ventral fairing aft of the portside 23mm cannons. Lim-1/Lim-2 target tug A number of Lim-1 sand Lim-2s were adapted for target towing duties. The modifications were nowhere near as serious as with the Czech MiG-15T/MiG-15bisT. Quite simply, the inboard NR-23 cannon was substituted by a lock for towing sleeve-type targets which protruded downwards aft of the nose gear unit. Lim-2 smugacz demonstration aircraft For airshow performances, Lim-2s often carried smoke generating pods with electrically-ignited solid charges under the wings. However, these worked inadequately; the smoke trail was either too thin and broken or too dense and smudgy, preventing the spectators from following the aerobatic manoeuvres.
In order to resolve this problem, engineer Zenon Klimkowski developed a version of the MiG-15bis known as 'Lim-2 smugacz' (smoker, pronounced 'smoogahch'). The aft integral fuel tank was deleted to make room for two pressurized bottles containing pure engine oil (for generating white smoke) or ditto with red dye added (Poland's national colours are red and white -Auth.). The contents of the bottles were sprayed into the engine jetpipe; maximum continuous operation on one and two bottles was two minutes and five minutes respectively. The installation was tested successfully on Lim-2 '1127 White' (c/n 1B 011-27) at the Polish Air Force's Technical Institute (ITWL - Instytut Techniczny Wojsk Lotniczych). Several Lim-2s were modified to this standard. Production of the Lim-1 and Lim-2 gave the Polish aircraft industry valuable experience in building state-of-the-art jets. The Lim-1 and Lim-2 were not exported. SBLim-1 Midget advanced trainer The UTI-MiG-15 was not manufactured in Poland, being delivered to the PWL from the USSR and Czechoslovakia. However, to meet an urgent need for trainers in the late 1950s, some Lim-1 s were rebuilt at military overhaul plants to become SBLim-1 operational trainers (szkolno-bojowy licencyjny mysliwiec -Iicencebuilt fighter trainer). The SBLim-1 had minor structural and equipment differences from the UTI-MiG-15. For example, some aircraft were armed with two portside NR-23 cannons instead of the single UBK-E or A-12,7 machine gun while others appear to have only one cannon.
SBLim-2 Midget advanced trainer In the mid-70s, Poland's stock of Lis-1 engines ran out. Hence, starting in 1975, Lim-2s were similarly converted into SBLim-2 trainers powered by Lis-2 engines and having enlarged airbrakes. Some original UTI-MiG-15s were also converted to this standard by replacing the engine and aft fuselage. The SBLim-2 had just one NR-23 cannon (or machine gun, depending on the aircraft's original identity). Also, it appears that some Lim-1 s were converted (or SBLim-1 s updated) to SBLim-2 standard. Such aircraft have enlarged Lim-2-style airbrakes but retain their original Lim-1 construction numbers commencing 1A. Aircraft confirmed as converted in this fashion include 2004 Red (c/n 1A 02-004),6010 Red (c/n 1A 06010) and 8020 Red (c/n 1A 08-020). In the type's latter days the engine was derated to 2,400kgp (5,291 Ibst) to save fuel and engine life. This derated engine was designated Lis-2SB. SBLim-1Art and SBLim-2Art artillery spotter/ reconnaissance aircraft (SBLim-1A and -2A) Some Polish Midgets were modified for battlefield reconnaissance and artillery spotting. Depending on the original version, these aircraft were designated SBLim-1 Art and SBLim2Art (for artilleryjski); this was later changed to SBLim-1A and SBLim-2A. The SBLim-1A was equipped with a single AFA-21 A camera on the gun tray, while the SBLim-2A also had an AFA-39 camera in a prominent ventral fairing amidships (immediately ahead of the fuselage break point). The camera installation necessitated a reduction of
the internal fuel capacity, so the SBLim:2A always carried 600 litre (132 Imperial gallon) drop tanks. The rear cockpit was occupied by the navigator/camera operator, hence the flying controls in the rear cockpit were deleted. Some aircraft featured a rear view mirror on the forward canopy frame. The aircraft was armed with two NR-23 cannons. SBLim-2M advanced trainer In the late 1970s, after years of operational use, some SBLim-2As were reconverted for the training role with the camera pack removed and full dual controls reinstated. Such aircraft were redesignated SBLim-2M (modyfikowanymodified). The two 23mm guns were retained. SBLim-1 ejection seat testbeds Two SBLim-1 s were used by the Polish Institute of Aeronautics (instytut Lotnictwa) in Warsaw for ejection seat trials. One aircraft serialled 1018 Red (c/n 1A 10-018) was a virtually standard Midget with the sliding rear canopy portion removed for easy installation and removal of the ejection seat. The other aircraft, 002 Red (c/n 1A 05-002), was extensively modified under the PZL 1-22 Iryda (Iridium) advanced trainer/light attack aircraft development programme. It carried an 1-22 forward fuselage mockup over the fuselage on a lattice-like structure; the mockup featured a cockpit with a fUlly functional ejection seat. This aircraft is now preserved in Warsaw. 10 Red (c/n 1A 11-010). a fairly late-production Lim-1, at a Polish airbase. WAF
•
MiG-15
53
Chapter Four
The MiG·15 in Action or The Aluminium Rabbit Goes to War' When a MiG-15 prototype took part in the flypast at Moscow's Tushino airfield in July 1948, making the type's public debut, Western intelligence experts paid little attention to the new fighter. Western thinking was focused on the vast Red Army with its thousands of tanks and Stalin's fanatical soldiers, rather than the Soviet air arm. However, Western observers were soon proven wrong. As noted earlier, the MiG-15 attained IOC with the WS in 1949. The 324th Sveerskaya IAD2/29th GvlAP commanded by Lt Col A V Pashkevich, Hero of the Soviet Union (HSU),
and based at Kubinka AB near Moscow was the first unit to master the new fighter. The 324th, then commanded by the famous Col Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedoob (triple HSU), the top-scoring Great Patriotic War ace with 62 'kills' to his credit, was something of a 'showcase division'. This was because Kubinka was the nearest fighter base to Moscow and was thus regularly inspected by various top officials. The base still hosts the Russian Air Force's new equipment display centre named after I N Kozhedoob. The first ten or fifteen aircraft for the 29th GvlAP arrived on 22nd February 1949; these
were Batch 1, 2 and 3 aircraft delivered by rail from Kuybyshev. The fighters were promptly assembled and service trials began, in parallel with preparations for the traditional May Day parade. Very soon the USSR demonstrated its capabilities to the West as far as military aviationwas concerned, including its impressive rate of modern fighter production. 45 production MiG-15s flew over Moscow on 1st May 1949. On 17th July in the same year, 52 of the new jets were seen at Moscow-Tushino. On 7th November 1949 (the October Revolution anniversary), no fewer than 90 flew over Red Square, and on May Day 1950, 139 MiG-15s took part in the show. The introduction of the MiG-15 into the WS inventory was a true technical revolution. The first Soviet jets - the Yak-15, Yak-17 and MiG-9 - had an extremely limited production run (a few hundred units each) and could not be used to re-equip the VVS. The backbone of the fighter force was made up by piston-engined aircraft - the ultimate versions of the Yak-3 and Yak-9, the La-7, the postwar La-9 and La-11 and a few Bell P-63 Kingcobras (operated mainly by the PVO). The Fagot was a huge step ahead in comparison with any of these types. Pilot conservatism has become an old adage but, understandably enough, pilots and tech staff who were used to flying and handling prop-driven aircraft were initially wary of the MiG-15. To begin with operations were limited to daytime visual flight rules (VFR) conditions; aerobatics and spin entry were out of the question at first. This was clearly unacceptable; flight and ground crews had to trust and master the aircraft completely if its potential was to be used to the full. Urgent measures were taken to remedy this situation. The Mikoyan OKB speeded up development of the UTI-MiG-15 trainer, and a large group of qualified flying instructors (OFls) with intimate knowledge of piloting techniques and instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the type was trained. Additionally, Nil WS test
Top: 302 Blue, a MiG·15bis of unknown origin. Initially Soviet Air Force Fagots often had the air intake lip and/or fin cap painted in squadron colours as shown here. Yefim Gordon archive Centre and bottom: Production bises with 300 litre (66 Imperial gallon) slipper tanks. Yefim Gordon archive 54
MiG-15
pilots visited front-line fighter units to share their considerable experience with service pilots. Special blind/night landing courses for officers were established. Everybody, from sergeant technician to regiment commander, undertook their training. This crash programme evoked memories of 1941 when similarly feverish conversion training had taken place in the face of the German aggression. Well-trained commanders were placed in charge of conversion training in MiG-15 units, building up pilot trust in the new aircraft by personal example; this approach undoubtedly saved many lives. Combat manoeuvres and spin recovery techniques were gradually mastered as the WS built up the numbers on the Fagot.
Some time later, VVS flight inspection groups were created in different regions of the USSR. Their main objective was to train pilots and monitor operations in different regions, checking uniformity of procedures and tactics. These groups were headed by very experienced military test pilots. For example, the Far East inspection group was headed by Maj Gen P Stefanovsky. Hero of the Soviet Union, who had been first to master aerobatics in the first Soviet production jet fighter, the Yak-15. The MiG-15 became fully operational in a remarkably short time. By mid-1950, some WS units flying the type were combat ready; by 1952, all MiG-15 units were deemed combat ready. The aircraft soon earned a good reputation for rugged simplicity, reliability and ease of maintenance, all invaluable qualities in a war of which the MiG-15 would see plenty. The nickname bestowed on it by its crews, samo/yotso/daht (soldier aircraft), has to be regarded as the ultimate praise. Soon after the MiG-15's service entry an aerobatic team - the first Soviet jet display team was formed at Kubinka AB in 1950. It was led by Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev who was to gain fame in the Korean War. The team's five FagotBs - 490 Red, 502 Red, 568 Red, 573 Red and 588 Red - had the upper surfaces painted bright red, giving rise to the unofficial name
A MiG·15bis takes off in the midst of a snowcovered landscape somewhere in the USSR. The tactical code is probably blue, which means the aircraft belongs to a PVO unit. Yefim Gordon archive Armourers cleaning an N-37D cannon removed from a WS MiG·15bis. Note the black walkway on the wing. Yefim Gordon archive The MiG·15 was also actively operated by the Naval air arm. Here, a Midget and two Fagot-Bs sit on an unpaved parking area while the crews pore over tactics. Yefim Gordon archive One of the few surviving Fagot-Bs at MAPO· MiG's Lookhovitsy plant (LMZ) which now builds the MiG-29 Fulcrum. Note the almost complete Interavia 1·1 L light aircraft in the backg'round, another LMZ product. Yefim Gordon
MiG-15
55
Fagots collided in mid-air and crashed near
Krasnaya pyatyorka (the Red Five), and smoke
generators fitted under the wings. This team later flew the MiG-17 Fresco-A, MiG-19S Farmer-C and MiG-21 PF Fishbed-D in a similar colour scheme. Later, however, this flamboyant paint job was dropped (and apparently the whole idea as well); it was not until 1990 that display teams with eyecatching colour schemes started making a comeback in the Soviet Air Force. In the early 1950s, several MiG-15 units were permanently deployed outside the USSR - for example, in Poland and East Germany, serving with the 4th VA and the 16th VA respectively, until replaced by later types. In Poland the MiG-15 and UTI-MiG-15 was operated, eg, by the 229th IAD/42nd Tannenbergskiy GvlAp3 at Zagan AB, the 239th Baranovichskaya IAD/ 159th Novorossiyskiy GvlAP' at Kluczewo (Stargard) AB which had 28 Fagots by January 1954. East German bases used by GSVG5 MiG-15s were Altenburg (N6bitz),s Brandenburg-Briest, Brandis, Cottbus, Damgarten (PDtnitz), Erfurt (1953), Falkenberg (Alt L6nnewitz), Finow (Eberswalde) (1951-54), Finsterwalde, GroBenhain, HaBleben, JOterbog-Altes Lager, Kothen, Uirz, Leipzig-Mockau, Merseburg, Neuruppin, 56
MiG-15
66 Red, a 159th lAP UTI·MiG·15 stationed at Kluczewo AB, Poland, taxies in past a line of MiG·17 Fresco-As. The third aircraft in the row, 23 Red, appears to be a MiG·15bis. Air Zone 159th lAP pilots filling out a flight log beside their mount, a Czech·built UTI·MIG·15 (85 Red, cln 512357). Air Zone
Neu-Welzow, Oranienburg, Parchim, PeenemOnde, Templin, Wittstock and Zerbst. Altenburg was occupied by the 294th ORAP flying MiG·15bisRs, Falkenberg by the 6th GvIAD/31 st Nikopol'skiy GvIAp, JOterbog-Altes Lager by the 833rd lAp, Kothen by the 126th IAD/73rd GvIAp, Merseburg by the 6th GvIAD/ 85th GvIAp, Neuruppin and Templin by the 234th IAD/787th lAp, PeenemOnde by the 16th Gv1AD/33rd lAp, Zerbst by the 126th lAD/35th lAP. The 125th ADIB/2Oth GvAPIB was consecutively based at Neu-Welzow, Damgarten and Parchim, while the 105th ADIB/559th APIB moved from Falkenberg to GroBenhain, Altenburg and finally Finsterwalde.' MiG-15 operations in Germany were not altogether without incident. Two 20th GvAPIB
Parchim AB in 1958. A UTI-MiG-15 of the same unit was lost in a crash between Templin and Brandenburg on 12th January 1976. Another Midget (this time a 787th lAP aircraft) crashed near Bad Freienwalde in the summer of 1981. Yet another UTI-MiG-15, a 559th APIB aircraft built in Ulan-Ude (72 Red, c/n 10994003), was damaged beyond repair at Finsterwalde. As the MiG-15bis was relegated to the fighter-bomber role, new tactics began appearing. Generally the Fagot-B employed a wider range of tactics when used as a strike aircraft in comparison with the dedicated attack aircraft used hitherto. These included bombing in level flight at 300 to 500m (984 to 1,640ft), bomb.ing in a 10 to 20° or 50 to 60° dive, firing cannons and FFARs in a 5 to 15° or 20 to 30° dive, night bomb/FFAR/cannon fire attacks against illuminated targets in a 15 to 30° dive. New tactics pioneered on the MiG-15bis were toss bombing in a 45° or 110° climb, a bomb/cannon fire attack in a 30 to 40° or 50 to 60° dive after making a yo-yo manoeuvre or a half loop, and ditto after making a loop over the target. The toss bombing manoeuvre was devised with a view to using tactical nuclear bombs which had just become available to Soviet fighter-bomber units. Knowing the Fagot-B's vulnerability to ground fire, the pilots tried to complete their attack as quickly as possible by firing all weapons in a single pass. If the first attack failed, a second pass was made after one or two U-turns or a 270° turn. Besides destroying predetermined targets, MiG-15bis fighter-bombers could operate as 'duty bombers' summoned as required and as 'hunters' attacking targets of opportunity. During strike missions, roles were distributed between aircraft; some aircraft did the actual 'mud-moving' while others reconnoitered and designated the targets, still others took out the air defences and a fourth group flew top cover in case enemy fighters showed up. The Fagots were also to assist regular tactical fighter units in fending off massive enemy air raids. As a fighter-bomber, the MiG-15bis was of crucial importance to the VVS. Even though it was never used operationally in this role, it helped to train a highly skilled cadre and perfect techniques which were used with great success in the 1960s to 1980s when dedicated fighter-bombers and attack aircraft such as the Su-17M and Su-25 entered service (and saw action in the Afghan war). Trial by fire
Whatever doubts the West may have had concerning the MiG-15 were dispelled soon enough when the aircraft first saw action. Earlier in this book, it has been called the Aluminium Rabbit. Note that this is an allusion purely to numbers, not to timidity of character; the MiG-15 is a fighting plane if there ever was one! Indeed, it was this aircraft that brought the Mikoyan OKS world fame as a fighter maker.
Contrary to popular belief, the MiG-15 received its baptism of fire in China, not in Korea - flown by Soviet pilots. When differences between Mao Tse-tung's Communist Party and Chiang Kai-shek's nationalist Kuomintang Party escalated into an outright military conflict, the Nationalists were soon confined to Taiwan and the adjoining islands. From there the Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF) could still launch air raids against the mainland with which Mao's People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) could not cope. Mao turned to Moscow for help, and a treaty on (among other things) military cooperation was signed on 13th February 1950. In the spring of 1950 the 29th GvIAp, then flying Novosibirsk-built Batch 3 Fagot-As, was detached to China from Kubinka AB and seconded to the 106th lAD PVO under Lt Gen P F Batitskiy. Its mission was to protect Shanghai from ROCAF raids and keep Taiwanese ships from going up the Yangtse River. Besides being a major industrial centre, Shanghai was a base
from where the Chinese People's Liberation Army prepared to launch an invasion of the Chowshang Islands occupied by the Kuomintang - and eventually Taiwan itself. Initially the unit was based at Hsuichow AB, later moving to Dachang AB near Shanghai. The aircraft were painted in PLAAF markings for appearance's sake and the pilots wore Chinese uniforms, since the Soviet Union was not officially involved in the conflict. The air war in China was not very intensive; still, 29th GvlAP pilots managed to score two 'kills'. On 28th April 1950 Maj Keleynikov, the unit's deputy CO, damaged a Taiwanese Lockheed P-38 Lightning reconnaissance aircraft which crashed on the Chowshang Islands. On the night of 12th May, a flight of MiGs intercepted three Consolidated B-24 Liberator bombers and Capt I I Shinkarenko destroyed one of them at close range. There was also a red-on-red incident8 on 9th August 1950 when a PLAAF Tu-2 bomber flying from Nanking to Shanghai entered the area
protected by the 29th GvlAP without clearance or warning. Two fighters scrambled to intercept and promptly shot it down, mistaking it for an ROCAF North American B-25 Mitchell; the Chinese military acknowledged their fault. No MiG-15s were lost to, enemy fire. However, on 29th March one MiG-15 crashed at Hsuichow AB during a training flight; the pilot, Lt P V Prosteryakov, was killed. The cause of the accident was never found. At a later stage of the conflict, when Taiwan signed a defensive pact with the USA in March 1955, the Chinese MiGs occasionally had to deal with USAF aircraft. For example, on 10th May 1955 eight F-86s based in South Korea overflew Antung on a reconnaissance mission. They were immediately pounced upon by PLAAF Fagot-Bs; in the ensuing dogfight one of the Sabres was shot down and two more were damaged. The best-known conflict in which the MiG-15 participated is undoubtedly the Korean War. Much has been said and written about this war
Top left and right: This brand-new MiG-15bis (c/n 120113) came to grief in Kuybyshev on 24th May 1950 during a factory test flight with M V Yermolenko at the controls. A burst hydraulic line prevented the landing gear from extending normally. Yefim Gordon archive Above left: Another new MiG-15bis - this time an aircraft built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur (c/n 1003) - after an accident on 25th June 1950. WS test pilot G B Vakhmistrov had to make a. belly landing when the engine quit. Yefim Gordon archive Above right: A 39th GvlAP MiG-15bis based at Vasil'kov in a sorry state after making a forced landing in 1953; the aircraft was declared a write-off. Yefim Gordon archive Right: On 24th May 1952 factory test pilot K P Barkalaya forgot to extend the landing gear while landing in this Tbilisi-built MiG-15bis (c/n 31530504). The fuel tanks were ruptured in the resulting belly landing and the aircraft was completely destroyed by fire. Yetim Gordon archive MiG-15
57
Left: 29th GvlAP Fagot-As lined up at Dachang in the summer of 1950. The aircraft are painted in Chinese markings for appearance's sake; note the red/white striped rudder. Yefim Gordon archive
Below left and right: Preparing for another sortie at Dachang. Yefim Gordon archive Bottom: 29th Gv1AP/2nd Sqn technicians in front of one of the unit's fighters. Yefim Gordon archive
and, inevitably, the accounts vary widely, depending on what side the author was on! In the Cold War years, Soviet involvement in post-Second World War conflicts, including Korea, was something the man in the street was not supposed to know about, and combat reports etc were highly classified. Conversely, Korean War stories and 'kill' statistics were widely publicised in the West in order to win public support for 'GI Joe saving the free world from the Reds' (which inevitably affected the portrayal of victories and losses). Hence, until the recent spate of publications by Russian historians and 'Korea vets', the only information 58
MiG-15
could be obtained from books by Western historians and USAF pilots (read: 'imperialist aggressors') - which were somewhat onesided, to say the least. Air Power as a Decisive Force in Korea by James T Stewart, published in the USSR in 1959, was perhaps the most objective source available to Soviet readers on American and, to a certain extent, Soviet operations in Korea. The following is an attempt to describe those events as seen by the Soviet side, including actual participants - Soviet fighter pilots who flew MiG-15s in Korea. Before speaking of MiG-15 operations in the Korean War, a brief account has to be made
of the developments prior to the type's appearance on the Korean theatre of operations. When Soviet and US occupation troops withdrew from Korea in 1948, they effectively left behind two different nations - the pro-Communist North Korea (Korean People's Democratic Republic) led by Kim II Sung and the pro-Western South Korea (Republic of Korea) led by Li Sun Man. This turned Korea into a time bomb ready to explode. When the Communists came to power in China in 1949 and the Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic bomb in the same year, the Soviet leaders felt confident it would be easy to take control of the entire Korean peninsula and face the world with a fait accompli. Thus, massive arms deliveries to North Korea began in the spring of 1950; given the North Korean Army's impressive numerical superiority, the objective to take over South Korea within two or three days seemed easy as pie. On 25th June 1950 North Korean troops crossed the border, quickly advancing south and seizing the South Korean capital of Seoul in four days - just as planned. What the strategists in Moscow had not counted on, however, was the quick reaction of the West. On 25th June the United Nations Security Council held an emergency session, calling for intervention in the conflict; eight hours later the first aircraft of the USAF's 5th air force were pressed into action. On 29th June, USAF aircraft bombed North Korean airbases, knocking out the Com-
munists' air arm; now the UN coalition forces enjoyed complete air superiority. On 4th July the UN Command under Gen Douglas MacArthur was established. Until midSeptember, UN aviation 9 kept North Korean troops at bay along the Pusan perimeter in the extreme south - all that was left unoccupied by the Communists. Meanwhile, the coalition steadily built up forces within the perimeter; by mid-September the 70,000-strong North Korean group besieging the Pusan perimeter was outnumbered by a factor of two. At the same time, USAF Boeing B-29 Stratofortress bombers pounded North Korean cities and industrial centres with impunity. On 15th September the UN coalition launched a counter-offensive, inflicting heavy losses on the Communists, coupled with the Inchon amphibious landing. The North Korean Army was virtually wiped out; according to Western reports, nearly 100,000 were taken prisoner. By late October UN forces had taken the capital of Pyongyang and reached the Yalu River which is the border between Korea and China. The tables were turned; the North Korean government addressed the USSR and China for help. The first MiG-1 5s arrived in Korea in November 1950. It has to be said that North Korean MiG-15s were largely flown by Soviet Air Force units; thus the North Korean markings'O were usually applied just for appearance's sake, since the Soviet Union was not officially involved in the conflict. MiG-15 deliveries to Soviet and Chinese/Korean units fighting in Korea were so great that the USSR was forced to slow the pace of re-equipping its units in Europe and postpone new equipment deliveries to its Warsaw Pact allies. The participation of Soviet MiG-15 pilots in the war can be divided into three stages: November 1950 to April 1951, April 1951 to January 1952 and January 1952 till the end of the war (27th July 1953). Stage One began when the first Soviet units hastily relocated to bases in China across the Yalu River were put into action against the UN forces in an attempt to strip them of air superiority over Korea. They succeeded in checking the advance of their adversary, but only until the F-86 came on the scene. The 28th lAD (comprising the 139th GvlAP and 67th lAP), 50th lAD (29th GvlAP and 177th lAP) and 151st GvlAD (28th GvlAP and 72nd GvIAP) were the first to arrive. These three divisions became the first components of the 64th IAK (istrebifel'nyy aviakorpoos - fighter corps)
formed in late November from WS, PVO and Pacific Fleet Air Arm units specifically for fighting in Korea. Besides fighter units, it included anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), air traffic control and communications, and support units. This fairly large group was initially commanded by Stepan Krasovsky who had a lot of experience leading air units in the Great Patriotic War. The main function of the 64th IAK was the defence of bridges and power stations on the Yalu River. In December 1950 the 28th lAD was relocated to Xingdao and assigned the task of training Chinese and Korean jet fighter pilots which joined the fray in the summer of 1951 as the Joint Chinese/Korean Air Army (JAA). The 151 st GvlAD was also assigned to training Chinese and Korean pilots for a while, during which time the 50th lAD was left to shoulder the tasks of the war alone. Both sides operated under rigid restrictions imposed by the UN on one side and by the Soviet Union's reluctance to expand the conflict (and reveal its involvement) on the other side. UN pilots were prohibited from crossing the Yalu, while the Soviet MiG-15 pilots were ordered to stay behind an imaginary line drawn between Pyongyang and Wonsan in central North Korea. The area between this line and the Yalu River soon became universally known as 'MiG Alley'. In a rather na'ive attempt to hide their true identity, Soviet pilots were initially ordered to
speak Chinese or Korean on the radio (!), but this stupid requirement was later withdrawn. 'At first we were prohibited to speak Russian' on the radio, - pilot G K Kormilkin recalled. - We started studying Chinese and sat in the classroom memorizing the basic commands in Chinese. All of us had Chinese pseudonyms (as callsigns - Auth.). At first, everything seemed OK and we spoke Chinese - until our first encounter with the Americans. But when it came to real combat and our aircraft started going down in flames, the Chinese commands were interspersed with Russian ones, including a good many f-words. When we came back, we said: no thank you, we won't speak Chinese. It's nowhere near like sitting in the classroom; up there you get shot at and even killed. From then on, it was Russian all the way.' Soviet MiGs were also prohibited from operating over the sea. These restrictions did not apply to Chinese and North Korean pilots, which could fly pretty much anywhere but suffered heavy losses when Soviet pilots were not close at hand to protect them. Apart from orders, Soviet operations were severely restricted by the lack of suitable airfields. Antung AB located in the mouth of the Yalu was the only available airbase in the forward area until early 1951 . Later, it was supplemented by Angshan, Miaogow, Dapu and Dagushan;" there were other airfields as well, but these were occupied by Chinese units.
The crew chief reports to the pilot that the aircraft is ready to fly, Dachang 1950. Yefim Gordon archive The serial almost obliterated by crude green camouflage, 351st lAP MiG-15bis '546 Red' (c/n 53210546) is prepared for a sortie at Antung AB in the autumn of 1952. This aircraft was flown by Maj I P Golyshevskiy. Yefim Gordon archive MiG-15
59
Attempts to use 34 airfields in North Korean territory failed, as these were systematically destroyed by UN bombings as soon as they were rebuilt or at the first sign of MiGs being based there. The MiG-15's first encounter with USAF fighters in Korean skies was on 1st November 1950 - and its combat tally was opened on that occasion. A group of 151st Gv1AD/72nd GvlAP Fagot-As intercepted a flightof North American P-51 Ds near the Yalu River and Lt (sg)'2 Chizh destroyed one of the Mustangs. Western sources, however, deny the loss of any P-51 s that day; moreover, the MiGs have been misidentified in some sources as Chinese ones. According to Western reports, the first jetversus-jet battle in world history took place a week later, on 8th November - and, as the read60
er has surely guessed, the reports state that the MiGs lost it. Western accounts of this battle vary, but a 'generic' description is as follows. That day the USAF had planned a major raid against Sinuiju and a bridge on the Yalu River. Prior to the main strike, P-51 D Mustangs and F-80C Shooting Stars attacked North Korean positions on the southern bank of the Yalu, with two flights of 51 st Fighter Interceptor Group (FIG)/16th FigHter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) Shooting Stars from Kimpo AB flying top cover at 6,000m (19,685ft). Six MiG-15s (29th GvlAP aircraft led by Capt Afonin -Auth.) took off from Antung, climbed to 9,000m (29,527ft) and engaged one flight of the top cover F-80s. The American pilots turned head on, splitting up the attackers, then dived, trying to lure them down to low altitude where the F-80 could outturn the MiG. One MiG-15
MiG-15
~----~=~--------~--------
Top left: Maj I P Golyshevskiy in the cockpit of his aircraft. Antung AB, the autumn of 1952. Yefim Gordon archive Top right and above: Another 351st lAP MiG·15bis (976 Red, c/n 2915376) in overall natural metal finish is prepared for a sortie at Antung in the autumn of 1952. Lt (sg) Iskhangaliyev is sitting in the cockpit. Yefim Gordon archive
went for the bait and Lt Russell J Brown, seeing the enemy aircraft below him, gave chase. The heavier Shooting Star dived faster and closed in on its quarry, and Brown ripped up the MiG's fuselage with a five-second burst of machinegun fire. Pieces flew off the MiG and it dived into the ground, trailing smoke.
Russian aviation historians and WS records, however, give a totally different account. Firstly, Western authors describing the famous battle rarely mention the fact that five out of six machine guns on Brown's aircraft jammed." This alone makes the 'kill' very doubtful indeed, since the MiG-15 has exhibited high resistance to 12.7mm (.50 calibre) bullets; Sabre pilots sometimes reported that 'the MiG absorbed the entire ammunition supply and still got away'. While the 'entire ammunition supply' statement seems a bit exaggerated, it was certainly hard to shoot down a MiG-15 with just one Browning. Secondly, Soviet military archives show that no Soviet (ie, quasi-North Korean) aircraft were lost on 8th November 1950. Since Soviet units were the only ones operating against UN aviation at the time, Russell J Brown could not possibly have shot down a Chinese or North Korean pilot, which means he did not shoot down anyone at all. Still, Brown had reasons to believe that he had scored a 'kill'. The most probable explanation is this. When Capt Afonin's flight made for home, five of the six aircraft made a climbing turn towards Chinese territory. Lt (sg) Kharitonov, however, dived after an F-80 and was, in turn, attacked by Lt Brown. When he realised he was under attack he jettisoned his drop tanks and made for home at low altitude (according to some sources, Kharitonov's aircraft was hit but landed safely at Antung). Now the first thing a fighter pilot does before entering a dogfight is jettison his drop tanks. However, Soviet pilots in Korea started doing so only a week or two after they joined the action - simply because drop tanks were in short supply at first and the pilots were reluctant to jettison them. Lt Brown probably did not expect his adversary to begin a dogfight with the drop tanks still in place. When the tanks fell away, streaming fuel, and hit the ground in a cloud of dust and kerosene mist, Brown was probably confused and believed the MiG had disintegrated in mid-air. Thus one can hardly accuse him of inventing the whole story; even more serious mistakes are known to have happened in the heat of the battle all over the world. While we are on the subject of the first jet victory, 72nd GvlAP reports contain an even more interesting statement. According to these documents: on 1st November 1950 the unit engaged in two aerial battles, not one. The report reads as follows: 'Between 14:12 and 15:31 (Peking time Auth.) a flight of four MiG-15s (flight leader Maj Bordoon, wingmen Lt Khominich, Lt Sookhov and Lt Yesyunin) was out on a sortie to intercept enemy aircraft near Antung. 25 minutes after the flight had reached the Antung area there were still no enemy aircraft in sight and the flight was ordered to return to base. Two or three minutes later the pilots were ordered by radio to head back for Antung and repel an enemy strike. Three MiG-15s led by Maj Bordoon (Lt Yesyunin was Iowan fuel and had to return to base because he had no drop tanks) returned to the
Antung area. Following a heading of 1600 to 170 0 magnetic, Lt Khominich spotted ten F-80 Shooting Stars in his left front quadrant. They were flying at 4,500m [14, 763ft] - four F-80s up front, followed by a pair 800 to 1,000m [2,624 to 3,280ft] behind and 100m [328ft] higher and another four F-80s 800 to 1,000m behind the pair; the aircraft were in echelon starboard formation with 50 to 70m [164 to 230ft] intervals. Reporting enemy aircraft in sight, Lt Khominich made a left turn and attacked the lead four F-80s out of the sun in a dive from behind. He shot down one F-80 with a three-second burst, opening fire at 800m and ceasing fire at 200m [656ft] range, and climbed away sharply, breaking left. Maj Bordoon's pair attacked the four F-80s bringing up the rear which attempted an attack on Lt Khominich as he completed his firing pass, but unsuccessfully. As a result the enemy fighters broke formation and left the scene singly or in pairs. ' Thus the first jet battle actually took place on 1st November 1950. It is an honour to win a fight with a new and potent adversary - and winning on the very first occasion makes the victory even more honourable. Small wonder that matters of national prestige almost inevitably affect the facts (putting it mildly). The Western world probably regards 8th November 1950 as the· day of the first jet battle just because Lt Russell J Brown was credited with a 'kill' that day (to quote Col Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev who ranked second-highest among Soviet aces in Korea, 'not everything that is credited is actually shot down'!). There is no other possible explanation why the F-80 pilots 'failed to notice' the MiGs attacking them a week earlier (with the result that the Shooting Star became a Shot-Down Star). Yet, if we are to be perfectly honest, we cannot regard Lt Khominich as the world's first pilot to score a jet-versus-jet 'kill' with absolute certainty. The USAF acknowledges the loss of one F-80 on 1st November but claims it was shot down by AAA during the morning raid on SinQiju AB. The results of this raid were unsatisfactory, leading the USAF to make a second attack on SinQiju in the afternoon. As the F-80s making this second attack approached the target, the dogfight between Mustangs and 72nd GvlAP MiGs mentioned earlier took place. Since Lt Khominich made his attack after this dogfight, the F-80 credited to him must be a different one. Possibly the USAF chose not to acknowledge the loss of a second Shooting Star that day for some reason, but we cannot say for sure until documents confirming or discounting this loss are available. Also, the 72nd GvlAP report does not say what exactly happened to the supposedly Shot-Down Star; the aircraft may have simply gone back south, trailing smoke - and made a safe landing. Thus the first confirmed jet-versus-jet 'kill' took place on 9th November, when the MiG-15 had its first encounter with US Navy aircraft. At 10 am eighteen 139th GvlAP Fagot-As attacked
a group of 20 Vought F4U-4 Corsairs and Douglas AD-1 Skyraiders bombing a bridge across the Yalu River near SinQiju. They were immediately pounced upon by the escorting two flights of Grumman F9F-2 Panthers which were ideally positioned for attack. The MiGs' disadvantage was compounded by poor visibility (it was a misty morning) and poor teamwork. The latter was due to the fact that part of the unit's personnel had been transferred to the newly-formed 67th lAP; thus many established pairs (see tactics section below) had been separated and new ones had not yet formed. According to Soviet sources, in the ensuing battle the MiGs destroyed six strike aircraft, three of the 'kills' being credited to Capt Mikhail Grachov, Commander of the unit's 1st Sqn. Unfortunately, Grachov was killed immediately afterwards - he got separated from his wingmen and was shot down by Lt Cdr William T Amen ofVF-111 . (It has to be said here that 'MiG-15 vs US Navy aircraft' statistics remain extremely confused. For example, there is no evidence of any Panthers being shot down by MiGs, but they could have been misidentified as Shooting Stars in the heat of the battle.) On'the same day the MiGs claimed the first B-29s destroyed in the war. The heavy bombers were considered priority targets, since they inflicted heavy damage on North Korean and Chinese ground troops. On 9th November, N I Podgornyy (67th lAP) and Maj A Z Bordoon (72nd GvIAP) shot down one B-29 each; Podgornyy also damaged an RB-29 but had to break off the attack when his fighter was hit and the oxygen system damaged. (According to US sources, the MiG-15 first met the Superfortress on 4th November when four MiGs attacked and damaged an RB-29.) The MiG-15's cannons proved deadly for the B-29 and could literally rip a wing off the bomber; conversely, the B-29's defensive armament was of little use against the MiGs. The improved MiG-15bis came to Korea almost simultaneously with the basic MiG-15; the 50th lAD was the first unit to fly it. 29th GvlAP Fagot-Bs flew their first sorties in the war on 30th November from Angshan AB and had their first dogfight the next day. Other Soviet units which came to Korea flying the Fagot-A quickly converted to bises (mostly Kuybyshevand Novosibirsk-built), passing their old aircraft on to Chinese and North Korean units; later those, too, began receiving the new model. Originally Soviet pilots had to deal with propeller-driven aircraft or early straight-winged jets such as the F-80C (dubbed krest, 'cross', because of its cruciform shape) and the Republic F-84E/G Thunderjet, which were no match for the MiG-15. The first encounter with the F-84 was on 21 st January 1951 when a flight of Thunderjets attempting to bomb a bridge on the Hangan River was intercepted by six 177th lAP MiG-15s. Capt M Ya Fomin and Capt Andryushin each claimed one 'kill'; the two remaining Thunderjets fled. MiG-15
61
Also, at first UN pilots knew almost nothing about the Reds' new fighter. Western experts did know something after the MiG-15's Tushino debut but dismissed it as 'Russian, ergo substandard', and there was hell to pay for this approach. Soon, however, the heavy losses inflicted by MiGs caused the USAF to hasten the delivery of the brand-new swept-wing North American F-86A Sabre to the Korean theatre of operations, and things began to change. The first battle between the F-86A and MiG-15 took place on 17th December 1950. The Sabre came out on top that day. Expending about 1,500 12.7mm (.50 cal.) rounds, Lt Col Bruce Hinton (4th FIG/336th FIS) flying an F-86A-5-NA named 'Squanee' (49-1236I'FU-236') shot down the first MiG-15 in Korean skies, a 29th GvlAP aircraft. The pilot, 50th lAD inspector pilot Maj Yakov Yefromeyenko, was killed. Four days later the MiGs retaliated; Capt Ivan Yourkevich from the same unit became the first MiG-15 pilot to shoot down an F-86 on 21 st December." Soviet and American accounts of that battle vary widely; Soviet sources claim that three Sabres were destroyed and two MiGs lost, whereas US sources state six MiGs and one Sabre. The first 'big day for UN pilots' was 22nd December 1950 when the Sabres had several skirmishes with 50th lAD MiGs. The sides claimed the destruction of five F-86As and six MiG-15s; actual losses were one Sabre and two MiGs. By the end of December the Americans claimed eight MiG-15s shot down, with the loss of only one Sabre in 76 dogfights. While these figures are grossly exaggerated (only three MiGs were really destroyed), consider this. According to Soviet sources, MiG-15 units lost three aircraft in the six weeks before the Sabre came on the scene - and just as many in two weeks after that. The F-86 certainly did change the situation in Korean skies. The USAF noted little MiG activity in January to April 1951. Consequently the F-86s were shifted to strike duties, supporting UN ground troops engaged in bitter fighting with the Chinese 'volunteers', as they were known (in reality, regular People's Liberation Army units). The explanation is this. The first group of Soviet pilots in Korea still had little combat experience in the MiG-15, and individual pilot training often needed improvement. It was easy to shoot down P-51 sand F-80s, but the F-86 was a far more formidable enemy. Thus, knowing their tactical disadvantage, MiG-15 pilots often turned tail when confronted by Sabres, as confirmed by Col Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev. Still, one has to remember that the main objective of Soviet fighter units was to neutralize USAF bombers; from this point of view, avoiding combat with the F-86 can be justified. The fi rst stage of MiG-15 operations in Korea ended when the first group of Soviet pilots left Antung and returned to the USSR as a unit in April 1951. This first stage had been very difficult, as testified by the fact that Soviet pilots were honoured with the HSU title, the top 62
MiG-15
Soviet military award, after destroying just three or four enemy aircraft. The Order of Lenin, or alternatively the Order of the Red Banner of Combat, was given merely for flying a certain number of sorties. However, because this first group gained combat experience at a great cost, pilots who replaced them had it easier. And the newer pilots were better trained, going to Korea as volunteers with no illusions, prepared to confront an experienced and wellequipped opponent. The Soviets rotated whole units into and out of combat at once. This approach had an inherent flaw; newcomers went into battle without experienced colleagues beside them and 'stepped on the same rake' (from a Russian joke about repeatedly making the same mistakes). Pilots who completed a tour of duty could pass along their experience to newcomers only orally. There was a decline of MiG activity after each turnaround of pilots, and one consequence was increased losses. This rotation scheme typifies the way Soviet leaders, military and civil, approached any activity. If something did not succeed, shallow decisions, often not touching the cause of the problem, were usually taken. If F-86s won a battle against MiG-15s, Soviet pilots and commanders were blamed and replaced. The Americans, in contrast, rotated individuals, not squadrons; experienced 'high-timers' coached newcomers and protected them during missions. Stage Two of the air war was characterised by a major Communist offensive (Chinese troops under Marshal Peng Te-huai advanced south as far as Seoul and recaptured it) and hence intensified bombing by the USAF. These bombings also served another purpose. In July 1951 the belligerent parties began peace talks, and the systematic flattening of North Korea's cities and communications was intended to exert constant pressure on the enemy, tiring out the North Koreans and Chinese and persuading them to give up the fight. The second group of Soviet pilots sent to Korea at this stage was selected more carefully than the first. It was formed in the autumn of 1950 and started towards Manchuria in November. The 324th lAD under Col Kozhedoob (comprising the 176th GvlAP and the 196th lAP) was equipped with experienced pilots who had a lot of jet flying time (by Soviet standards) - also in the MiG-15; many of them were Great Patriotic War veterans. The 324th lAD relocated to Antung AB in April 1951. The 303rd lAD under Maj Gen Gheorgiy Ageyevich Lobov, HSU (later succeeded by Col Aleksandr Koomanichkin when Lobov was promoted to 64th IAK Commander) was formed at the same time. It comprised the 18th GvIAp, the 17th lAP and the 523rd lAP. The 18th GvlAP joined the action in early May, initially operating from Antung; in mid-June the other two regiments started flying from the new airfield at Miaogow (other sources state Manpo). 303rd and 324th lAD MiG-15s introduced quick-identification markings (red noses and
fin tops). This was because, in the heat of a dogfight, a natural metal F-86 could for a few seconds look like a MiG and do a lot of damage before the MiG pilot realised his mistake; conversely, there were cases when MiGs fired on their own aircraft, mistaking them for Sabres. (Not to be outdone, some USAF pilots painted the noses of their Sabres red, trying to fool the enemy into thinking they were MiGs!) However, these markings were relatively shortlived, giving way to various camouflage patterns in February 1952. Now the domination of American air power in Korea was reversed; the MiGs seized air superiority over the Yalu River area. Each time UN aircraft entered that area, they sufferE!d heavy losses. True, the new group also learned a few things the hard way. The 176th GvlAP lost three aircraft on its very first sortie. The 196th lAP commanded by Col Pepelyaev was more lucky, losing no aircraft or pilots in its first skirmishes but also claiming no 'kills' initially. Pepelyaev coached his pilots harshly, so the old Russian motto 'tough in training, easy in combat' was trueforthem. As for the 'kills', these did not take a long time coming. The biggest achievement made by the Soviet fighter units during this stage of the war was putting an end to the daytime activity of B-29 bombers. The Superfortresses suffered their first major defeat on 12th April 1951. This is how historian Robert Jackson describes the day: 'It was a different story on April 12th when 8-29s of the 19th, 98th and 307th Groups (40 aircraft in all - Auth.) were once again ordered to attack the bridge at SinOiju, which still stubbornly refused to collapse despite the battering it had received. Close escort was once again provided by the 27th Wing (27th Fighter Escort Wing flying F-84Es -Auth.), which put up 39 aircraft, while Sabres of the 4th Wing flew top cover. With the target still several minutes' flying time away the bomber formation was savagely attacked by about 50 MiG-15s which qUickly destroyed one 8-29 of the 19th Group and damaged five others. This attack had scarcely ended when another was launched by 20 more MiGs which sent the Thunderjets scattering in all directions as they dived vertically through them on to the bombers. This time it was the 307th Group's turn to be hit. One of its 8-29s spun down to explode on the ground and a second was so severely damaged that it had to make a crash landing at Suwon. A small number of MiGs also attacked the 98th Group, which was bringing up the rear, but all its 8-29s came through unscathed. On the credit side the Sabre pilots claimed four MiGs destroyed and six damaged, while the gunners of the 8-29 formation claimed the destruction of ten enemy fighters, although the latter claim was in all probability greatly exaggerated. The Thunderjet pilots also claimed three MiGs probably destroyed. Nevertheless, the price of three 8-29s destroyed - the one that crash-landed at Suwon was a complete write-off - and five more
823 Blue, a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (c/n 108023) operated by the 324th IAD/176th GvIAP, dismantled for repairs at Antung after being damaged in combat on 12th April 1951. The aircraft sits on a special 'beaching gear'; note the red-painted nose for quick identification. Most MiGs damaged in combat over Korea were quickly restored to active status by the technicians. Yefim Gordon archive MiG-15 '125 Black' (c/n 111025) flown by Lt (sg) A P Gogolev, 324th IAD/176 Gv1AP/2nd Sqn,
seen at Antung in 1951. Yefim Gordon archive Camouflaged bises flown by the Joint Chinese/Korean Air Army, including 518 Blue. Yefim Gordon archive
badly damaged was too high, and on General [George E] Stratemeyer's orders all further 8-29 raids in the Sinuiju area were called off until some really effective means of escorting the bombers could be found. ' 15 Six months later, on 30th October - a day which came to be known as Black Tuesday, came a battle which completely changed B-29 operations in Korea. That day a large formation of 307th BG(H) B-29s escorted by nearly 200 assorted fighters made for Namsi airbase in the heart of 'MiG Alley'. The enemy aircraft were spotted by ground pickets, and forty-four 303rd lAD and 324th lAD MiG-15s scrambled to intercept. The pilots were ordered to destroy the bombers and not to tangle with the fighters if at all possible. Once again, the MiGs dived through the escorting fighters, causing them to take violent evasive action, and went for the bombers. According to Maj Gen G A Lobov, the Soviet pilots destroyed twelve B-29s and fourThunderjets for the loss of only a single MiG-15. (A more recent Russian publication says ten B-29s and no MiGs shot down!) Also, many of the remaining Superfortresses were damaged, with casualties in almost every crew. (American records show that three 8-29s were lost, four more were damaged and forced to divert, and only one returned to its home base; also, only one F-84 is listed as lost. Two MiG-15s were claimed destroyed by the F-86s flying top cover, one more by the F-84s providing close escort, and three more by 8-29 gunners.) The 'shock caused by the Black Tuesday was so great that not a single USAF aircraft appeared in 'MiG Alley' for the next three days. A month later three 8-29s attempted a daytime raid on the bridges across the Yalu, but all three were shot down by MiGs. That did it - from then on the Superfortresses became strictly nocturnal. Also during the second stage of the air war, Soviet fighter units encountered an adversary other than USAF aircraft - namely Royal Australian Air Force Gloster Meteor F.8s. The MiG-15 first met the Meteor in mid-August 1951 when by pure chance a 303rd IAD/523rd lAP pilot, Capt G Kh. D'yachenko, got a twinjet fighter of a type hitherto unknown to Soviet pilots on his
gun camera while attacking an F-86. It was quickly established that the Meteors were flown by the RAAF's 77 Sqn which had been in action in Korea since 29th June 1950 (originally flying P-51 s and converting to Meteors in April to June 1951). The first battle between 77 Sqn Meteors and 303rd lAD/17th lAP MiGs took place soon after this first sighting, on 25th August. Maj Grigoriy I Poolov, 17th lAP CO, and Lt (sg) Nikolay V Sootyagin (who went on to become top-scoring Soviet ace of the Korean War) shot down one Meteor each. Generally the Meteors did not stand much of a chance against the MiGs; by 3rd November 1951, 303rd lAD pilots had destroyed 18 of them, after which the 324th lAD picked up where the 303rd had left off. 64th IAK Commander Maj Gen Lobov personally prepared the operation aimed at taking the 77 Sqn out of the picture. As he put it later,
'the Meteors as such had no major importance in the huge intervention force [in Korea] represented primarily by the USA. However, inflicting a defeat on a US ally could have some political effect. We decided to wipe out the Australian squadron with one blow.' To this end Lobov calculated where and when the Meteors were most likely to make a major raid on North Korean positions. A forward command post was deployed near Anshu on the outskirts of 'MiG Alley' to direct 176th GvlAP MiG-15s at the Meteors. Lobov went to great lengths to maintain security, telling 324th lAD CO Kozhedoob nothing about the impending operation and personally briefing the pilots just two hours before the mission. 'Perhaps I was being a little over-cautious' he reminisced, 'but I had my reasons. Anyway, this made for 100% stealth and surprise. And of course, we had a bit of luck, too; had the Americans begun MiG-15
63
Gun camera shots from Capt"Soochkov's MiG·15 showing a 8·29 under attack on 7th April 1951. Yefim Gordon archive
Shots from Col Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev's gun camera showing a Sabre under attack on 28th November 1951. Yefim Gordon archive
An F·80 and an F·84 in the sights of a MiG·15. Yefim Gordon archive
their attack an hour earlier or an hour later, the whole plan would have gone down the drain.' On 1st December 1951 a group of sixteen Fagots led by 176th GvlAP CO Guards Col 8 F Vishnyakov took off at the planned time and began loitering high over 'MiG Alley', waiting for the target to come. Right on schedule, sixteen Meteors escorted by Sabres put in an appearance. Suddenly they found themselves attacked by MiGs which dropped on them from above. What came next can only be described as mayhem. Only four of the Meteors made it back across the Pyongyang - Wonsan line; the Sabre escort was so shocked that it gave no assistance, and the attackers got away unscathed. 'Considering the Australians' previous losses, the 77 Sqn can be regarded as completely devastated that day', Lobov concludes. (Later Russian research, however, shows that the claim of ten Meteors destroyed on 1st December 1951 was grossly exaggerated. Only three Meteors were actually shot down in that battle; Sgt Bruce Thompson and 8gt Vance Drummond ejected and were taken prisoner, while Sgt Ernest Armit was killed.) The French magazine Le Fana de I'Aviation states that after 1st December 1951 the 77 Sqn was led by Wg Cdr Ronald Susans, suggesting that the unit's previous leader Wg Cdr L T Spence was shot down (and probably killed) in that battle. According to the sarne source, from January 1952 onwards 77 8qn Meteors were used only in the ground attack role and did not 64
MiG-15
venture into 'MiG Alley', which is surely a fair indication concerning the unit's condition! According to Soviet sources, 324th lAD pilots shot down 13 Meteors plus one 'probable'; another 'kill' was scored by a 216th lAD pilot. On the other hand, by the end of the war 77 8qn had claimed six confirmed MiG-15 'kills' plus seven 'probables'; most of these were JAA aircraft flown by Chinese or Korean pilots. RAAF pilots with MiG 'kills' include Fg Off Bruce Gogerly (on A77-15 'Elyana'), George Hale (on A77-851 'Halestorm') and Fg OffW Simmonds. In passing, it may be noted that one of the Meteors, A77-446 'Black Murray' flown by PIO Kenneth Murray, probably holds the Korean War record, having flown 333 sorties.. According to Soviet sources, by the end of its Korean tour (February 1952) the 324th lAD had destroyed 207 enemy aircraft, 103 of them shot down by the 176th GvlAP and 104 by the 196th lAP. The 303rd lAD destroyed another 303 UN aircraft - a nice coincidence. Thus Soviet pilots scored 510 'kills' in less than a year of the conflict. Soviet losses totalled 22 aircraft in the 324th lAD and about 30 aircraft in the 303rd lAD, ie, about 50 MiG-15s. Thus, the 'kill' ratio was 10:1 in favour of the MiG-15 with Soviet pilots during this period, if we count all UN aircraft shot down and not just F-86s. (The loss records of the UN forces indicate that the allies lost about 40 aircraft, not 510, during the first year of the MiG-15's involvement.) The third stage of the Soviet involvement ran from January 1952 until the end of the Korean war. The 324th lAD returned to the USSR and was replaced by the 97th lAD (PVO) under Col Shevtsov comprising the 148th GvlAP and 16th lAp, while the 303rd lAD was succeeded by the 190th lAD (256th lAp, 494th lAP and 821 st lAP). Though officially ready for battle, the 97th was staffed with inexperienced pilots. To make matters worse, its debut in Korea coincided with a massive improvement in equipment and training on the part of its adversaries as a result of the hammering they had taken during the second stage; for instance, new versions of the Sabre were introduced (the F-86E in August 1951 and the F-86F in March 1952). The result was predictable: in March and April the 97th lAD suffered heavy losses; the Americans resumed massive raids on North Korean communications and other vital targets, engaging Soviet MiGs even over China. By May the 97th lAD had learned its lessons the hard way and was beginning to regain control, but the preceding months of all-out combat had overtaxed its resources; further participation in the war could lead to high and unwarranted losses. Hence in July 1952, four days after reinforcements in the shape of the 133rd lAD (comprising the 147th GvIAp, 415th lAP and 726th lAP) had arrived at Antung and Dapu, the 97th lAD was transferred to the second echelon of Soviet forces and relocated to Mukden. The 303rd Division's 494th lAP was just about the unluckiest of all Soviet units participating in the war. On one occasion a group of
494th lAP MiGs was attacked by Sabres while getting ready to attack a group of Thunderjets; in the ensuing fight seven MiGs were downed for the loss of only one USAF aircraft. By the end of the war, the unit's 3rd Sqn alone had lost eleven aircraft and two pilots. Additional Soviet fighter units - the 216th lAD (comprising the 51Bth lAp, 676th lAP and B7Bth lAP) and the Pacific Fleet's 32nd lAD (comprising the 224th lAp, 535th lAP and 913th lAP) reached Korea near the end of the war, but their level of combat readiness was also low. Consequently they scored fewer kills of UN aircraft and sustained higher losses than the second group (the 303rd lAD and 324th lAD). Still, although with flaws, MiG forces maintained an effective defence, and UN air power could not restore the supremacy it had enjoyed earlier. UN fighter-bombers flying daytime sorties were one of the main targets for Soviet pilots during this stage. And keep in mind that USAF fighter-bomber units were now equipped with F-86Fs instead of Shooting-and-Bombing Stars. Combatting them wasn't at all easy. USAF heavy bombers remained the other major target. Switching to night operations did not stop the B-29s from suffering losses. Two independent fighter regiments - the 29Bth lAP and 351 st lAP - and one squadron in each of three other regiments (the 147th GvIAp, 224th lAP and 32nd IAD/535th lAP) were transformed into night fighter units at this stage. Initially, obsolete piston-engined La-11 s were used in the night fighter role but soon found to be totally inadequate. Not only were they too slow, their machine guns were located on the upper side of the engine cowling - with the result that the muzzle flash blinded the pilot for several seconds, causing him to lose sight of the target. Maj Anatoliy M Karelin (351st lAP) became the first MiG pilot to score a night 'kill', shooting down a Superfortress caught in AA searchlights in late May 1952; he finished the war as a 'night ace' with six B-29s to his credit. Incidentally, an instance in early December 1951 when Karelin could not catch up with a B-29 perfectly illuminated by searchlights When flying a La-11 was exactly what prompted the Soviet command to use the MiG-15 for night intercept missions. Contrary to Robert Jackson's claim, no 'MiG15s equipped with airborne interception radar' were used on such missions.'6 The fighters were guided to their targets by GCI stations and then sought visual contact with the target with the help of AA searchlights. Pilots also took advantage of moonlight or exhaust flames, if any. In addition to the B-29, the USAF made active use of the Douglas B-26C Invader light bomber for night bombing raids. At least three B-26Cs were reportedly shot down by MiGs, though Western sources deny the loss of any Invaders in Korea. Now B-29s were escorted by USAF Lockheed F-94B Starfires and US Marines Douglas F3D-2N Skyknights equipped with powerful
radars, so that nocturnal combat was filled with drama for both sides. The first encounter between the MiG-15 and the Skyknight took place on 3rd November 1952 when Maj Stratton ofVMF(N)-513 attacked a 133rd IAD/147th GvlAP aircraft, which he misidentified as a Yak-15 (!), and set it alight. Of course, he was credited with a 'kill'; in reality, however, the MiG pilot, Capt Vishnyak, managed to extinguish the fire and bring the fighter home. The aircraft was completely repaired and flying again within a few days. Still, the first real night victory against a MiG was indeed scored by a VMF(N)-513 pilot, Capt Oliver Davis. On the night of Bth November he shot down Lt (sg) Kovalyov (unit unknown); Kovalyov ejected safely. According to US sources, Skyknight crews destroyed six MiGs. It is not known if any Skyknights were claimed destroyed by Soviet pilots, though they niay have been misidentified as F-94Bs (of which 13 were reportedly destroyed). Even without radar, MiG-15s were sometimes guided by Gel stations so precisely that they accidentally rammed their targets. For example, on 7th November 1952 Lt (sg) I KovaIyov - possibly the same one I - collided with an F-94B at 10,000m (32,BOBft) in pitch darkness. Both aircraft burst into flames and the crews ejected safely. However, American sources do not confirm this incident; USAF records list one F-94B as shot down and two more as missing. Maj Karelin's fourth B-29 'kill' scored in the autumn of 1952 also happened in highly unusual circumstances. GCI guidance to the target was so precise that Karelin's MiG-15bis struck the B-29's tail turret with its gun; fortunately, there was no damage, but stealth had gone to the winds. Then the B-29's tail gunner made a serious blunder: he started firing wildly, unable to see the MiG. Having identified the target by the muzzle flash from its tail gun, Karelin shot the bomber down at point-blank range. After a massive raid on the Supung dam and power station on 12th January 1953, a 20th AF/31 st Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron RB-29 (44-62217) based at Kadena AB, Okinawa, flew over Antung on a post-strike reconnaissance mission. Lt (sg) YaZ Khabiyev (32nd IAD/535th lAP) intercepted it and set it ablaze with his first burst. The RB-29 started falling after the second attack, and eleven of the 14 crewmen bailed out. Among them were Col Knox Arnold, Jr., and 31 st SRS CO Maj William Horl Bowmer. (USAF sources claim that the aircraft was shot down by AAA, not by a MiG.) Speaking of reconnaissance aircraft, the MiGs managed to score two jet-versus-jet victories as well. The USAF denies the loss of any North American RB-45 Tornados in Korea. Yet one such aircraft was shot down over Antung by four 50th lAD/29th GvlAP MiGs on 14th December 1950; the crew bailed out and was captured. In April 1951 N K Shelomonov (324th IAD/196th lAP) flying MiG-15bis '231 Red' (c/n 122031) seriously damaged another RB-45 which force-landed near Pyongyang.
On one notable occasion in January 1953, Capt Yuriy N Dobrovichan shot down two B-29s on a single night. He was awarded the Order of Lenin for this double victory. Throughout the Korean War the MiG-15 was updated and improved. Some changes, such as the enlarged airbrakes, RHAWS, new cannons and gunsight, improved ejection seat and armour protection, have been described in the previous chapter. One urgent modification made in the first few weeks of combat was the reinforcement of the stabilizer tips and outer elevator hinges because the elevators buckled during high-G manoeuvres (this even caused two fatal crashes in the 50th lAD). Some improvements were local ones; for instance, Capt Sergey M Kramarenko, one of the Korean War aces, installed half a pair of binoculars beside the gunsight of his MiG-15 (!) so that he could tell friend from foe at long range. (Twenty years later, in 1972 McDonnell Douglas introduced the Northrop AN/ASX-1 Target Identification System, Electro-Optical [TISEO] on the F-4E+. 'Ain't nothing new'?) A few words have to be said about Chinese and North Korean MiG-15 operations in the Korean War. As mentioned earlier, the Joint Chinese/Korean Air Army (JAA) went into battle inmid-1951. Most Chinese MiG-15 pilots were novices freshly trained by Soviet instructors. However, there were exceptions; some were veterans who had fought against the Japanese during the Second World War. As Soviet pilots noted, the PLAAF pilots fought bravely but often grew careless in combat and consequently suffered high losses. On one occasion they spotted a B-29 formation over the sea and took off to intercept it without contacting the nearby Soviet unit and requesting cover. The Chinese regiment CO leading the attack (his name is unknown) shot down three Superfortresses, one after another, but was in turn shot down by Sabres and killed. His aircraft lay on a shoal for several days until it was recovered by a US Navy ship (which, incidentally, gave a cannon salute as it departed with its booty). Lack of experience led to many take-off and landing accidents. Even worse, Chinese pilots often suffered G-Ioc (gravity-induced loss of consciousness) in high-G manoeuvres because food was strictly rationed, with the result that the pilots were chronically malnourished. The oft-quoted 10: 1 'kill' ratio in favour of the F-B6 mostly reflects dogfights between American and Chinese pilots, and the latter can hardly be blamed for this. PLAAF MiG-15s were mostly after the bombers and strike aircraft. In a meeting with Sabres, they had little chances of survival because the hastily trained Chinese pilots were up against real pros - experienced American opponents, many of whom were Second World War aces. On one occasion twelve Sabres lined up behind eight PLAAF 4th Fighter Division MiGs and shot them all down; the pilots, to use a common expression, never knew what hit them! MiG-15
65
Not being encumbered by bans on flying over the sea, the PLAAF formed a special unit tasked with hunting US Navy/Marines and Royal Navy aircraft, and it had a measure of success in doing so. On 26th July 1952 a flight of 'naval hunter MiGs' jumped four No 852 Sqn Fairey Firefly 5 attack aircraft from HMS Ocean and shot down two of them; a third was damaged but made it back to the carrier. Another Firefly 5 of No 812 Sqn from HMS Glory was downed on 6th February. Yet the lack of experience among Chinese pilots led to losses even in encounters with prop-driven aircraft. For example, on 9th August 1952 eight MiG-15s attacked a flight of Hawker Sea Furies which fought back, destroying one MiG and damaged another; the 'kill' was scored by Lt P Carmichael (N0802 Sqn, HMS Ocean). Five more MiGs were damaged by Sea Furies over the next two days. On 10th September five MiGs attacked two VMA-312 Vought F4U Corsairs and shot one down but lost one of their own. Still, the Chinese pilots were not as clumsy as Western publications may lead one to believe. Little by little they gained experience, and some of them even became aces. Wang Hai and Chao Bao-tung had nine 'kills' each, Liu Ming and Fang Wang-chow had eight, and Sun Shen-ku had six. The North Koreans did not fly the MiG-15 until late 1952. Like the Chinese, they suffered heavy losses, and the Soviet command soon relegated them to the second echelon of defence in order to conserve valuable cadre which would rebuild the North Korean Air Force after the war. Captured USAF pilots noted that groups of North Korean pilots differed perceptibly in training level; there were skilled airmen which the Americans were reluctant to tangle with, and there were ill-trained ones which they hunted and shot down. Remarkably, the (real) North Korean Air Force was the only one in the world to have female jet fighter pilots. One of them, Tha Sen Hi, rose to squadron leader and was honoured with the Hero of the Korean People's Democratic Republic title. On one occasion a group of eight MiGs led by Tha Sen Hi acted with purely feminine cunning, tailing a group of Thunderjets covered by Sabres across the 38th parallel and all the way to their home base. As the Sabres, apparently oblivious of the MiGs, departed for their own base, the F-84s started coming in to land. Not expecting to see MiGs so far behind the frontlines, the Americans probably believed this was a case of mass defection and did not open fire. When they realised their mistake, it was too late; the uninvited guesIs shot down seven Thunderjets and hightailed it home at treetop level. North Korean pilots also managed to score a few Sabre 'kills'. The squadron commanded by Kim Di Sanh claimed 36 Sabres destroyed and ten damaged; Kim Di San h was responsible for six and one of these respectively. Cam Denh Dec became the top-scoring Korean ace with eight 'kills' to his credit. 66
MiG-15
Regarding the question of statistics and 'who killed whom', Soviet sources state that by the end of the war 64th IAK pilots - mostly flying MiG-15s - had destroyed 1,106 enemy aircraft (including 651 Sabres) in 1,182 air-to-air engagements. Another 271 aircraft, including 181 Sabres, were reportedly destroyed by the JAA in 366 engagements. The Americans claim 954 Soviet, Chinese and North Korean aircraft destroyed, including 792 MiG-15s (some sources even state 827!), but this figure is definitely exaggerated. The USAF recorded 'kills' by gun camera evidence only; according to K V Sookhov (HSU), this system was about 75% effective. Many of the MiG-15s apparently shot down in flames were only damaged, landing at their home bases. For example, out of four 176th GvlAP MiGs reportedly shot down on 3rd April 1951 only one was actually lost and the other three damaged. Such aircraft were usually repairedand possibly 're-shot down', and re-repaired and so on until finally they were really destroyed. The Soviet side had a stricter system of recording aerial victories. Pilot reports were barely taken into account. Confirmation from ground troops or civil authorities was required in addition to gun camera film if the 'kill' was to be credited; material evidence, especially manufacturer's plates from the downed aircraft, rated even higher. If a UN aircraft downed by MiGs fell into the sea or outside 'MiG Alley' and could not be retrieved, the 'kill' was often not credited. (A possible reason is that Soviet pilots, too, received combat pay - 1,500 roubles for each 'kill' - and Soviet officials were unwilling to 'squander the people's money'!) Even so, 'kill' statistics by both sides seem equally inflated. Measuring losses is an equally tricky thing, and both sides downplayed losses. American sources list 971 USAF aircraft lost in the Korean War to all causes (shot down by enemy fighters and destroyed by AM, and accident attrition), including 78 Sabres shot down in air-to-air combat and 26 more gone missing. Soviet sources acknowledge that 335 Soviet MiGs were shot down and 120 pilots killed in action; the JAA lost 231 aircraft (though the proportion of MiGs is not known) and 126 pilots. Fifty-two 64th IAK pilots became aces. They made up 15% of the 347 Soviet pilots scoring 'kills' in the Korean War but destroyed 416 enemy aircraft, or 37.6% of the total 'kills'. By comparison, 365 Sabre pilots ofthe 5th AF shot down a total of 818 enemy aircraft. 39 of them became aces, scoring 305.5 'kills', or 37.3% of the total 'kills' scored on Sabres. Twenty-two of the Soviet pilots earned the Hero of the Soviet Union title. Oddly, many pilots who scored up to ten 'kills' did not gain this title for some reason. A partial list of Soviet MiG-15 aces is given opposite. Other MiG-15 pilots who earned the Hero of the Soviet Union title in Korea but did not become aces were Maj Gen Gheorgiy A Lobov,
Maj Stepan Nazarenko (Deputy Squadron Leader) and Lt (sg) Yevgeniy M Stel'makh, who was honoured posthumously for personal heroism (one 'kill' in 15 sorties)." Lobov gained his high rank during the Second World War where he flew 356 combat missions, scoring 19 personal 'kills' and eight shared 'kills'. He was awarded the HSU title in recognition of his role as 64th IAK CO. Interestingly, Col Ivan N Kozhedoob, the popular Commander of the 324th lAD, was expressly forbidden to fly combat missions in Korea (the Soviet leaders obviously felt they could not risk losing him!), and Maj Gen Lobov rarely flew combat missions. Thus, the four F-80s he shot down in 15 sorties when he was still 303rd lAD CO can be regarded as 'quite an achievement. Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev had the best 'kill' ratio, or number of victories per sortie, 0.21. On average, he shot down one enemy aircraft in every four missions; by comparison, it took the top-scoring ace Nikolay V Sootyagin six missions to bring down one aircraft. The aces also got shot down sometimes, just like ordinary pilots. Lev K Schchookin, then in the rank of Lieutenant Senior Grade, was even shot down twice - on 17th June 1951 (by Samuel Pesacreta, 4th FIG) and 11th January 1952 - and lived to tell the tale. On the latter occasion MiG 'kills' were credited to Col Francis S Gabreski (51st FIG CO), Maj William T Whisner Jr. (51st FIG/25th FIS CO), 1st Lt Earl S Payne (51 st FIG/16th FIS) and 1st Lt Thiel M Reeves (51st FIG/25th FIS), but it is not known who downed Schchookin. On 18th June 1951 eight MiG-15s led by Capt Serafim P Soobbotin engaged a group of 16 Sabres. Shortly after shooting down the lead Sabre Soobbotin was attacked by another F-86 piloted by Capt William D Crone. After taking several hits the MiG's engine quit and the fighter spiralled earthwards. Crone, however, was not content and followed the stricken MiG, hammering away at it at close range. Then Soobbotin deployed his airbrakes; taken by surprise, the Sabre pilot had no time to take evasive action and the two fighters collided. (One Russian author describing the incident claims that Soobbotin wilfully caused the collision in order to teach the insolent Yankee a lesson!). Crone must have been wounded by the impact and made no attempt to eject as his aircraft spun into the ground, its starboard wing partially demolished. The damaged MiG started rolling uncontrollably and Soobbotin was thrown clear of the aircraft, parachuting to safety. Not all of the aces survived a shootdown, however. Lt (sg) Fyodor Shebanov was mortally wounded by a .50 calibre bullet from an F-80 and passed out, his aircraft diving vertically into the ground, out of control. Lt (sg) V I Stepanov made it back to Antung in his crippled fighter but died when the aircraft overran due to brake failure and burned out beyond the runway.
Soviet MiG·15 Aces Entries in bold type refer to aces who were killed in action. 'Kills'
Rank
Name
Unit
Position (where known)
21
Captain
Nikolay VSootyagin (HSU)
303rd IAD/523rd lAp,
Deputy Squadron Leader
150
20
Colonel
Yevgeniy Gheorgiyevich Pepelyayev (HSU)
324th IAD/196th lAP
Regt CO*
108
15
Lieutenant Colonel Captain Captain Captain
Aleksandr PSmorchkov (HSU) Serafim Pavlovich Soobbotin (HSU) Lev Kirillovich Schchookin (HSU) Sergey Makarovich Kramarenko (HSU)
303rd lAD/18th GvlAP 324th IAD/176th GvlAP 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP 324th IAD/176th GvlAP
Regt CO Regt Nav* Flight Leader Deputy Squadron Leader
191 212 149
Deputy Squadron Leader RegtCO* Flight Leader Deputy Regt CO Squadron Leader*
166 150 148 122 140 120 161
13
Soochkov (initials unknown) NKSheberstov
12 Major Major Captain Captain Captain
Stepan ABakhayev (HSU) Dmitriy POs'kin (HSU) Nikolay GDokashenko (HSU) Grigoriy UI'yanovich Okhay (HSU) Mikhail SPonomaryov (HSU)
303rd IAD/523rd lAP 303rd IAD/523rd lAP
10
Captain Lieutenant (senior grade) Captain
Grigoriy IGes' (HSU), Dmitriy ASamoylov (HSU) PSMilaooshkin
324th IAD/176th GvlAP 303rd IAD/523rd lAP 324th IAD/176th GvIAP*
Squadron Leader*
9
Captain Major
Mikhail I Mikhin (HSU) NVZabelin
216th IAD/518th lAP 190th IAD/256th lAP
Deputy Squadron Leader*
Captain Captain Captain
Lev Nikolayevich Ivanov Stepan AFedorets NVBabonin I MZaplavnev
324th IAD/196th lAP 32nd IAD/913th lAP 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP
Flight Leader
Lieutenant Colonel Major Captain Lieutenant (senior grade) Lieutenant Colonel Captain Captain
Grigoriy I Poolov (HSU), Anatoliy MKarelin (HSU) Arkadiy SBoytsov (HSU) Fyodor Akimovich Shebanov (HSU) SFVishnyakov NMZameskin PFNikoolin Boris VBokach APNikolayev VMKhvostontsev
303rd lAD/17th lAP 351 st lAp, Deputy 97th lAD/16th lAP 324th IAD/196th lAP 324th IAD/t 76th GvlAP 216th IAD/878th lAP 324th IAD/176th GvlAP
Regt CO* RegtCO Deputy Squadron Leader KIA 26·10·1951 RegtCO
Lieutenant (senior grade) Major Captain Captain Captain Captain Captain Lieutenant (senior grade)
Boris AObraztsov (HSU) Nikolay I Shkodin Boris Sergeyevich Abakoomov, Grigoriy NBerelidze VPLepikov* SI Naoomenko Gherman Timofeyevich Shatalov VI Stepanov AT Bashman VI Belousov GI Bogdanov NIGherasimenko SDDanilov GLKorniyenko AMKochegarov VANazarkin NKShelomonov
KIA (date not known) 133rd IAD/147th GvIAP* 324th IAD/176th GvlAP t 32nd IAD/224th lAP
11
5
Sorties
* Some sources give different figures - 19 'kills' for Pepelyayev, 15 for Os'kin, 14 for Ponomaryov, 11 for Mikhin, 8 for Poolov, 7 each for Milaooshkin and Soobbotin, 6 for Ges', 4 'kills' for Lepikov and 3 for Shkodin.
303rd IAD/523rd lAP
303rd IAD/523rd lAP 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP
120 50 150
KIA 28·11·1951 KIA 6-1·1952
324th IAD/196th lAP
t Abakoomov was forced to quit flying after being shot down by a Sabre on 7th January 1952 and losing his left thumb which was hit by a .50 calibre bullet. Interestingly, some Russian publications refer to him as Boris Stepanvich, not Boris Sergeyvich.
MiG-15
67
The situation in Korea was anything but calm in the immediate postwar years, and the Soviet MiG-15 units stayed there until 1954. Among other things, USAF and Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) aircraft intruded into North Korean airspace every now and then. These incursions peaked in 1955, resulting in several clashes in which both sides chalked up a few 'kills'. For example, on 2nd February 1955 eight North Korean MiG-15s intercepted a USAF North American RB-45C Tornado recce aircraft escorted by sixteen Sabres over the Yellow Sea. In the ensuing battle the Americans shot down two MiGs with no losses for themselves. To catch a MiG Of course, faced with a potent adversary in the shape of the MiG-15, the West was eager to obtain a sample for detailed examination, if nothing else. The most desirable option, of course, was to obtain a flyable example so that USAF pilots could be trained in anti-MiG tactics. The 'acquisition' operation was code-named Operation Mullah. It reportedly gave the first results in July 1951 when a downed MiG-15 was lifted from about 5m (16ft) of water off the Korean coast by Royal Navy ships. The aircraft, an early-production Kuybyshev-built Fagot-A, was handed over tb the USAF for examination at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (Da.yton, Ohio). However, ·this aircraft could not be restored to flying condition. A year later another MiG-15 was located in the mountains of North Korea in good condition. A US Army team in a Sikorsky H-19 helicopter was sent to retrieve it but could not extract the MiG in one piece. The team was forced to 'dismantle' the fighter by means of saws and hand grenades (!). The pieces were sent to Cornell Aero Lab, Buffalo, New York. The first intact Fagot reached the West on 5th March 1953 - the day Stalin died - when Porucznik (Lt) Franciszek Jarecki of the Polish Air Force's 28th Fighter Regiment defected in his MiG-15bis serialled 346 Red, taking off from Siupsk and landing at Ronne airport on the Danish island of Bornholm. The West was not allowed to keep the fighter; after detailed inspection the aircraft had to be returned on 22nd May aboard a Polish merchant ship. However, two days earlier, on 20th May, another 28th Fighter Regiment pilot, Podporucznik (Lt [jg]) Zdzislaw Jazwinski, defected to the same location in another MiG-15bis! (It should be noted this was not the last defection. On 7th November 1957 a 31 st Fighter Regiment MiG-15bis, 1919 Red, flown by PodpOrucznik Kozuchowski escaped to Sweden, making a belly landing on Halland Island.) At the same time, the UN allies were scattering leaflets over North Korean territory offering a $100,000 reward and political asylum to anyone who would deliver a MiG-15 to the UN side. No one responded to that alluring offer until two months after the end of the war, on 21 st September 1953, when Lieutenant Ro Kim 68
MiG-15
Suk '8 (who claimed not to have heard about the offer, but collected the $100,000 anyway) flew his MiG-15bis to Kimpo AB near Seoul. The aircraft (2057 Red, cln 2015357) underwent detailed evaluation at Kadena AB in 1953, where it was flown by test pilots Tom Collins and Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, among others, and throughout the following year at WrightPatterson AFB and Eglin AFB (Florida). Kadena is often plagued by foul weather, and, as Gen Albert Boyd, Chief of the US Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC), put it, 'the trials of the Russian MiG showed what Chuck could do. It was dangerous work, flying in that beastly weather. Collins and Yeager tossed a coin on the first day to decide who would fly first; much to Chuck's disappointment, Tom won. We knew that the MiG climbed well but did not know its service ceiling. Tom reached 48,000ft [14,630 m] and got oxygen supply problems. When he landed we started thinking what to do next. Chuck said he could go higher than that. I said OK, providing I would escort him in a Sabre and tell him to descend at the first signs of hypoxia. We climbed to 51,000ft [15,545 m], which was as far as the Sabre would go, and still Chuck kept. climbing; possibly he was using much less oxygen than Collins. Chuck reached 55, 600ft [16,950 m], and the MiG could easily fly at that altitude. Jesus Christ, that was amazing. We quickly realized that the Sabre was a much better aircraft, as it had better equipment and armament. (While the equipment part is true, the 'better armament' allegation is a statement open to doubt - Auth.) However, the MiG had certain advantages: a better climb rate, a higher service ceiling, quicker acceleration. After these trials we advised service pilots to engage the MiG at at least Mach 0.8, thereby neutralizing the Russian fighter's advantage in acceleration. Many service pilots believed the MiG could crack the sound barrier. We decided to prove that it could not. Yeager accomplished this mission, the most dangerous hitherto. I said: 'OK, Chuck, we'll climb to 50,000ft [15,240 m] and dive together. I will call out Mach readings on the radio because our instruments may be more accurate.' We knew damn well that the MiG might lose pitch control at high Mach numbers; the Russians had programmed the speedbrakes for automatic deployment at Mach 0.94. Control could only be regained at 18,000ft [5,486 m] where the air was thick enough. I counted on Yeager's instinct for danger. 'Chuck, this is again a great risk, and I won't blame you if you refuse. ' His reply was, 'No, Sir. What the hell did I go through all this trouble with the ejection gun, then?' (Chuck Yeager personally checked and armed the ejection seat, not trusting the mechanics at Kadena to do it - Auth.) So we took off, climbed to 50,000ft and went into a vertical dive. The MiG started shaking like mad and the ailerons became totally inefficient at Mach 0.98. I'm sure as hell that no Russian
test pilot ever reached that speed in that thing. Control started coming back at 16,000ft [4,876 m] and the aircraft leveled out at 12,000ft [3,657 m] in the middle of a layer of storm clouds. We concluded this most dangerous experiment by landing together in pouring rain. General Cannon (Pacific Air Force C-in-C - Auth.) was amazed that we managed to test the MiG thoroughly in these appalling conditions. ' (NOTE: The above extract is taken from Gen Chuck Yeager's autobiography which he wrote together with Leo Janson (Bantam Books, 1985). In response to this, Lt Col Stepan A Mikoyan, Artyom I Mikoyan's nephew, wrote: 'I do hope that it was Yeager's co-author and not Yeager himself who was responsible for the false statements [in this book]. After reading Yeager's account of his flights in the MiG" 15... and Gen Boyd's story I'd like to make a few comments ... I logged several hundred hours in various versions of the MiG-15 and performed a lot of test programmes; thus I am in a position to say that most of Yeager's claims concerning this aircraft are wrong. He writes that I asked him in surprise, 'For God's sake, did you really dive in this plane? Every time its nose goes down my heart is about to stop. ' This is ridiculous; I dived dozens of times [in the MiG-15], including a special trials programme when we dived vertically from 15,000m [49,212ft] to 3,000m [9,824ft], reaching Mach 0.98 (Boyd was 'sure as hell that no Russian test pilot ever reached that speed in that thing'!) There was never any loss of pitch control in the MiG-15, nor any 'unexpected pitch and yaw oscillations'. The ailerons did become inefficient at critical Mach numbers, but this presented no danger, since this was only encountered in a steep dive at full power. The MiG-15 was fairly easy to fly and it killed no more pilots than any other fighter. Our pilots never had any problems with oxygen supply at high altitude. Incidentally, Gen Boyd quoted too high a figure for the MiG-15's service ceiling; in reality it is about 51,000ft (15,500 mY. ... The MiG-15 was reluctant to spin; spin entry was mild and the aircraft warned [of an impending spin] by rocking its wings except at high altitude or during high-G maneuvers. '9 True, it could not recover if the pilot messed up the spin recovery procedure by moving the stick in the opposite direction to the spin - which is exactly why we painted a white line down the middle of the instrument panel [for aligning the stick during spin recovery]. If you did everything right, the aircraft recovered without any problem; I did it many times. I read an American report about the F-4 Phantom's spinning behaviour and realised that [the Phantom] was much more dangerous in this respect than the MiG-15. As for the warning not to switch on the emergency fuel pump because it could trigger an explosion and tear off the tail, this is complete bullshit. I have never heard of any such incidents. Yeager writes that the MiG-15 is 'a primitive death trap, and no one would have been
surprised if I had got killed'. Then how does he think have thousands of ordinary service pilots flown it for thirty years in many countries of the world? In this connection I'd like to quote an American pilot who had fought in Korea. When asked by the same magazine (Aviation Week Auth.) whether he'd like to fight in the Sabre or in the MiG-15, he said, "I'd like a MiG-15 equipped with the gunsight from a Sabre". ') According to USAF specialists, there was nothing unusual in the MiG-15's structure - 'no magic'. The verdict was that it was a well-built and reliable combat aircraft but with no finesse such as special fuel, new structural materials or other innovations. Western experts noted that the aircraft was lighter than contemporary swept-wing fighters (35% lighter than the F-86F and 47% lighter than the Hawker Hunter). They liked the neat weapons arrangement and ease of engine change but criticized the MiG's oversized inlet, low rate of fire and lack of a gun ranging radar which reduced the chances of a 'kill'. As the well-known aviation writer Roy M Braybrook noted back in the 1960s, for all its shortcomings the MiG-15 made the West rethink its approach to fighter design. The Fagot's high-altitude performance, excellent in its day, influenced the design of such aircraft as the Folland Gnat, Fiat G-91 and Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. There were also cases when Soviet Air Force aircraft (including MiG-15s) made emergency landings in West Germany due to naVigation errors. The first information on the latest Soviet aircraft often reached the West from Germany because WS units in East Germany were first to convert to up-to-date aircraft.
To catch a Sabre The USSR was also interested in obtaining an F-86A, preferably a 'live' specimen, for much the same reasons. Of particular interest was the equipment associated with the Sabre pilot's G-suit. However, there was little hope of capturing a Sabre. If the aircraft was badly shot up but still flyable, the pilot would try to reach Korea Bay where rescue was guaranteed, and recovering the aircraft from the sea was out of the question. If the F-86 was so badly damaged that it came down on North Korean territory, 'the wreckage told no more about the plane than the ashes of a burnt book could tell about its contents', as one Russian writer put it. Offering a reward, as the UN side did, was not the solution. Nobody was going to waste money trying to corrupt American pilots. The Soviet government seemed to guess that no one with common sense would fly towards the Soviet territory. What F-86 pilot would want to
spend the rest of his days in Siberia or get a bullet into his nape? Soon" however, someone in the Soviet leadership thought he knew the answer. In Apr'i1 1951 a group headed by Nil W$ Director Lt Gen A Blagoveschchenskiy arrived in China by special order of the WS Coin-C. It included twelve Nil WS test pilots - Lt Col Dzyubenko, Maj Trofimov, Maj Goolyayev, Maj Mitoosov, Maj Perevozchikov, Capt Makhalin, Capt Koorashev, Lt (sg) Alikhnovich, Lt (sg) Bobonin, Lt (sg) Semyonenko, Lt (sg) Serdyuk and Lt (sg) Tikhomeerov. Hence this task force was alternately referred to as 'the Blagoveschchenskiy group', 'the Nil WS group' or, most often, as 'Comrade Dzyubenko's group' because Dzyubenko led it on actual sorties. The mission of the Blagoveschchenskiy group was to force a Sabre to land at a Soviet airbase. After a month's preparations the group arrived in Antung and was seconded to the 196th lAP on 29th March, 'borrowing' the fighters of one of the unit's squadrons. The unit's CO Col Yevgeniy Pepelyayev was against the idea from the outset. '[Blagoveschchenskiy's pilots] started cajoling me, saying, 'We'll give you all the 'kills' we score', - Pepelyayev recounted later. - I said, 'I don't need it. And there will be no 'kills'; you'll be lucky if you come back alive.' He was right; the test pilots were well-trained but had no combat experience and no knowledge of tactics. The result was deplorable. On the very first attempt on 31 st May, twelve MiGs engaged four Sabres escorting a pair of B-29s over Anshu (now Anju - Auth.). In the resulting melee one MiG-15 was shot down, Maj Perevozchikov losing his life, and two others damaged by Sabres. The attempt was repeated on 5th June after several tactical training sessions with Pepelyayev. However, once again the mission ended in tragedy. On final approach to Antung in a strong crosswind Lt Col Dzyubenko hit wake turbulence from his wingman's MiG; his aircraft rolled, struck the ground with its wingtip and overturned, killing him. This was the last straw: the Blagoveschensky group returned to
the USSR. Some of its pilots, however, stayed in Korea and fought well (with proper training). For example, Maj A I Mitoosov, who was Pepelyayev's next in command, became an ace and was nominated for the HSU title; Mitoosov eventually became 196th lAP CO when Pepelyayev was promoted after the war. The efforts to obtain a Sabre finally bore fruit on 6th October 1951, and it was none other than Pepelyayev who bagged the g~me. The aircraft, a 4th FIG/335th FIS F-86A-5:-NA (491319I'FU-319'), was hit by a single 37mm shell just aft of the cockpit that dart)aged the engine and the ejection seat. UnaQle,to eject, the pilot made a belly landing on a, sand bank in the mouth of the Chonchongi Rive,r 13km (8 miles) west of Pyongwong and':was rescued by a USAF helicopter. The aircraft was recovered by the Russians, delivered to),n.tung and sent to Moscow., , There the F-86 was exam'ined in detail by various MAP divisions. Wind ~tunnel models were manufactured and tested 'at TsAGI to investigate the Sabre's aerodyns,'mics and handling. The Mikoyan OKB studied the control system on a special test rig. Elements of the Sabre's air conditioning system were installed in a modified MiG-17 designated izdeliye SI-91 and tested at altitudes up to 12,OOOm (39,370ft). The gun ranging radar was carefully studied; the results of this investigation accelerated the development of the first Soviet gun ranging radars (the SRD series). Other design areas, such as electric equipment and structural materials, yielded valuable data forthe improvement of Soviet aviation technology and manufacturing standards. The examinations were completed by early May 1952, and ajoint MAP/WS report was submitted to the Council of Ministers on 23rd May. TsAGI specialists noted that the F-86A handled satisfactorily in all flight modes up to Mach 0.93 to 0.94. Wind tunnel research showed that Mach tuck manifested itself at Mach 0.8 and elevator efficiency was sharply reduced above Mach 0.9, necessitating the use of stabil izer trim. According to TsAGI specialists, 'the aircraft's general arrangement and aerodynamics are of little interest, with the exception of: (a) ailerons
F-86A-5·NA 49-1319 shot down by Col Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev on 6th October 1951. This aircraft was transported to the Soviet Union and examined in detail. Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-15
69
--
Above: Ro Kim Suk's Fagot-B (ex-2057 Red, c/n 2015357) shortly after 'delivery' with 'MiG-15' nose titles and spurious markings with a Soviet Air Force star on the fin. Yefim Gordon archive Left and below left: The 'donated' MiG was extensively tested by the USAF - first at Kadena AB, Okinawa, and then at Wright-Patterson AFB. Here, it is duly repainted in USAF markings with the last three of the USAF serial on the fin and nose. Yefim Gordon archive
Below: The MiG's armament is being examined by USAF specialists. Yefim Gordon archive
70
MiG-15
of relatively large chord and span ensuring good roll control at both low and high speed; (b) large airbrakes increasing the aircraft's drag approximately three times without affecting longitudinal stability; (c) effective high-litt devices (slotted flaps); (d) full-span leading-edge slats; and (e) powered ailerons and elevators. ... The MiG-1S and F-86A have almost identicallitt/drag ratios at angles of attack up to 14°. The F-86A is larger, has a higher gross weight and a lower engine thrust rating than the MiG-1S; hence, according to calculations, the MiG-1S is slightly superior to the F-86A in top speed at low altitude and markedly superior in rate of climb throughout the altitude range. Diving speeds with airbrakes deployed are almost identical; however, in level flight the F-86A's airbrakes are more effective than the MiG-1S's. The F-86A. .. is stressed for approx. 12 Gs, which corresponds to the limits set for aircraft in this class by our structural strength norms. ' In essence, the MAPNVS report recommended adopting some of the Sabre's design features for new Soviet aircraft. There wasn't even the remotest hint at copying the F-86A completely and producing it in the USSR, as had been the case with the B-29/Tu-4. This is hardly surprising - MAP and WS leaders agreed that, given the availability of the MiG15bis and MiG-17 (and despite all their shortcomings), copying the Sabre in 1952 was pointless. Besides, some of the F-86A's features (gun ranging radar integrated with optical gunsight, large airbrakes, powered elevators etc) were then being introduced or tested on the MiG-15bis and MiG-17.
At a late stage of its evaluation the captured MiG received full USAF insignia. The TC-prefixed buzz number is said to denote Tom Collins, one of the test pilots who flew the jet. Yefim Gordon archive
Not all Soviet military leaders, however, thought the MiG-15 was better. Lt Gen Yevgeniy Yakovlevich Savitskiy, C-in-C of the PVO's fighter element, expressed his alarm to the Soviet government regarding the condition and prospects of the Air Defence Force after inspecting the 64th IAK in Korea. At least twice (in February 1952 and April 1953) he addressed the Council of Ministers with an analysis of the 64th IAK's operations, stressing that the MiG-15 was ineffective against the F-80 and F-84 at low altitude and inferior to the F-86NE at low and medium altitude. Savitskiy proposed the development of a special tactical fighter optimised for dogfighting at low and medium altitude; quite possibly his opinion did have an influence on later fighter development in the USSR. Meanwhile, things took an interesting turn. In May 1952 one Vladimir V Kondrat'yev, a TsAGI employee, wrote a letter to Stalin, proposing to 'build the F-86A Sabre in quantity, retaining a complete likeness to the original' (= copy it) with a view to 'critically amassing the American [engineering] school by improving this aircraft with the purpose of modification' (! - sic). He cited the Sabre's better manoeuvrability as the reason for this approach and concluded his letter with the generous offer to appear as chief project engineer for this programme.'o (No comment.) Apparently the idea appealed to the 'Peoples' Father'. Kondrat'yev was given a group of specialists and started work at the former Sukhoi OKB's facilities (Pavel Osipovich Sukhoi's OKB had been eliminated in 1949). The group later became part of the Sukhoi OKB when the latter was resurrected in 1953 and started working on jet fighters and fighterbombers for which it is now famous. As for the reverse-engineered Sabre, it never appeared. To the best of the author's knowledge the captured F-86A was never flown in the USSR, and its ultimate fate is unknown.
Good guy, bad guy Now we come to the perennial question: 'MiG-15 vs F-86: which was better?' This issue has been partly addressed in the preceding paragraphs. Seldom have two fighters so similar in history and performance faced each other in combat - in fact, so similar that there have been uninformed allegations that 'the Soviets copied the Sabre'! (The alleged Soviet custom of copying Western designs was a common subject in the Cold War years, but that is a separate issue which lies outside the scope of this book.) Both aircraft first flew in 1947 (the MiG-15 on 30th December, the XP-86 on 1st October); both entered production in 1948 and were built by the thousand in their home countries and abroad. Both fighters were developed into numerous versions and served with the air forces of many nations, becoming true symbols of the jet age in military aviation. The MiG-15 and F-86 were somewhat similar in general arrangement. They were all-metal, single-seat monoplanes with wings swept back 35° at quarter-chord, swept tail surfaces and hydraulically-retractable tricycle landing gear. Both were powered by a single turbojet buried in the rear fuselage, which was detachable for engine maintenance and change. But here the similarity ended. The MiG-15 was a mid-wing monoplane, while the F-86 was a low-wing monoplane. The Sabre's wing torsion box was a rigid structure because the mainwheels were housed in the fuselage, not the wings; consequently, the wing drop problem that plagued the MiG for a long time was unknown to the F-86. The MiG-15 had a higher wing thickness/ chord ratio than the F-86; this difference became even greater when the F-86F came on the scene. Early versions of the Sabre had leading-edge slats for better manoeuvrability. On the F-86F-25 the slats were deleted and wing
MiG-15
71
chord increased by extending the leading edge 6in (152.4mm) at the root and 3in (76.2mm) at the tip (hence the term '6-3 wing'). This reduced thickness/chord ratio even more, increasing top speed by 10km/h (5.4kts). Both fighters had a swept tail; however, the MiG-15 had cruciform tail surfaces while the F-86 had a conventional tail unit with low-set stabilizers. This difference was associated with the difference in wing design (mid-wing vs. lowwing). The Sabre's vertical tail area was rather smaller. The MiG-15 was powered by a centrifugalflow turbojet and the F-86 by an axial-flow turbojet. This meant that the Sabre's fuselage had a smaller cross-section and created less drag. All F-86 versions used in. the Korean War had non-afterburning engines, although water injection was introduced on the E to increase thrust. (In passing, it can be noted that the General Electric J47 turbojet was extremely smoky at high rpm, leading Soviet pilots to believe that the Sabre was equipped with an afterburner!) The water-injection method was not tried by the Mikoyan OKB. The F-86 had powered ailerons and elevators while the MiG-15 had manual controls or, at best, powered ailerons only (on the MiG15bis). Also, like the MiG, the initial F-86A had conventional stabilizers and inset elevators, but the E introduced one-piece slab stabilizers (stabilators) giving better pitch control. This feature found its way to Soviet fighters only in 1955 on the MiG-19S. There was a striking difference in armament. The MiG-15 had a powerful battery of one 37mm and two 23mm cannons. The rate of fire of the 37mm cannon (400 rounds per minute) and 23mm cannons (800 to 950rpm) made them a marginal weapon against other fighters when handled by ordinary pilots, but experienced pilots like Yevgeniy Pepelyaev think that, when used skilfully, the cannon battery was good enough. The heavy cannons were reliable and deadly against bombers which, as noted earlier, were the MiGs' prime target. In contrast, the Sabre had six .50 calibre (12.7mm) machine guns (three on each side) with a rate of fire of, 6,600rpm. Both aircraft could expend their ammunition supply in 15 seconds. The MiG-15's durability and survivability became a legend in the Soviet Air Force. The aircraft proved extremely resistant to 12.7mm slugs; MiGs came home with up to 204 bullet holes! In May 1952 a 190th IAD/821 st lAP Fagot-B (688 Red, c/n 0615388) piloted by Lt (sg) Veshkin was shot up in a dogfight. The wounded pilot flew 11 Okm (59nm) to his home base and was almost there when the engine quit and the fighter made a belly landing 5km (2.7nm) from the airfield. The awed mechanics counted 154 bullet holes; no fewer than 39 heavy slugs had hit the engine, bending every single compressor and turbine blade, and still the engine held! The aircraft was back in service in eight days. 72
MiG-15
On 16th September in the same year a 32nd IAD/535th lAP MiG-15bis (928 Red, c/n 2915328) flown by Maj Karatayev took 119 hits in a dogfight. 24 bullets hit the engine, puncturing two combustion chambers out of nine and bending 16 turbine blades. The forward fuel cell was punctured, the aft fuel tank exploded and the port airbrake burned away; the hydraulic tank was also hit, causing complete hydraulics failure. Still, the pilot made it back to Dagushan and landed normally; the aircraft was rebuilt and flying again in 16 days. In late November 1951 Col Yevgeniy Pepelyayev did a half roll to dive at a Sabre flying almost directly below him and exceeded the aircraft's G limits in so doing. When he landed his MiG-15bis (325 Red, c/n 1315325) was a strange ~ight. The wing anhedral had disappeared and there were pronounced creases in the skin of both wings and the centre fuselage; Pepelyayev must have pulled more than 12 Gs as he went after his prey! Still, the aircraft had stayed in one piece. The wings were removed and sent to TsAGI for analysis, and 325 Red returned to service on 7th December with a fresh set of wings. Perhaps the most striking illustration (no pun intended) of the MiG's ability to take a lot of punishment and still bring the pilot home - and of excellent airmanship as well - was the incident on 20th June 1951 involving 176th GvlAP MiG-15bis '785 Blue' (c/n 0715385). Squadron Leader Capt Grigoriy I Ges' attacked a P-51 D at less than 100m (328ft) range. The Mustang blew up in mid-air and its port wing struck the MiG's tail, slicing off part of the starboard tailplane and jamming the elevators. At that moment Ges' and his wingman Lt (sg) Nikolayev were attacked by a flight of Sabres and Nikolayev's aircraft was hit. Even though his own aircraft was almost barely controllable, Ges' covered his wounded wingman until they were out of immediate danger. Then he started experimenting with the controls and found that by 'playing' with the throttle, flaps and airbrakes he could control descent speed. Ges' managed to land the MiG in one piece; he finished the was as an ace with eight 'kills' to his credit. The F-86 also exhibited high resistance to 23mm shells from the NR-23 cannons, but even a couple of hits from the 37mm cannon usually destroyed it. Maj Stephen L Bettinger (4th FIW/335th FIS), who was shot down on 20th July 1953 and taken prisoner, later said, 'You have to give credit to the enemy's 20mm and 37mm guns. One hit from the 37mm gun can be enough to take a wing or the tail off or to blow up the engine.' The gunsight was of great importance for both aircraft. The Sabre had an automatic sight linked to its gun ranging radar, giving it an advantage in adverse weather conditions and at night. The Soviet fighter also had an automatic sight but no ranging radar; besides, the ASP-3N sight was troublesome, often failing during high-G manoeuvres, so pilots used it as
a simple collimating sight. Working with this disadvantage demonstrates the high professionalism of Soviet pilots who succeeded in shooting down Sabres in high-G combat. The Sabre offered good cockpit visibility. The pilot sat high and the large bubble canopy was of single glass, with a simple frame. In contrast, the MiG-15 pilot sat low under a smaller canopy optimised for low drag and high strength. It had double glazing, and pilots were constantly bothered by annoying reflections from the canopy. The canopy was also prone to misting because water penetrated between the two layers of glass and froze at high altitude, making the pilot practically blind to the rear from where he was usually attacked by Sabres. All measures taken by the Mikoyan OKB to cure the problem, such as placing silica gel cartridges between the layers of glass, were of little effect. Finally, the rather complex canopy frame impaired cockpit visibility. The MiG-15's ejection seat was reliable and no cases of pilot death caused by its failure were recorded. But at first it had a considerable shortcoming: it could only be fired with the right hand. If this hand was injured in combat, the pilot had to reach across with his left hand, which was certain to lead to an incorrect position during ejection and hence to injury. A second ejection handle was added on the left side of the seat in July 1952. As for performance, the MiG-15 had a higher lift/drag ratio than the Sabre (13.9 versus 11; the bis did even better at 14.6) and a higher thrust/weight ratio. Consequently the MiG could outclimb the Sabre. At sea level, they had virtually the same rate of climb but, starting at approximately 6,000m (19,685ft), the MiG had an advantage and this superiority grew as altitude increased. On the other hand, the F-86 could outdive the MiG because it had a smaller fuselage cross-section (thanks to the axial-flow engine) and a lower wing thickness/chord ratio, creating less drag. Hence the heavier F-86 picked up speed in dive more quickly and recovered with less loss of altitude. The increased thrust of later Sabres gave them an advantage in speed; the MiG-15bis and F-86F had approximately equal engine thrust, but the F-86F was 35km/h (19kts) faster. All F-86 versions had better horizontal manoeuvrability because of their lower wing loading; the Sabre's leading-edge slats and large airbrakes helped a lot. The original FagotA's airbrakes were definitely too small. Airbrake area was increased on the MiG-15bis, but this was not enough, as the Korean War showed. In 1952 the Fagot-B's airbrakes were enlarged still further; yet the MiG never reached the Sabre's level of efficiency in this respect. This was taken into account when designing the MiG-17 and MiG-17F, where airbrake area was increased once again. Sabre pilots were equipped with G-suits - a luxury MiG-15 pilots could only dream of; this was another reason why the Sabre could pull
tighter turns! True, the PPK-1 G suit was tested on the MiG-15bis in 1952 but never made it to the Korean war. Summing up, one might say that the two aircraft were about equal when flown by experienced pilots. A lot depended on tactics, experience and the pilots' personal qualities. Here, it is worth quoting another passage from Gen Chuck Yeager's autobiography in which Gen Albert Boyd describes the trials of the captured MiG-15 at Kadena: 'There was a funny episode on our last day at Okinawa involving Chuck and two Air Force pilots who had ferried the Sabre we used as a chase plane from Korea. One of them, a Lieutenant Colonel, asked Chuck why we had not performed a mock combat session between the MiG and the F-86. Yeager said it was pointlessthe result depended not so much on the aircraft as on the pilot. The man did not believe him. Then Chuck offered him fly the MiG in a mock combat session against the Sabre. The Lieutenant Colonel agreed; Chuck briefed him on how to fly the MiG and they took off. Very soon Chuck fastened himself onto the MiG's tail and stayed glued to it. Then they landed and switched planes, and the scenario was repeated; Chuck kept mercilessly polishing his opponent's tail. When they landed the other man looked very embarrassed. 'I had no idea that so much depended on the pilot', he said. Chuck replied with a smile, 'A more experienced pilot will always get the better of you, no matter what you're flying. It's dead simple.' The man became famous in the Force, since the story of his dogfight with Yeager spread far and wide. Yet, he lost to the best pilot I have ever known. ' MiG-15 tactics in Korea The MiG-15s fought in basic units of two aircraft, or pairs. The leader of a pair and his wingman always stuck together, since a single pilot left without cover was very vulnerable. A pair usually comprised pilots with equal tactical skills, able to switch attack and cover functions as per necessity. Full psychological compatibility and a shared understanding of the logic of the combat made a pair of MiG-15 pilots formidable in combat. At an early stage of the Korean War the MiG15s operated in groups of eight (or, in Soviet terminology, two flights, since the Russians view a flight as two pairs). This was deemed a suitable size for supportive interaction in air-toair combat. Starting in 1951, Soviet MiG-15 pilots began to fly in groups of six rather than eight at high altitudes - a tactic later adopted by the Sabres as well. A group of six offered flexibility and safety. Quick-reaction alert (QRA) duty was performed in two-hour shifts, each shift being performed by a squadron of MiGs; thus the three squadrons in a regiment relieved each other. When the duty shift received the 'Readiness No l' signal from the control tower the pilots would climb into their fighters, ready to scramble. While on the ground, unit commanders
tried to keep the pilots sitting in their cockpits as little as possible to save their strength in the hot, wet climate. Two sorties per day was the average for MiG-15 pilots during the Korean War. In the Korean War, a Soviet squadron was divided into three groups for different tactics and purposes: attack, cover (known in American terms as CAp, or combat air patrol), and reserve. The attack group included at least one flight and was tasked with destroying the enemy's main force. The cover group was to protect the attack group and act as reinforcement in case of need; this made for concentrated firepower when stopping a major enemy air raid. The reserve (one or two pairs) supported these groups and repelled any fresh enemy fighters trying to join the fight. If not needed, the reserve stayed on the ground. The cover and attack groups were usually arranged above one another. Separation equalled the vertical distance that the aircraft routinely needed during a yo-yo manoeuvre; this facilitated coordination between the groups. The same principle applied to the groups of six MiGs used from 1951 onwards, with the attack, CAP and reserve functions filled by one pair each. After take-off, the MiGs often loitered above the objective they were defending, such as the power stations and bridges on the Yalu River. The MiG flights were arranged in two levels. GCI operators informed the pilots about approaching enemy aircraft. The upper group of MiGs moved against the enemy with the advantage of altitude and speed. The escorting Sabres would then try to prevent the MiGs from attacking Allied strike aircraft. The GCI alert system was based on a scheme tried and tested in the Great Patriotic War. The main GCI station monitored the situation by receiving target data from air defence radars and called the alert when enemy aircraft appeared. Forward pickets would be deployed in the battle area to monitor the situation visually and advise the MiG pilots of new targets and/or threats. After a fight, the results were analyzed in preparation for the next sortie or shift. Much importance was attached to the analysis of enemy tactics which frequently changed. After a period of intensive fighting the Americans would take a breather to correct errors and work out new tactics, and the Soviet pilots had to keep up with these. Unlike the MiG-15 with its air defence role, the Sabres were free to choose the time and methods of their attacks, so the initiative belonged to them. Interestingly, the American pilots felt that it was the MiG-15s that held the initiative, since they operated close to their bases, remaining behind the Yalu if they chose to, and could begin a fight with the advantage of higher altitude. The strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft flown by the opposing sides determined the tactics. The MiG-15s tended to fight in the ver-
tical plane, the Sabres in the horizontal plane. When attacked the MiGs would often climb in a spiral, trying to gain an advantage in altitude so as to dive down on the enemy. Knowing that, USAF pilots tried to force a turning fight on the MiGs, using the Sabre's su~erior manoeuvrability. Another favourite Sabre tactic was to roll inverted and dive sharply when under attack. MiG pilots found it difficult to repeat this manoeuvre because speed built up quickly and the aircraft began experiencing control problems at Mach 0.92; the Sabre had a higher Mach limit than the MiG. The most common tactic used by MiG-15 pilots in Korea was the hit-and-run tactic. After receiving target information from a GCI station the MiGs typically began a head-on engagement. They usually had the initial advantage of higher altitude and used it by diving on the enemy at high speed, pair after pair. If the enemy broke formation and began defensive manoeuvres as the first pair attacked, the second pair changed course and chose the most vulnerable target. After attacking, the MiGs immediately climbed away, using the speed gained during the dive. They tried to avoid sustained combat, but repeated the diVing attack whenever possible. Success depended on good timing and, when well-executed, this method made it hard for the enemy to counterattack, since the Sabre did not have enough thrust to climb after the MiGs. A variation on this tactic involved diving on the target out of the sun and exiting toward the sun after making a firing pass. A tactic called 'roundabout' was used during point defence of ground targets. Two pairs of MiG-15s formed a circle and the pilots covered each other. There were two or three such circles, one above the other, and the upper pair moved toward the enemy. Sabres usually attacked the lower echelon; then, a hit-and-run attack was launched against them from above and the MiGs went into a new circle after breaking off the attack. This tactic called for good coordination between the pairs. A 'pincers' tactic was sometimes used. Two flights of MiG-15s headed south on slightly diverging headings at 10,000m (32,808ft). The flights were separated beyond visual range, so their their actions were coordinated by ground control. Before meeting the enemy the MiGs descended to 4,500 to 6,000m (14,763 to 19,685ft) and turned north, heading towards each other. On the way back the flight searched for enemy fighter-bombers and small groups of Sabres heading back to their bases. At a predetermined time a third flight (sometimes a pair) of MiG-15s entered the 'pocket' created by the other two flights and shot down the enemy aircraft. In some cases, this flight or pair had the added purpose of covering MiGs returning from a mission with limited fuel. The tactic known as 'distraction' was fairly demanding, and MiG pilots used it only after gaining enough combat experience. The intention was to lure the patrolling Sabres away from MiG-15
73
their zones and clear the way for MiG-15s heading south to engage USAF attack aircraft. A ground picket monitored the situation and gave the OK for the strike group when the way was clear. The distracting group could also engage the Sabres as part of the main objective of air defence. The 'snare' tactic was an active method. The Soviet commanders knew well that Sabre pi lots delighted in hunting lone stragglers or pairs which had become separated from their groups, and they used this to set the trap. A squadron of MiGs formed a 'ladder', flying in pairs, flights, or sixes, the bottom one being nearest to the enemy. This lower echelon consisted of separate pairs that acted as baitforthe patrolling Sabres. When attacked, the bait group turned tail and climbed away towards the other MiGs. The pursuing Sabres now found themselves at a disadvantage, facing attack from above. The 'jaws' tactic was similar to the snare. If the Sabres tried to climb after the MiGs acting as bait, the main group of MiGs formed a ladder in two echelons, one above the other, and the Sabres were attacked by the lower echelon.
The 'hit from underneath' tactic was used against Sabres and fighter-bombers at low altitude. Pairs of MiG-15s flown by the most skilled pilots entered the combat area at treetop level, destroying any enemy aircraft they detected. When counterattacked they disengaged quickly, flying nap-of-the-earth in the mountainous terrain. These tactics required careful planning; every possible option had to be calculated. The Americans, too, tried to set devious traps for the MiGs - for instance, going on the air in flawless Russian, trying to give the Russian pilots false instructions. But, as Capt Boris S Abakoomov wrote in his book View from a MiG's Cockpit, 'they could never duplicate Ivan Nikitovich's guttural bass. Every single one of our pilots knew those inimitable tones. Then they tried false beacons - and also failed. They set the powerful transmitters of their ships to the same frequency as our outer marker beacon in order to throw the MiGs off course. Naturally, our instruments would give funny readings and we were forced to navigate by the sun, flying above the clouds. The compass and the inner marker beacon helped us to avoid those traps when in clouds.
Knowing our daily routine, the Americans timed their attacks to our meals, believing we would find it hard to fly and fight with a full stomach (consider the G loads). Ivan Nikitovich responded by also playing radio games with the Americans, and with considerable success. The method was this. R Ye Milyukov, the [324th lAD's] communications section chief, set up several radios at forward locations for ground/ air communication. Three pairs of MiGs would take off, using the callsigns of the leaders of large groups to fool the enemy into thinking we had put up a massive fighter shield. The six aircraft would cruise at high altitude and demonstratively communicate for the world to hear, listening to our forward radios at the sa'!'e time. After being advised by ground control that enemy aircraft had appeared in force in a predetermined area the leader of one pair (ie, supposedly a large formation) would call out 'Enemy in sight. Prepare to attack', even though he could not actually see a single Sabre. Then he would order another pair to attack from right etc, knowing that the Americans were listening. Ground control then told us that the Sabres were hastily jettisoning their drop tanks and preparing to engage the enemy, even though there was not a single MiG in sight. We then continued communicating with the third pair which allegedly sees the Sabres jettisoning their drop tanks and takes evasive action, preparing to attack them from below. The enemy is now frantic; the Americans' ground radars can't see any targets. Judging by the Russians' talk, the attack was about to begin; in reality, we - a mere six MiGs - were far away and invisible to them. Thus, the enemy's plans were foiled without a single shot; the Sabres would get low on fuel and head for home in great confusion. ' Soviet pilots put the proximity of their bases to the Yalu River to good use. This enabled them to save fuel at the early stages of the air war. In contrast, the Sabres had already burned most of their fuel by the time the MiGs engaged them. Though USAF pilots were officially prohibited from crossing the Yalu River, they often did when in hot pursuit of a MiG (such incursions were known as 'Maple Special', courtesy of Col Francis S Gabreski). In these cases the attack usually continued until the MiG touched down; then a kind of unwritten law took effect and the attack was broken off. In mid-1952, however, the Sabres started attacking the MiGs on their airfields in China. Western analysts observed that if the USAF had bombed the Chinese bases, MiG activity would have fallen sharply or dropped to zero, as shown by the way the Americans wiped out the abovementioned 34 airfields in Korea.
Left and opposite: Russian MiG-15s sent to Korea seen before being repainted in Korean markings. Yefim Gordon archive
74
MiG-15
In early September 1952 the Sabres sharply stepped up their MiG base blocking and search-and-destroy missions over southern China. It seemed that the spirit of noble air-toair duels, Baron Manfred von Richthofen-style, was gone forever; the temptation to shoot down the enemy on take-off or landing when he was vulnerable was too strong. The Sabres patrolled above Korea Bay and the mouth of the Yalu in pairs or flights at high altitude. Their pilots had an excellent view of the Soviet airbases and the tell-tale dust cloud revealing that the MiGs had started their engines. After spotting it the Sabres immediately entered a steep dive, cracking Mach 1 by the time the MiGs became airborne, made one firing pass and headed for the sea at top speed. Zero-zero ejection seats had not yet been invented, and a pilot shot down at a couple of hundred feet had no chances of survival. Nor was there any chance of a belly landing, since the airfields were surrounded by hills. Nearly half of the 64th IAK aircraft lost in September 1952 were shot down in this fashion. Lt (sg) Nikolay I Ivanov (133rd IAD/726th lAP) was one of the few pilots to survive such an attack - and possibly the only one to shoot down his attacker as well. 'Finding an answer to this Sabre tactic was extremely hard, and often the only option for the Soviet pilots was to stay on the ground', he recalled. On 5th September, Ivanov and his wingman were the lead pair of several MiGs lined up for take-off when the incoming Sabres were spotted, dropping down on them like thunderbolts. The rest of the group immediately aborted the take-off, but the lead pair was too far down the runway and the only way was up. 'j had one hand on the catapult when I took off, - Ivanov recalled. - I never purposefully studied that trick, nobody even talked to me about it, but when I heard them yelling on the Rff, 'You're under attackl', and it was too late to stop-I'd hit the hills if I did, -I dumped my drop tanks. Perhaps that was what saved me. The guys on the ground told me afterwards that my take-off looked impressive as hell. Well. .. I don't know. I was not impressed. I was lucky; I was only hit by a single bullet and my wingman was not hit at all. We had quite a bit of cloud that day, and as I broke through the clouds a pair of Sabres whizzed over me, heading for the bay (Korea Bay Auth.). And I shot down one of them - that's for sure. It was right over the airfield, and everybody saw it.' For this action Ivanov was promoted to Major and received the Order of Lenin. Incredibly, however, he was not credited with this 'kill' due to lack of material evidence! The Sabre fell into Korea Bay and the gun camera film was overexposed, as Ivanov was heading right into the sun when he fired. 133rd lAD documents state that virtually every man in Antung watched the Sabre go down; still, no material evidence - no 'kill', and that means no money. That Sabre pilot was probably rescued, but
sometimes such raids ended even more sadly for the Americans. On 23rd January 1953 Maj Edwin L Heller, the well-known CO of the 51 st FIW/16th FIS, was shot down over Antung by Lt (sg) II Karpov21 (32nd IAD/913th lAP) and taken prisoner. By then he had scored 3.5 'kills' in Korea, plus another 5.5 in the Second World War. Heller's shootdown had far-reaching consequences. As noted earlier, incursions into Chinese airspace were officially forbidden but widely practiced; wing commanders pretended there were no incursions and the Far Eastern Air Force (FEAF) headquarters pretended they believed it. Now there was no hiding the fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff resolution about the Chinese border was being blatantly disobeyed. To make matters worse, Heller had been shot down before the eyes of the Chinese delegation at the peace talks, and the delegation promptly lodged a formal protest. 51 st FIW CO Col John W Mitchell found himself in hot water. The next day, 5th Air Force CO Gen Glenn 0 Barcus arrived at Suwon, the 51 st Wing's home base, and chewed him out. Mitchell, a Second World War ace with 11 'kills' to his credit, was thoroughly disliked by his men, earning epithets like 'the maddest Colonel of all'. One 51st FIW pilot said, 'With some officers I'd go to hell and back, but I will not raise a glass of free booze to this one's health.' Now Mitchell needed a scapegoat, and he quickly found one. Capt Dolphin D Overton III, one of Heller's wingmen, had scored at least seven 'kills' (all of them in 'forbidden territory', ie, over China) and was unlucky enough to be there when his squadron leader was shot down. Mitchell vented his wrath on Overton, deciding not to give him ace status and limit his score with four MiGs. The higher command did not agree with Mitchell; yet Overton was credited with five 'kills' and kicked out of Korea. Unable to bear the insult, he resigned after returning to the States.
MiGs at work elsewhere Apart from the war in Korea, the MiG-15 was a major irritant for the West all over the world in the 1950s and 1960s. It was a time when the East and West expected the Cold War to turn hot any moment, and an encounter with the MiG-15 spelled trouble for any Western aircraft - military or otherwise. The MiGs mercilessly shot down anything unlucky enough to be caught in the aiming reticle of their sights so as to obtain hard evidence of the Western imperialists' aggressive intentions. Most peacetime incidents and shootdowns in which the MiG-15 was involved happened in the Soviet Far East, a highly sensitive area with numerous military installations, and the Baltic republics, all of which were the subject of constant attention by Western reconnaissance aircraft. The first incident in this 'secret war' probably took place on 26th December 1950 when a USAF RB-29 Superfortress was detected by Soviet air defences over the Tyumen'Oola River in the Far East. Two 523rd lAP Fagots flown by Capt S A Bakhayev and Lt (sg) N Kotov scrambled to intercept, attempting to force the intruder down on their home base, but were fired upon by the RB-29's gunners and returned fire, destroying the aircraft. 1952 was a busy year for spyplanes and interceptors alike, with no less than 34 incursions into Soviet airspace. On 11 th May 1952, a pair of MiG-15s intercepted a US Navy Martin PBM-5 Mariner flying boat over the Sea of Japan, making six attacks but inflicting only minor damage. On 13th June, Baltic Fleet Fagots destroyed a Swedish Navy Consolidated PBY Catalina flying boat which had been pestering Soviet air defences for quite a while. On 15th July a USAF Martin RB-26 Marauder weather reconnaissance aircraft was attacked over the Yellow Sea. Sixteen days later, Pacific Fleet MiG-15s attacked another PBM-5 in the same spot. On 15th April 1953 a pair of Pacific Fleet MiG-15s intercepted a USAF Boeing RB-50 MiG-15
75
reconnaissance aircraft near PetropavlovskKamchatskiy. The intruder refused to obey orders to land and opened fire first; the result is predictable - the RB-50 was shot down near the village of Zhoopanovo and the crew went missing in action (MIA). On 7th November 1954 an RB-29 entered Soviet airspace over the Sea of Japan. The Americans probably believed the Russians would be celebrating, full of vodka and out of condition to react; their suppositions were badly misplaced. Two MiG-15s scrambled to intercept and attacked the RB-29 over Tanfil'yev Island (one of the Kurile Islands). The damaged Superfortress returned fire and got away, crash-landing near Nokkegun village on Hokkaido Island, Japan. On 22nd June 1955 a US Navy (VP-19) Lockheed P2V-5 Neptune was attacked and damaged by a MiG-15 over the Bering Strait, crash-landing on St Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea. According to some sources, the MiG pilot did not make it back to base, running out of fuel and ejecting near the coast of Chukotka. On 18th April 1955 MiG-15 pilot Capt Korotkov shot down a USAF Boeing RB-47 Stratojet near the Bering Islands. In July 1956 a group of 7th lAD (Pacific Fleet) Fagots attacked another P2V near Nakhodka, killing one crew member. The damaged Neptune ditched in the Sea of Japan and sank; the remaining crew was rescued by a US Navy rescue team. Not all such episodes ended well for the MiGs. On 18th November 1952 a fierce fight broke out near Vladivostok in the Far East between four Pacific Fleet!781st lAP MiG-15s and three VF-718 Grumman F9F-2 Panthers from the aircraft carrier USS Princeton. Two of the MiGs were shot down, pilots Belyakov and Vandalov went MIA. The pilot of a third MiG-15, Pakhomkin, was mortally wounded but managed to make an emergency landing on the coast. The 'kills' were scored by Lt I D Middleton and Lt E R Williams; one of the Panthers was damaged. There was also a tragic red-on-red incident in the summer of 1954 when a spyplane entered Soviet airspace near Nakhodka and was 'painted' by Soviet air defence radars. Immediately afterwards the intruder descended to sea level and made for home, which the radar operators failed to detect. Unfortunately, a group of Pacific Fleet/46th MTAp22 Tu-14T torpedo bombers was returning from a training sortie at that very moment - and by the greatest bad luck the rearmost aircraft's IFF transponder was out of order. The PVO officers decided that the intruder was tailing the torpedo bombers, and Capt Pyotr Byvshev (32nd IAD/535th lAP) was ordered to intercept it. Spotting a 'twinjet aircraft of unknown type with no identification markings', as he reported, Byvshev received the order to fire and shot down the Tu-14 with his first burst; there were no survivors. Only later did Byvshev learn the bitter truth. Still, no punitive action was taken against him; the commanders had to admit that the Tu-14, 76
MiG-15
which was built on a small scale for the Soviet Navy, was unfamiliar to Air Force and Air Defence Force personnel. Also, the star insignia were barely visible, not to mention the malfunctioning IFF transponder. Incidentally, Capt Byvshev was killed in an accident soon afterwards, colliding with high ground in poor weather when returning from another sortie. Call it fate's revenge, if you like. WS MiG-15s stationed outside the Soviet Union had their share of hunting, too. The most publicised incident took place on 29th April 1952 when a MiG-15 - reportedly a 73rd GvlAP aircraft based at K6then in East Germany attacked an Air France Douglas DC-4-1009 (F-BELI) over the Berlin corridor. The airliner landed at Berlin-Tempelhof airport with 89 holes in the aft fuselage; fortunately, no one was hurt. The incident caused international air traffic to West Berlin to be suspended for a while. On 4th June of that year an aircraft carrying the US Supreme Commissioner in Austria was forced down at a Soviet airbase by a MiG-15bis. On 8th October the same thing happened to a USAF Douglas C-47 Skytrain flying over the Berlin corridor. An RAF Avro Lincoln bomber (reportedly converted for signals intelligence duties) fared even worse. On 12th March 1953 the aircraft was intercepted outside the Berlin corridor; ignoring orders to land, the bomber tried to get away and was shot down, killing five crewmen and seriously injuring a sixth. Soviet and North Korean Fagots were not the only ones to fire in anger. For example, Albanian Air Force Fagots 'arrested and detained' two intruders in December 1957 - a British Overseas Airways DC-4 and a USAF Lockheed T-33A Shooting Star (51-4413). The latter aircraft was never returned and was to become a museum exhibit in Gjirokastra. On the night of 9th September 1954 a Bulgarian Air Force MiG-15bis piloted by Lt Iliya Yelenski shot down an unidentified aircraft which had intruded into Bulgarian airspace. The MiG-15's career in Bulgarian service was marred by a tragic incident on the night of 27th July 1955 when two fighters on quick-reaction alert intercepted an intruder. This turned out to be an ex-USAF Lockheed C-69 (L-049 Constellation) operated by the Israeli flag carrier EI AI (4X-AKC, c/n 1968); apparently the airliner was behind schedule and the crew decided to make up for time lost by taking a short cut across Bulgarian territory. Probably mistaking it for a USAF C-121, the MiG pilots shot the Connie down near Petrich with the tragic loss of all on board. Chinese MiG-15s were constantly in action against ROCAF and USAF/USN aircraft. According to Chinese official sources, PLAAF MiGs destroyed or damaged around 200 enemy aircraft between 1954 and 1958, including Republic P-47 Thunderbolts, P-51 s, F-84s, F-86s, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortresses, B-24s, B-25s and other types. In reality, however, half of these victories were claimed by AAA crews.
The biggest operation in which PLAAF Fagots participated after the Korean War was
the Taiwan crisis of late 1958 which almost resulted in a new major war. In the course of the conflict the MiGs fighters shot down or damaged 42 ROCAF aircraft, with the loss of 15 of their own. The Taiwan crisis marked the firstever operational use of air-to-air missiles; using this new weapon, Taiwanese fighters shot down four MiGs in a single battle. Later, The MiG-15 was used for reconnaissance flights over Taiwan, which led to more shootdowns. Incidentally, the reconnaissance street was a two-way one. A number of FagotBs were delivered to Taiwan in 1958-1991 by defecting Chinese pilots, and many of these and other aircraft obtained in this fashion were used for recce flights over mainland China, masquerading as bona fide PLAAF aircraft. The MiG-15bis was also used operationally by the PLAAF as a fighter-bomber - for instance, in the suppression of the 1959-60 Tibetan uprising and in the invasion of the Paracel Islands in January 1974. Czech Air Force MiG-15s also managed to score a few 'kills'. On 10th March 1953, a pair of USAF F-84s entered Czech airspace after taking off from Bitburg AB in West Germany. Two 5. SLP (5th Fighter Regiment) Fagot-Bs piloted by Jaroslav Sramek and Milan Forst took off to intercept. Sramek shot down one of the Thunderjets, the other got away. We'll let Porucik (Lt) Sramek tell the story: 'The shootdown occurred on 10th March at about 1100. It was an ordinary training session and I was practicing formation flying and standard attack manoeuvres with my wingman Forst, a young lieutenant, in the Prestice - Stod - Merklin area. We were flying at about 3,000 to 4,000m [9,842 to 13,123ft) and the visibility was generally good. Suddenly I spotted a pair of aircraft heading towards us on the left at about 2,000 to 2,500m [6,561 to 8,202ft]. At first, when they were about 5km [3.1 miles) away, I could not identify them, but they sure were not MiG15s. At about 4km [2.48 miles) I could see they were straight-winged aircraft; I thought they were Yak-1 01 s (sic - probably Yak-11 s, since there is no such aircraft as a 'Yak-1 01' - Auth.) which were then stationed at Cheb. 23 However, when they got even closer I recognized them as Thunderjets. I called the tower, describing the situation, and said that I intended to attack. The radio was silent for a minute, then the ATC officer began issuing instructions how to perform the attack, reminding me to cock the guns, to get within close range before firing etc. I was worried about my wingman possibly getting separated from me, since I didn't have much flying experience at the time. The ATC encouraged me, 'Hang on! Stay together!'. All these instructions came within 20 seconds, and by then the enemy aircraft were almost right below us. Apparently they did not see us, as they seemed to be heading either for Plzen or for the local airbase. We made a right
tum to get on their tails, and then they spotted us. The Thunderjets began a defensive manoeuvre, the flight leader breaking left and the wingman right; we followed the leader. We had every possible advantage, since we saw them first and we were flying higher, which enabled us to gain speed quickly; thus we quickly got into firing position. I selected the guns, got the target into my sights, squeezed the trigger and - nothing happened! I had forgotten to cock the guns! I cocked them and lined up on the target again, squeezing off a burst. The shells hit the American fighter's wing; the fighter rolled inverted and dived straight down. I climbed and waited to see what would come next. The Thunderjet did not lose control, it turned on a southerly heading and made off, and I had no choice but to follow. I got within about 300m (984ft) - closer than the first time - and fired another burst, registering good hits on the,fuselage; black smoke poured out of the fighter, followed by flames. My wingman Milan Forst told me that he saw the other [enemy] aircraft and was following it, but he lost sight ofthe target in clouds. Then we headed for home. On the way back I remembered the Soviet fighter pilot [Guards Col Aleksandr I.] Pokryshkin's24 words: 'Success in air-to-air combat depends on altitude, speed, manoeuvring and firepower'. Until then I had been calm, but as we approached the base I got a sort of nervous reaction. My hands started shaking and I messed up the first approach; only on the second try did I manage to land.' Almost exactly a year later (the exact date is unknown), Lt Zdenek Voleman of the same unit shot down another intruder, one of two unidentified multi-engine propeller-driven aircraft, in a MiG-15bis. (The aircraft were no doubt bombers, since they had a tail gunner's station and a dorsal turret; however, Voleman reported that they were armed with rockets!) 'I was closing on them at an enormous rate, Voleman recalled, doing 1,000km/h (540kts) while they were flying at 400km/h (216kts). I made a sharp turn, throttling back to reduce speed, and attacked. The tower was telling me we were getting close to the border, and there was not much room for doubt. I ope'ned fire at 500m (1 ,640ft), breaking off the attack at 100m (328ft); for a moment I thought we would collide! (Subsequent inspection at the airbase showed that the N-37D cannon had to be replaced, as it had overheated during that first long burst.) One thing amazed me. I could clearly see my rounds exploding all over the target's fuselage, yet the aircraft flew on; nothing happened. Then suddenly flames erupted from the aft fuselage and something fell off. I passed just 10m (33ft) over the target; I could see the gunner in the dorsal turret track me with his weapons but I don't know if he fired or not.' The burning aircraft dived into the nearest cloud and the other one turned head on to the
attacking MiG. Voleman fired on it at 1,500m (4,921ft) - and then ran out of ammunition; the intruder dived into clouds and was gone. A massive search effort was mounted which turned up pieces of metal from the damaged aircraft but no crash site. There was nothing else to do but go back to the base, tune in to Radio Free Europe and wait. The 'voice of the enemy' reported that 'an American aircraft was attacked and shot down over Bavaria by the Communist enemies'. That said, it can be assumed the mission had been successfully completed. Between 1954 and 1965, a standing task for Czech MiG-15s was to seek and destroy drifting balloons carrying reconnaissance equipment and printed matter. The total number of such objects launched eastward was estimated at 150,000. NadporuCik (1 st Lieutenant) Jaroslav Novak earned ace status by destroying five of them! Intercepting the balloons was no easy task because such a balloon'has a very small radar cross section and had to be acquired visually. Besides, the fighter' closed on the slowly drifting balloon at an enormous rate; the pilot had time to fire just a short burst, and then the shells just pierced the thin skin of the balloon without exploding. Finaily; the damn balloons took a lot of killing - they didn't burst when hit but deflated slowly, being made up of several independent sections like an orange for greater survivability. The pilot had to expend almost all the ammunition to make sure the intruder was shot down. Shooting the balloons down was imperative - for two reasons. Firstly, they could survey secrets or deliver subversive Western literature to gullible Socialist readers. Secondly (and even more importantly), they presented a serious danger for civil and military aircraft, especially because the balloon's equipment container was painted blue for low visibility. For example, in the mid-60s a Soviet Air Force (164th GvORAP)25 Yak-27R Mangrove recce aircraft based at Brzeg AB, Poland, crashed after colliding with an unseen balloon near the town of Rademsk, killing the navigator and seriously injuring the pilot. The cause of the crash remained a mystery until the accident investigation board found traces of blue paint on the wreckage - paint of Western provenance, as laboratory tests established. On another occasion an IL-14P Crate airliner crashed after colliding with a reconnaissance balloon, killing all on board. 26 Occasionally CzAF MiGs had to stop aircraft from getting out, not getting in. On 19th December 1971 a 5. SLP MiG-15bis piloted by Capt Fiedler scrambled to intercept an aircraft heading for the West German border in an obvious attempt to 'go over the wall'. The aircraft turned out to be a Zlin Z-226T Trener primary trainer registered OK-MUA. Its pilot, Ladislav Bezak, had learned that his licence as an airline pilot with CSA Czechoslovak Airlines had been revoked and things looked like he was going to
be arrested. 'Of course it was a risk, but a calculated risk, Bezak recalled later. Technically the danger was that the aircraft would be overloaded and tail-heavy. Then there was the danger of being shot down; there had been similar cases before and I had no illusions that the fighter pilot sent after me would not shoot. And shoot he did.' Having obtained permission to make a training flight in a Trener, Bezak collected his wife and kids and took off from Kladno airfield. The heavy aircraft was slow and reluctant to climband then came the MiG. After locating the target Fiedler received the order to fire. However, he could see children on board the trainer; unwilling to shoot the plane down, he circled, since the piston-engined Trener was much too slow to formate with it, and launched a red signal flare, then fired a warning burst, hoping that the pilot would get the message and land. Instead, Bezak put his considerable aerobatics skills to good use and started manoeuvring vigorously.After more warning shots the Trener dived into clouds and got away, landing successfully at Nurnberg. As for Fiedler, he gave up flying after this incident and died of a heart attack before reaching 50. Czech MiG-15s had their share of accidents, as illustrated by the 5. SLP. In February 1961 a MiG-15bis onQRA duty hit high ground in clouds while climbing to intercept an intruder, killing the pilot NadporuCik Jan Bednar. In November 1962 instructor pilot Maj Vaclav Doskocil and Capt Vaclav JirlJ were killed in a UTI-MiG-15 during a weather reconnaissance sortie. After flying a circuit at 300m (984ft) the aircraft hit a hill while making an instrument approach to Plzen-Line AB, using the OSP-48 ILS. The cloudbase was 200m (656ft) and horizontal visibility 2 to 3km (1.24 to 1.86 miles). The caUse of the crash was the tell-ta!e human factor. Capt JirlJ had only recently joined the 5. SLP and had not yet flown in instrument meteorological conditions at PlzenLine AB which is located in hilly terrain. What's more, the instructor had decided to 'make the best of a bad thing' and began an impromptu IFR training session in the middle of the sortie; the unit's CO had neglected to take over ATC control when the weather deteriorated below minima. Another area. where Mikoyan aircraft have seen a lot of action is the Middle East. Egyptian Air Force (EAF) MiG-15s first saw action during the Suez Crisis (26th October to 7th November 1956). Great Britain was thoroughly displeased with President Gamal Abdul Nasser's independent political course; when Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal on 26th July 1956, this was the last straw. Teaming with France and Egypt's arch-enemy, Israel, Great Britain took action. According to the plan, Israel would start an armed conflict with Egypt, then Great Britain and France would interfere on the pretext of ensuring the safety of international traffic in the Suez Canal and occupy the area. Stage 1, Operation Kadesh ('cleansing' in Hebrew), was MiG-15
77
scheduled for 29th October to 1st November and stage 2, Operation Musketeer, for 1st-7th November. Only 69 of the Egyptian Air Force's 160 aircraft were serviceable at the beginning of the conflict. These included two squadrons of Fagot-Bs (about 30 aircraft, ie, half of those on strength). The MiGs drew first blood at daybreak on 30th October, intercepting a flight of RAF English Electric Canberra PR.7 reconnaissance aircraft and damaging one of them. At 0900 on the same day four EAF de Havilland Vampires covered by two MiGs strafed the positions of the Israeli 202nd Airborne Division near the Mitla Pass, killing 40 paratroopers.. Six vehicles were also destroyed, and a Piper L-4 Cub liaison aircraft attempting to get away was promptly shot down. Soon after midday the attack was repeated by two Gloster Meteor fighter-bombers escorted by six MiGs. This time, however, they were counterattacked by six Israeli Defence Forcel Air Force (IDF/AF or Heyl Ha'avir) Dassault Mystere IVAs of the 101st Tayeset (Squadron) based at Hatzor. In the ensuing fight two MiGs were shot down; however, they succeeded in keeping the Mysteres away from the fighterbombers. The Israelis lost one fighter; its pilot, Binyamin Peled, became the first IDF/AF pilot to use the ejection seat. (According to some sources, the Egyptians had no losses over the Mitla Pass that day. However, on the same day six 101 st Sqn Mysteres attacked six MiGs taking off from EI Qabrit AB. Lt YosefTsuk succeeded in shooting down one MiG-15bis, but immediately afterwards 12 more MiGs, including several MiG-17s, appeared on the scene and a frightful free-forall began in which Tsuk's aircraft was seriously damaged.) The 202nd Airborne Division became the subject of relentless attacks by the Egyptians. At 0600 on 31 st October it received the attentions of another four Vampires. Again two Mysteres came to the rescue and destroyed three of the attackers before MiGs appeared on the scene and ran them off. Lt Yallo Shavit scored one 'kill' while Lt Yeshayahu Egozi shot down two Vampires. At approximately 1220 on the same day Capt Yaakov Nevo and Lt Yosef Tsuk had a dogfight with seven MiG-15s between Bir Gafgafa27 and Bir Hama with no losses for either side. Several minutes later, however, they were attacked out of the sun by two more bises near EI'Arish in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula and attacked. Nevo succeeded in damaging one MiG-15bis but ran out of ammunition before he could finish it off. The MiG pressed on towards EI'Arish airbase but eventually ditched in Lake Sirbon and sank; it was later recovered and tested by the Israelis. At about 1600 six MiGs escorted several Meteors sent to strafe Israeli troops in the Hittan Creek, engaging a pair of Mysteres summoned to the rescue but without success. On 78
MiG-15
the way home they spotted two Israeli Dassault Ouragans strafing an Egyptian armoured convoy and attacked them, damaging both aircraft. One Ouragan force-landed in the Sinai Desert while the other made it back to base. After the Anglo-French ultimatum to Egypt President Nasser ordered the EAF assets dispersed to remote bases or relocated to Syria and Saudi Arabia, and it was just as well that he did. On the night of 1st November, Great Britain and France launched Operation Musketeer as planned. RAF bombers detached to Luqa, Malta, and Royal Navy strike aircraft from the carriers HMSAlbion, HMS Eagle and HMS Bulwark attacked Egyptian airbases in the Suez Canal area. However, post-attack reconnaissance revealed shockingly low results: the bases were almost empty. The Royal Navy had more success in the afternoon of 1st November, destroying 27 Syrian Fagot-Bs and Midgets at Abu Sueir which could not be flown out so easily in the daytime; only four UTi-MiG-15s flown by Czech instructors managed to escape to Hamaa AB in Syria. 28 After that, EAF activity dropped sharply; in the next five days the MiGs succeeded only in damaging two RAF Canberras and bombing BritiSh assault troops near Ghamil. They had more success on 6th November, shooting down another Canberra over Syria. When the conflict ended, Egypt had lost four to eight MiG-15s shot down by the Israelis and another eight destroyed on the ground. On the credit side, Egyptian MiGs shot down two Israeli aircraft, damaging two more and destroying one on the ground. These unimpressive results are accounted for primarily by the Egyptian pilots' poor training. Interestingly, the Egyptians foresaw the possibility of air strikes against their bases, for they went so far as to build plywood mockups of MiG-15s to confuse the enemy! It is not known whether any such 'wooden wonders' were actually destroyed, but Western sources say this ploy did not have any effect - the plywood MiGs were given away by the lack of wear and tear and by their unrealistic positions too close to the runway. Six years later, in 1962, Nasser sent his MiGs to Yemen, extending support to the Republicans who had toppled the monarchy. Great Britain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia supported the royalists, sending their aircraft to Yemen, but the opposing sides rarely met in air-to-air combat. The MiGs were used mainly in the ground attack role, and a few were shot down by ground fire. During the Six-Day War (5-11th June, 1967), the MiG-15bis was just about the only fighterbomber used by the EAF and the Syrian Air Force against Israeli army positions. More than 70 bises operated on both Egyptian and Syrian fronts. However, most of the Fagots that survived the earlier conflict were destroyed on the ground during this war, demonstrating to the world the that Arab forces were weak and their Soviet sponsors were throwing money away.
A few MiGs, however, survived long enough to take part in the next Arab-Israeli conflict in 1973. Soon after the Hungarian Air Force took delivery of its first MiG-15s they made their mark, forcing down a stray USAF C-47 Skytrain at a Hungarian airbase on 19th November 1951. The type was also used actively against reconnaissance balloons; one MiG-15 was lost in so doing when it collided with its target. Apparently the proximity of the West was rubbing off on the political situation in the country (and ultimately contributed to the 1956 uprising). In 1954 a Hungarian MiG-15 pilot attempted to defect to the West but force-landed in Yugoslavia after running out of fuel. In a similar incident in early 1956, Soviet Air Force Fagots based in Hungary were called upon to stop a Hungarian pilot from escaping to Austria in a stolen Tu-2 bomber. During the famous uprising, part of the Hungarian Air Force joined the insurgents led by Imre Nagy. On 30th and 31 st October, 1956 MiG-15s with crudely overpainted markings attacked government/Soviet anti-aircraft artillery positions near Budapest. Soon, however, all Hungarian airbases were overrun by Soviet forces and the insurgent air arm ceased to exist. After that, Soviet Air Force Fagots were sporadically used to suppress pockets of resistance and stop any Hungarian aircraft from fleeing to the West. Nigeria was another country where the MiG-15 reportedly saw action. According to Western sources, in February 1969 Federal Nigerian Air Force (FNAF) MiG-15s and IL-28 bombers escorted ex-Nigeria Airways Douglas DC-3s paradropping supplies to federal forces surrounded by Biafran separatists at Owerri. However, considering that the only confirmed MiG-15s in Nigerian service were UTI-MiG-15 trainers, this report was very probably a case of mistaken identity and the aircraft in question were almost certainly MiG-17Fs. MiG-15 operations in other parts of the world can be described literally in a couple of words. The North Vietnamese Air Force had a few Fagots by the time the Vietnam War began but there is no positive evidence that they were used in the conflict. Algeria used its MiG-15s on a small scale during the brief tussle with Morocco. Cuban MiG-15s (of the second shipment delivered in 1962) were in action against aircraft and boats used by anti-Castro groups in the USA for inserting spies and saboteurs. Afghan Air Force UTI-MiG-15s were occasionally used for reconnaissance and for strike missions against the MUjahideen rebels in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This was probably the last conflict in which the famous fighter participated.
Chapter Five
MiG·15 Operators Worldwide AFGHANISTAN In 1957, the USSR delivered three UTI-MiG-15s to the Afghan Republican Air Force (Afghan Hanai Qurah) for training MiG-17F pilots. Ten were still reportedly operational in late 1991 alongside Czech Aero L-29 Delfin and L-39C Albatros trainers. No serial numbers are known.
ALBANIA Available information on MiG-15 operations in this country is highly contradictory. Deliveries of Soviet-built MiG-15s to the Albanian People's Republic Air Force (Aviatika Militar e Republika Popul/6re e Shquiperise) reportedly began in 1950. Two squadrons of MiG-15s (apparently constituting the 5818th Fighter Regiment) were formed that year at Valona airbase. About the same time, several UTI-MiG-15s were delivered. (In some sources the Albanian name has been rendered as Aviacione Ushtarak Shquipetare or as Forcat Ushtarake Ajore Shquipetare.) When Albania severed diplomatic relations with the USSR in 1962 due to a disagreement over the Marxist doctrine and went into self-imposed political isolation, China was left as its only ally. Hence in 1964 Albania began receiving spares for the Soviet-supplied MiG-15s, later augmented by ex-Chinese F-2s (MiG-15bises) and FT-2s (UTI-MiG-15s). The Fagots were later relegated to the fighter-bomber role. According to the Euromil - Military Air Arms in Europe handbook, 26 MiG-15s/F-2s were still operational in 1995, including 12 with the 5818th Regiment at Valona AS, but other available sources fail to confirm this. Twelve assorted Midgets - four Soviet-built UTI-M iG-15s, four CS-1 02s and four Shenyang FT-2s - were operated by 1875th Regt!1 st Sqn at Kucove AS near Serat, 5818th Regt!2nd Sqn at Valona AS (the Air Academy) and 7594th Regt!3rd Sqn at Rinas AS near the Albanian capital of Tirana. The Midgets are the next step after primary training on the Nanchang CJ-6, a Chinese development of the Yakovlev Yak-18A primary trainer. According to Air International/December 1992, however, these three units had four, four and twelve aircraft respectively, which makes twenty! (NOTE: The same feature in Air International indicates that the first 18 bises were delivered on 31 st January 1955, followed by a further eight in April of the same year. The Soviet-built UTI-MiG-15s were likewise delivered on 31 st January, with the Czech- and Chinese-built examples following in 1956 - four from each nation (!). A survey of the world's air forces in Flight International, however, shows that only six Fagot-Ss and six Midgets were in service in late 1991, which certainly is at marked variance with the Air International feature!) Albanian MiG-15s were flown in natural metal finish. The early-style 'solid' three-digit serials were later replaced by serials separated by a dash; the first digit is a unit code (eg, 3 = 7594th Regt, 4 = 1875th Regt, 5 = 5818th Regt). The original markings (red star on a black roundel) were later substituted by red/black/red roundels as reforms got under way and Albania strove to rid itself of its socialist past. Reforms or no reforms, however, there were obviously people not satisfied with living in the impoverished country. On 4th March 1997 two pilots from Rinas AS (other sources say Kucove AS) defected in their FT-2 serialled 3-26. The pilots, 34-year-old Capt Dajci Agron and 35-yearold Maj Ardian Elezy, had been ordered to attack a civil rebel column
near Gjirokastra while in the middle of a routine training mission. Instead, they chose to defect, descending to low level and heading for Italy. There they were intercepted by an Italian Air Force/46° Stormo Lockheed F-104S Starfighter from Gioia del Colle AS, which guided them to landing at Lecce-Galatina AS in western Italy at 12:22 GMT. In so doing the trainer came in on the wrong heading and narrowly escaped collision with some of the resident Aermacchi MS-339As, overshooting the runway into the emergency barrier. The aircraft was later returned; the fate of the pilot is not known. Curiously, the unit has been quoted as the 4020th Regiment but it is just possible that the unit had been renumbered by then. Albanian MiG-15s identified to date are listed below.
Serial
Version
73 115 119 256 522 3-26 3-38 5-06 5-08 5-11 5-12 5-14 5-15 5·16 5-18 5-24 5-32
MiG-15 (F-2?) MiG-15 (F-2?) MiG-15 (F-2?) UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15 (F-2?) FT-2 FT-2 MiG-15 (F-2?) MiG-15 (F-2?) FT-2 UTI-MiG-15 (FT-2?) UTI-MiG-15 (FT-2?) MiG-15 (F-2?) UTI-MiG-15 (FT-2?) MiG-15 (F-2?) UTI-MiG-15 (FT-2?) MiG-15bis (F-2?)
5-40 5-86 5-91
MiG-15 (F-2?) MiG-15 (F-2?) MiG-15 (F-2?)
Remarks
MiG-15bis-style airbrakes.
Reported as operated by Air Force Academy at Kucove AS but serial suggests Valona AS; see note on serials above.
ALGERIA The Algerian Air Force (AI Quwwat al Jawwiya al Jaza'erlya/Force Aerienne Algerienne) took delivery of its first·Soviet-built MiG-15bis fighters and UTI-MiG-15 trainers in early 1963, though some sources give the delivery date as 1964-65. These aircraft formed a fighter-bomber regiment consisting of three squadrons and intended for close air support. More MiGs were delivered via Egypt. 20 Fagot-Bs and Midgets were still operational in Algeria as advanced trainers in 1984. Only one aircraft, a MiG-15bis serialled 6894, has been identified to date.
ANGOLA A number of UTI-MiG-15s was delivered to the Angolan Air Force (FAAForga Aerea Angolana) from the USSR. Some sources say three UTIMiG-15s were supplied by Cuba in early 1976. Two Midgets were still operational in the mid-80s. Unfortunately, no serial numbers are known. MiG-15
79
5-32, an ex-Chinese MiG-15bis (so-called F-2) operated by the Albanian Air Force Academy at Kucove AB near Berat. AIR International
5-11, a Shenyang JJ-2, also with the Albanian Air Force Academy. AIR International
An Algerian Air Force Fagot-B. Yefim Gordon archive
202 Red, a Bulgarian Air Force UTI-MiG-15 preserved at Graf Ignatiev AB in Plovdiv, in company with two Yak-23s and a Li-2. Morse Stanley
80
MiG-15
UTI-MiG-15 VH-REH c/n 8007 in Soviet Air Force colours at Bankstown NSW in February 1998. Midland Publishing collection Another unidentified Australian machine in Polish Air Force colours as '117'. Midland Publishing collection
MiG-15
81
According to the Euromi/ handbook, in 1995 Armenia operated 20 UTIMiG-15s inherited from the Soviet Air Force.
AUSTRALIA
. u
u
.
_ _
~
:.. u
~
~
=::.: :. '::'
~~~,
~
~
~
un
Several surplus Polish Air Force MiGs, including the ones listed below, have found their way to Australia where they are operated on the civil register as warbirds.
Registration Cln
Version
VH-ADY
1A 09-0067
VH-BPG
1A06-007
SBLim-2A
VH-BVX VH-DIE
712782 3804
UTI-MiG-15 'SBLim-2'
VH-EKI
10926
UTI-MiG-15
VH-LJP
712777
'SBLim-2'
VH-LKW
1A06-036
SBLim-2A
VH-LSN
1A 06-015
VH-NZM
VH-XIG
26016
7127827
SBLim-2A
UTI-MiG-15
UTI-MiG-15
VH-...
SBLim-2
VH-...
SBLim-2
VH-...
SBLim-2
Remarks Ex-PWL 906. Owned by Randal W MacFarlane (Brisbane, Qld, dId 3-89), later Greg Lovett (Melbourne, Vic.), did 23-6-92. Ex-PWL 607. Owned by Randal W MacFarlane (did 3-89), later FWPike (Sydney-Bankstown, NSW), then Hockey Treloar, flf 4-91 as 'PWL 60T. Ex-PWL 782. Czech-built (CS-1 02). Ex-PWL 3804, converted MiG-15bis. Owned by Randal WMacFarlane (did 3-89), later Barry Batagol and Bruce Alexander (Melbourne, Vic., did 18-1-91), then Barry Hempel and Greg Schweikert (Archerfield, Qld, did 14-3-95). Named 'No Fear'. Ex-PWL 126, Kuybyshev-built. Owned by Ray REkinci (Bankstown, NSW), flf in Australia 24-11-96. Ex-PWL 777, converted CS-1 02. Owned by Randal WMacFarlane (did 1989), later Hockey Treloar, stored pending restoration. Ex-PWL 636. Owned by Randal W MacFarlane (did 3-89), later Hockey Treloar, stored pending restoration. Ex-PWL 015. Owned by Randal W MacFarlane (did 3-89), later Gordon Glynn (Sydney-Bankstown, Qld., did 18-1-91), flf 14-3-92 as 'PWL 6015'; crashed near Canberra 13-3-93. Ex-PWL 216, Khar'kov-built. Ex-The Fighter Collection (Duxford, UK), owned by Mike Kelly (Mosgiel, NSW); transferred to the New Zealand register as ZK-MIG. Ex-PWL 2782. Czech-built (CS-1 02)7 Owned by Randal WMacFarlane (did 1989), later Geoff Milne and John Raynor (Melbourne, Vic.), still later John Weymouth (Darwin, NT, did 8-89; flf Essendon 1-11-90). Displayed at Fighter World, RAAF Williamstown, NSW. Ex-PWL 015. Owned by Ian Kenny (Brisbane, Qld), stored Brisbane pending restoration. Ex-PWL 655; possibly converted CS-1 02 (c/n 6...55). Owned by Ian Kenny. Ex-PWL 202. Owned by Randal W MacFarlane (did 1989), later Ray REkinci, then Kay Williamson (Sydney, NSW).
As is often the case with warbirds, the colour schemes can be described as Fantasy Unlimited. For example, VH-DIE is painted in pre-1955 Soviet Air Force markings (i.e. with stars on the fuselage as well as on the fin) but with the post-1955 tactical code '15 White'. Moreover, the aircraft has twin narrow red stripes on the forward fuselage and proudly wears Air BP stickers and 'Hempels Aviation - Archerfield' titles. VH-XIG was likewise 'Soviet Air Force 15', while Khar'kov-built VH-NZM was painted up as Soviet AF '501' to suggest it was aKuybyshev-built example (c/n 10501; see Soviet section/501 Y!). 82
MiG-15
The first jet fighter operated by the Bulgarian Air Force (BVVS - Bo/garski Voyenno Vozdooshni Seeli) was the Yak-23 which attained initial operational capability in the spring of 1951. However, it was not operational for long and gave way to the MiG-15 in the following year (supplemented by the MiG-15bis in 1953) and UTI-MiG-15 delivered from the USSR. The Fagot made its public debut on 1st May 1952 when nine Yak-23s and nine MiG-15s took part in a flypast over Sofia, as if to underscore that old equipment was giving way to new aircraft. The MiGs equipped two fighter regiments based in Plovdiv (the 19th lAP (Iztrebite/en Aviopo/k) at Graf Ignatiev AB) and Tolbukhin (Dobrich AB). Besides, the 26th ORAP (Otde/en Razuznavate/en Aviopo/k - independent reconnaissance regiment) included one squadron of MiG15bisRs (12 aircraft delivered in 1960). Some BWS bises were converted to UTI-MiG-15 standard in the 1960s and 1970s but· retained part of the original armament. With the advent of more advanced fighters, such as the MiG-19 and MiG-21, MiG-15s were transferred to fighter-bomber units. In the mid80s, only a few UTI-MiG-15 aircraft were still operational with the Bulgarian Air Force. Fifteen remained by 1995, and these were mainly operated by the Bulgarian Air Force's training centre at Pleven (Dolna Metropoliya AB) known as the G Bienkowski Aviation Academy until 1990. In their latter days the Bulgarian Midgets received a three-tone tactical camouflage and the new BWS roundels in lieu of the socialist-era star markings. Known aircraft are listed below, with the colour of the serial indicated where known.
Serial
Cln
Version
26 65 Blue 015 017 072 103 Red 104 109 113
7 7 7
MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
7 ?
7
123 White 169 Red 181 Red 202 Red
UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15
221 1025 not known
MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
922520
.
Remarks Graf Ignatiev AB.
Coded D- Dobrich AS7 Dobrich AB.
Preserved Bulgarian AF Academy Museum (Dolna Metropoliya AS, Pleven). Camouflaged; coded D- Dobrich AS7 Dobrich AB. Dobrich AS. Preserved Bulgarian AF Museum (Graf Ignatiev AB, Plovdiv). Preserved Dobroslavtsi AS museum. Derelict Varna. Ex-Czech Air Force 2520.
..
.CAMBO~IA (KAMPUCHEA)
Ex-Chinese MiG-15bis (F-2) fighters and Chinese-built UTI-MiG-15s (FT-2s) were delivered to the Royal Khmer Aviation (RKhA) during the reign of Prince Norodom Sihanouk and used operationally against the Khmer Rouge guerrillas during the long and bloody civil war in that country. Eight F-2s were reportedly on strength in 1967. All of them were destroyed in the war.
CHIN~ (PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA) The first Soviet jet fighters were delivered to China in 1950. These were Yak-17UTI trainers and MiG-9 fighters. However, in the same year a Soviet Air Force unit with 40 MiG-15s was deployed to China to assistthe People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF, or Chung-kuo Shen Min Taie-Fang-Tsun Pu-tai) in repelling Taiwanese air raids. One aircraft was
With an improbably camouflaged Mi-24V Hind-E as a backdrop, this Soviet-built MiG-15 (called J-2 by the Chinese) is seen at the PLAAF Museum in Datangshan. The two upper characters on the nose read 'Chung Kuo' (China). Keith Dexter
A Soviet-built MiG-15bis (J-2) on display in the Chinese Army museum (Peking) illustrates the finish worn by most PLAAF Fagots. Keith Dexter
After the 1979 brush with Vietnam, China started experimenting with various camouflage patterns. MiG-15bis '6273 Red', one of several preserved at Datangshan, wears a three-tone blue/ white splinter scheme. FeW Kasmann
A different disruptive camouflage is illustrated by MiG-15bis '4195 Red', another Datangshan exhibit. The aircraft has a rather chipped appearance after sitting in the open for years and the serial and national insignia have all but disappeared. FeW Kasmann
MiG-15
83
lost in an accident at Hsuichow AB on 29th March 1950. When the unit moved to Korea in November to take part in the Korean War, the remaining 39 aircraft were turned over to China. However, Chinese pilots actually started flying the type only when the war was 'in full burner'. Conversion training in the USSR took some time and Chinese pilots first saw action in the spring of 1951. During the Korean War, the PlAAF and People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF) received dozens of MiG-15 and MiG-15bis fighters from the USSR; these deliveries continued after the war. Initially, the UTI-MiG-15 was also supplied by the USSR before entering licence production in Shenyang as the JJ-2. As the MiG-17 (J-5) became the PlAAF's main tactical fighter, all surviving bises (known locally as J-2s) were converted into fighterbombers in the early 1960s. At the time, more than 200 were still in service. Some J-2s were sold on to other nations (notably Albania) and by the mid-80s, only 90 J-2s and 300 JJ-2s were still operational in China (by 1997 the latter number dwindled to about 100). Few Chinese MiG-15s are known:
? ? ?
JJ-2 JJ-2 MiG-15bis (J-2)
8320 Red ? 8561 Red ? 26100 Red ?
JJ-2 MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2)
63138 Red ?
JJ·2
63639 Red? ? 63833 Red ? 63862 Red ?
JJ-2 JJ-2 MiG-15bis (J-2)
67973 Red 70201 Red 81072 Red
JJ-2 MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2)
Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown. Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown.
81676 Red ?
JJ-2
Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), Dachang AB, mid-1950. Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), Dachang AB, mid-1950. Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), Dachang AB, mid-1950. Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), Dachang AB, mid-1950. Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), Dachang AB, mid-1950.
83238 Red 83277 Red
JJ-2 MiG-15bis (J-2)?
Version
Remarks Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown.
? ? 0315367
?(J-2) JJ-2 ?(J-2) ?(J-2) JJ-2 MiG-15 (J-2)
72 Red
0315372
MiG-15 (J-2)
89 Red?
0315389
MiG-15 (J-2)
91 Red?
0315391
MiG-15 (J-2)
92 Red
0315395
MiG-15 (J·2)
Serial'
G/n
07 Red 10 Red 25 Red 27 Red 38 Red 67 Red
?
0161 Red 0162 Red 0163 Red 0164 Red 0165 Red 0166 Red 0167 Red 0168 Red 0224 Black 0225 Black? 0226 Black 0227 Black 0228 Black 0229 Black 0245 Red 0322 Black 0331 Red? 0411 Red 0443 Red 0444 Red 0651 Red 1211 Red 1301 Red 1355 Red
? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?
1765 Red 2348 Red
MiG-15bis (J-2) JJ-2 JJ-2 MiG-15bis (J·2) JJ-2 MiG-15bis (J-2) ?(J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2)
?
4117 Red
84
MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J·2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J·2) MiG-15bis (J·2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2) ?(J-2)
MiG-15
JJ-2 MiG-15bis (J-2)
MiG-15bis (J-2)
4165 Red
4274 Red 6032 Red 6273 Red
not known
1411
MiG-15bis (J-2)
not known
3292
MiG-15bis (J-2)
not known
122071
MiG-15bis (J-2)
not known
122073
MiG-15bis (J-2)
not known not known
137077 137085
MiG-15bis (J-2) MiG-15bis (J-2)
Preserved Datangshan museum, tan/foliage green/olive drab camouflage, serial obliterated. Preserved Datangshan museum. Preserved Datangshan museum, dark blue/pale blue/white splinter camouflage. Unconfirmed (drawing only). Mottled green camouflage, Joint Air Army (Korean War). Preserved Datangshan museum, serial obliterated. Preserved Datangshan museum. Preserved Datangshan museum. Preserved Datangshan museum, . in anti-corrosion compound. Preserved Datangshan museum. Preserved in US museum. Sold to the USNprivate owner as N7013L; c/n reported as 81072 but this does not make sense. Sold to the USNprivate owner as N7013N; c/n reported as 81676 but this does not make sense. Sold to the USNprivate owner. Reportedly sold to the USA/private owner as N87GN, Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Sold to the USNEAA Aviation Genter as N15MG. Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur; c/n also reported as 2292. Sold to the USNprivate owner as N90589, PLANAF. Sold to the USA/private owner 3-93 as N996. PLANAF. Sold to the USNpvt owner 10-86 as N90601. PLANAF. Sold to the USNprivate owner 3·87. PLANAF. Sold to the USNprivate owner 1986.
'The meaning of PLAAF serials is obscure, but in the case of five-digit serials the first two digits may be adefence district code, the fourth digit aunit code within the district, while the third and fifth digits make up the individual number of the aircraft in the unit.
CONGO·BRAZZAVILLE
Sold to the USNprivate owner, Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown. Joint Air Army, Korea. Sold to the USNprivate owner.
Unconfirmed (drawing only). Sold to the USNprivate owner. Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown. Joint Air Army, Korea. Defected to Taiwan 3·3-62; preserved ROCAF Museum, Kangshan AB. Preserved Datangshan museum, serial obliterated. Unconfirmed (drawing only); green/dark green/natural metal camouflage,
In late 1991 the Congo Air Force (Force Aerienne Congolaise) reportedly had a single UTI-MiG-15 used for training MiG-17F pilots.
CUBA Deliveries of aircraft from the USSR to Cuba began after Fidel Castro Ruz came to power. Cuba was one of the first foreign operators of the MiG-15bis; according to some sources, the Cuban Air Force (FAR Fuerza Aerea Revolucionaria) received 12 Czech-built Fagot-Bs in April 1960. These aircraft took almost no part in repelling the April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion because the Cubans had only ten trained pilots flying Second World War-vintage American and British aircraft left over from the Batista regime (the rest were taking conversion training in the USSR at that time). Several UTI-MiG-15s were delivered in October 1961. A further 30 bises - Czech-built this time - followed in 1962. When MiG-17s and MiG19s entered service with the FAR, UTI-MiG-15s were delivered from the USSR for pilot training. Of the MiG-15 family, only 20 Midgets were still
reportedly operational in Cuba by the mid-80s; according to Flight International, however, ten-plus MiG-15bis tactical trainers and 15 UTIMiG-15s were still in service in late 1991. The aircraft were based, for instance, at San Antonio de los Banos AB. Fleet details are scarce; known aircraft are MiG-15s '51 Red' preserved at the Instituto Tecnica Militar in Havana and' 101 Red', MiG-15bis '27 Red', UTI-MiG-15 '14 Red', plus a camouflaged UTI-MiG-15 '02 Red' preserved at the Cuban Air Force Museum in Havana in 1989.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA The MiG-15 was not the first jet fighter to be operated by the Czechoslovak Air Force (CzAF or GVL - Ceskoslovenske Vojenske Letectvo) , which had flown Yak-17 and Yak-23 first-generation jets. However, the acquisition of the MiG-15 and its subsequent manufacturing under licence boosted the CzAF's capabilities immensely. The first Czech pilots mastered the MiG-15 under the guidance of Soviet instructors as early as 1951; conversion training initially took place in the USSR and then at Mlada AB in Milovice near Prague. During the same year (on 8th July) the CzAF took delivery of its first Fagot-A (eventually serialled 0720). Soviet-built aircraft were supplied at first. In November 1951, however, the MiG-15 entered licence production, followed by the MiG-15bis and the UTI-MiG-15 in 1954; from then on, all MiG-15s delivered to the CzAF were locally-built - and initially referred to as S-102, S-103 and CS-1 02 respectively (see section on foreign production). The 3. SLD (stfhacf leteck8. divize - fighter division) at Mlada AB (relocated to the newly-built Plzen-Line AB in 1952) and the Jet Training Unit, also at Mlada, were the first to convert to the new jets, receiving 62 Soviet-built MiG-15s, plus four early-production UTI-MiG-15 trainers. Two more units - the 1. Zvolensky SLP (stfhacf letecky pluk - fighter regiment) at Geske Budejovice AB and the 11. SLP at Zatec in north-western Czechia - were formed in 1952, operating Czech-built aircraft. They were followed during the next year by the 2. SLD at Mlada AB (with twenty Soviet-built bises) , the 22. SLD in 1954 and the 6. SLD at Gaslav AB in 1955. Re-equipment of the fighter units was completed by 1957. The MiG15 was operated by the 1st through 9th, 11th, 15th through 20th and 22nd through 26th fighter regiments. The 3. SLP was based at BrnoTurany AB, 5. SLP at Plzen-Line AB,' the 18. SLP at Pardubice AB, Other operators were the 45. DPzLP (dalnf pruzkumny letecky pluk - longrange reconnaissance regiment) and 47. PzLP operating the MiG15bisR, the target tug unit at Kosice AB operating the MiG-15TlbisT, three operational conversion units - the 2., 4. and 7. LSP (letecky skolnf pluktraining air regiment; the latter unit based at Prerov AB was disbanded by 1957) and a few other units. Initially CzAF aircraft had serials consisting of one or two letters and two digits separated by a dash. The letters were a code denoting the squadron; for instance, GT = 5. SLP/command flight, JW = 1. SLP/3./etka (squadron), TP = 4. SLP/4./etka at Pardubice AB, MR = 8. SLP/2./etka, Prague-Kbely AB). In the case of fighters the serial was painted on the forward fuselage in huge characters. A different system was introduced in mid-1'957, with four-digit serials matching the last four of the aircraft's c/n; the serial was painted on the rear fuselage. Usually the fighters had natural metal finish, but some MiG-15s sported highly colourful markings for airshows - or for war games where they acted as 'aggressor' aircraft. As noted earlier, with the introduction of more modern fighters the Fagot was progressively relegated to the fighter-bomber role. MiG15SBs and MiG-15bisSBs were operated by the units of the 6. and 34. SBoD (stfhacf-bombardovacf divize - fighter-bomber division), namely the 2., 6., 18., 22., 28. and 30. SBoLP (stfhacf-bombardovacf letecky pluk -fighter-bomber regiment). The latter unit was based at Hradec Kralove AB and the 6th SBoLP at Prerov AB. The MiG-15SB and MiG-15bisSB remained in service until 1983; the last UTI-MiG-15 trainers were retired in the following year. Some aircraft were destined for 'life after death'. For example, the forward fuselage and engine of one MiG-15 was installed on a locally-manufactured Tatra 111 6x6 truck for runway de-icing; the operator sat in the fighter's cockpit.
Known CzAF MiG-15s are listed below. Serial
Cln
Version
V-11 V-15 B1-06 CN-02 CY-04 EP-02
141120? 141306 ? ?
MiG-15bis (8-103) C/n read off poor-quality photograph. MiG-15 (8-102) VZLlJ, weapons testbed for FFAR pods. UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102?) Probable mispaint for BI-06. MiG-15bis (8-103) MiG-15bis (8-103?) MiG-15 (8-102) CzAF display team, with red upper surfaces ala 80viet Air Force 'Red Five' team. MiG-15 (8-102?) 18. 8LP/3.letka. MiG-15bis (8-103) MiG-15 (8-102) 5. 8LP/command flight. MiG-15bisR (8-103) Reserialled 3636 in 1957. UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102) 7. LSP. MiG-15bis (8-103?) 1. Zvolensk'j 8LP/3./etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) Reserialled 3614 in 1957. MjG-15? Version unconfirmed (may be MiG-15bisi), MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1. /etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. $LP/1./etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. SLP/1./etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1. letka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1. /etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka. Reserialled 3071 in 1957. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka. C/n read off poor-quality photograph. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka. Reserialled 3840 in 1957. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1./etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1./etka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1.letka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1.letka. UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102) 5. 8LP/1. fetka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 32. 8LP/2.letka. MiG-15bis (8-103) 32. 8LP/2.letka. Reserialled 3423 in 1957? MiG-15bis (8-103) MiG-15bis (8-103) MiG-15bis (8-103) MiG-15bis (8-103) MiG-15bis (8-103) MiG-15bis (8-103) C/n read off poor-quality photograph. MiG-15bis (8-103) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) Converted to, see below. MiG-158B MiG-15bis (8-103) Preserved Jihlava. MiG-15bis (8-103) Preserved Zruc Air Park. MiG-15bis (8-103) Preserved Hrbov. MiG-15 80viet-built? MiG-15bisR (8-103) Preserved Czech aerospace museum (VM VHU), Prague-Kbely. MiG-15bis (8-103) Converted to, see below. MiG-15bis8B
EX-55 EZ-62 GT-01 IF-10 KR-11 KU-55 LN-03 ME-36 MP-11 MP-12 MP-13 MP-14 . MP-15 MP-16 MP-17 MP-18 MP-19 MP-20 MP-21 MP-22 MP-24 MP-25 MP-26 MP-27 MP-28 MP-29 MP-30 NO-32 NO-35 OL-10 PR-02 PR-03 RO-31 TL-13 TL-17 TL-20 UF-41 VT-75 ZF-10 ZF-11 ZF-12 ZF-13 ZF-14 ZF-15 ZF-16 ZF-17 0529?
313636? ? 523614 ? ?
?
? ? 143071 143058?
623840 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ...3423? ? ?
341317? ?
220529
0543 0551 0562 0720 0738
220543 220551 220562 107020? 530738
1169?
141169
Remarks
MiG-15
85
1170 1186
1411707 141186
1303
,,1303
1585
141585
16717 1710 1713
3116717 2317107 231713
1720 1811 1822 1836 1927 2108
231720 ... 1811 ...1822 ,.. 1822 .. ,1927 .. ,2108
2210 2311 2349 2501 2506 2512 2514 2520 2528 2559 2611 2626 2726 2740 2744
,..2210 712311 9223497 722501 7225067 922512 922514 922520 722528 022559 142611 722626 0227267 6127407 612744
2746 2752 2826 3001
6127467 6127527 7228267 713001
3004
7130047
3005
7130057
3010
7130107
3014
713014
3058
143058
3071 3085
143071 143085
3108 3125 3131 3137
713108 713125 P713131* 7131377
3140 3144
P713140* 7131447
3148 3202 3207 3212 3213 3233
P713148* 6432027 643207 6432127 643213? 6432337
86
MiG-15
MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15 (S-102) MiG-15SB MiG-15 (S-1027) MiG-15 (S-102) MiG-15SB MiG-15bisR MiG-15 (S-102) MiG-15 (S-102) MiG-15SB MiG-15 (S-102) MiG-15bis (S-1037) MiG-15bis (S-1037) MiG-15bis (S-1 037) MiG-15 (S-102?) MiG-15bis (S-1037)
Preserved Zruc Air Park. Converted to, see below. Preserved VM VHU, 'Aggressor' aircraft, blue/natural metal checkered allover, early 1960s. Converted to, see below. Preserved VM VHU. C/n read off poor-quality photograph. Preserved VM VHU. Converted to, see below, Preserved VM VHU, Preserved VM VHU, Preserved Zruc Air Park, Preserved Zruc Air Park, 5. SLP. Reported in Czech book as target tug but not MiG-15bisT (no undernose winch)!
UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 027) UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 5. SLP. UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 02) Preserved Zruc Air Park. UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 5, SLP. UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 5, SLP. Preserved VM VHU. UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 30. Ostravsky SBoLP. UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 5, SLP. Sold to Bulgaria. UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) VZLU ejection seat testbed, Crashed 30-4-71. UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 02) 5. SLP. UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 02) Preserved VM VHU, UTI-MiG-15P (CS-1 02) Ex-OK-10. Preserved VM VHU, UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) With PPZ-1ILS. UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 02) 30. Ostravsky SBoLP. MiG-15 (S-102)? Preserved VM VHU; reported as MiG-15 but may be CS-1 02! UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 02) 3. SLP. UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 5, SLP. UTI-MiG-15P (CS-1 02) MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below, MiG-15bisSB Preserved Zruc Air Park, MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below, MiG-15bisSB 6 SBoLP. MiG-15bis (S-103) 5, SLP. Converted to, see below. MiG-15bisSB Preserved Siavenske Letecke Muzeum, MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below. MiG-15bisSB MiG-15 (S-102) Converted to, see below. MiG-15SB Preserved Siavenske Dapravne Muzeum (Slovak Museum of Transport), Presov, MiG-15bis (S-103) Ex-MP-20? Converted to, see below, MiG-15bisSB With PPZ-1 ILS. Preserved VM VHU. MiG-15bis (S-103) Ex-MP-19, 5. SLP. MiG-15bis (S-103) 5. SLP. WFU Prague-Kbely overhaul plant (LOK) , MiG-15bis (S-103) 5.SLP. MiG-15bis (S-103) 5.SLP. MiG-15bis (S-103) 5. SLP. Preserved Zruc Air Park. MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below, MiG-15bisSB 30. Ostravsky SBoLP. MiG-15bis (S-103) 5. SLP. WFU LOK 21-9-71, MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below. MiG-15bisSB MiG-15bis (S-103) 5, SLP. WFU/stored Malacky 1-9-72, MiG-15bis (S-1 03?) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-1037) MiG-15bis (S-1037) CzAF display team, with lightning side flash. MiG-15bis (S-1037) CzAF display team, with lightning side flash.
3234 32407
6432347 6132407
3244 3255
613244 613255
3262
.. ,3262
34237
...34237
MiG-15bis (S-1037) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisSB MiG-15bisR (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisSB MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisSB MiG-15bis (S-103)
3512
,..3512
MiG-15bis (S-1 03)
3614 3621 3636 3652 3668 3671 3703 3741
523614 313621 3136367 613652 6136687 613671 .. ,3703 613741
3785 3801 3809
...3785 623801 623809
3814 3840 3841 3862 3903 3904
623814 623840 623841 633862 623903 623904
3906 3907 3911
623906 6239077 423911
MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisR (S-103) MiG-15bisR (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisR (S-1 03) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisSB7 MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisSB MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisSB7 MiG-15bisT (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103)
3912
6239127
MiG-15bis (S-103)
3914
623914
3925 3932
623925 623932
3934
623934
MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisSB7 MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisSB7 MiG-15bis (S-103)
3935 3943 3947 3949 3950 3952
623935 713943 713947 713949 713950 713952
5237 5253 8806 OK-10
225237 ...5253 .,.8806 612744
OK-01O
822210
not known
119070
MiG-15
not known not known not known not known
220503 220505 220506 220507
MiG-15 (S-102) MiG-15 (S-102) MiG-15 (S-102) MiG-15 (S-102)
MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-1 03) MiG-15bis (S-1 03) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bisSB MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103) MiG-15bis (S-103)
CzAF display team, with lightning side flash, 5. SLP? Possibly converted to, see below, Unconfirmed, Converted to, see below. Preserved VM VHU. 1, Zvalensky SLP. Converted to, see below,
32, SLP/2.letka7 C/n read off poor-quality photo; '35' stencilled on air intake splitterex-NO-357. Serial off weapons tray removed from CzAF aircraft. Ex-LN-03. Ex-IF-10. Preserved Siavenske Dapravne Muzeum, Preserved VM VHU, 5, SLP. Possibly converted to, see below. 6, SBoLP7 Preserved Jimlin Zemech3, 1, Zvalensky SLP. Converted to, see below,
Ex-MP-22. 5. SLP/1, letka, Preserved VM VHU. Preserved Siavenske Dapravne Muzeum. 5,SLP. 5, SLP. Possibly converted to, see below. 30. SBoLP7 Target tug unit, Kosice AB, CzAF display team, with lightning side flash, Preserved German museum; c/n as reported but first digit may be misquoted, Preserved Nadace Letecke Histaricke Spalecnasti Vyskav (Vyskav Aviation Historical Collection). 5, SLP. Possibly converted to, see below. 6, SBoLP7 Preserved Czech museum (VM VHU7) 5, SLP. Possibly converted to, see below. 6, SBoLP? 22, SLp, 'aggressor' aircraft with blue stripes on nose, tail and centre fuselage, Preserved Jilem. Preserved Zruc Air Park, Preserved Hradec KraJove, Preserved VM VHU, VZLU, weapons testbed with R-3S AAMs. Converted to, see below, Preserved Ostrava Operation memorial. Preserved Zruc Air Park, With PPZ-1 ILS, VZLU ejection seat testbed, damaged beyond repair, Preserved VM VHU. VZLU ejection seat testbed, Preserved VM VHU. Soviet-built, D/D 6-5-51, pattern aircraft for S-102 production. First Vodochody-built aircraft.
-
r/
-----------------------------------------==~~===~-~~~-------------
14 Red, a Cuban Air Force UTI-MiG-15, in flight. Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-15bisSB '3244' (c/n 613244) of the 30. Ostravsk? SBoLP based at Hradec Kralove AB. U§tectvi + Kosmonautika
2514 (c/n 922514), a well-known CS-102 from the same unit. Lf§tectvi+Kosmonautika
One of the last S-103s to be built on the compass platform at Vodochody. The unusual two-digit serial preceded by a black triangle was 'Class B markings' applied for pre-delivery test flights. Lf§tectvi+Kosmonautika
MiG-15
87
not known not known not known not known not known not known not known not known not known
220508 220509 240438 225101 623700 143051 142012 142600 022727
MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15 (8-102) MiG-15bis (8-103) UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102) UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102) UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102)
First Letnany-built aircraft. Preserved. First production aircraft. First production aircraft. Last production aircraft.
* This is how these clns were quoted in aCzech book; the meaning of the Pprefix is unknown.
EAST GERMANY East Germany acquired its first jet fighters even before its National People's Army (NVA - Nationa/e Volksarmee) and Air Force (LSK/LV - Luftstreitkrafte und Luftverteidigung der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik - Air Force and Air Defence Force of the German Democratic Republic) were formally established on 1st March 1956. East German technical staff started training for the MiG-15 in July 1952 at the newlyfounded school in Kamenz, Sachsen, with the assistance of Soviet advisors. To this end the school received five non-airworthy Fagot-As from the Soviet Air Force for use as instructional airframes. Prior to 1956 the East German Air Force was known as Kasernierte Volkspolizei-Luft - People's Police (Air) Quartered in Barracks (i.e. on constant duty). Its first fighter unit, the 1. JFR (Jagdfliegerregiment fighter regiment) at the former Third Reich Luftwaffe base at Bautzen, Sachsen, formed on 16th August 1952. Initially it was known as VPD 600/1 (Volkspolizei-Dienststelle - People's Police base) for security reasons; the abovementioned school in Kamenz was VPD 500. Starting on 20th August 1952 the flight and ground crews of the 1. JFR took their training at Cottbus airbase (then occupied by a Soviet Air Force/GSFG unit). On 26th September of the same year the entire unit relocated to Cottbus. Several Soviet instructors continued with the 1. JFR on a full-time basis until 1955, and the CO and his deputy each had a Soviet advisor. Only the CO's advisor remained in 1955-57. 101 MiG-15s were loaned to the KVP-Luft by the Soviet Air Force in April 1953. On 10th June, Gefreiter (Private First Class) Manfred 'Paul' Grundmann made his first flight in a UTI-MiG-15 with a Soviet instructor, becoming the first East German pilot to fly the type; he went on to become Lieutenant-Colonel. Curiously, the aircraft arrived at Cottbus from GroBenhain by road. Several more trainees followed, including Iris Wittig - probably one of the first female pilots to master a jet fighter. However, training was abruptly discontinued on 17th June when an anti-Communist uprising began in East Germany, and on the next day the Midget was returned to the WS. The 101 single-seaters and the five non-flyable aircraft from Kamenz (!) followed suit within the following month. The uprising was squashed, but it took a while for Moscow to rebuild its trust towards Berlin. (Ironically, the economic difficulties which had caused the uprising were undoubtedly contributed to by the two billion Deutschmarks spent on equipping the KVP by then.) On 1st July 1956, the 1st Air Wing (FG 1 - Fliegergeschwader 1) was established at Cottbus. Initially the unit had to make do with Yakovlev Yak-11 Moose and Yak-18 Max piston-engined primary trainers. The former type was armed with a single 12.7mm (.50 calibre) machine gun and thus could be used as an ersatz-fighter - mostly against balloons laden with propaganda leaflets which were launched en masse from West Germany in those days. On 28th June 1956, however, FG 1 'went jet', receiving the first five MiG-15bis fighters to be officially delivered to the LSK/LV, followed by the first 12 UTI-MiG-15 advanced trainers in September. To be precise, these were Czech-built S-103s and CS-102s and they were flown to Cottbus by Czech pilots. Overall, some 40 S-103s were supplied to the LSK/LV, along with several Soviet-built bises; likewise, the vast majority of LSK/LV Midgets was of Czech origin. 88
MiG-15
MiG-15 conversion training at FG 1 began in earnest in January 1957_ Eight single-seat MiG-15bis fighters arrived in April and the Midget complement was reduced to six; however, only four Fagots were on strength with FG 1 in July-August and none remained by September, as the unit began re-equipping with more capable MiG-17Fs. In January 1961 the unit became JFG 1 (Jagdfliegergeschwader - fighter wing) and ultimately JG 1 'Fritz Schmenkel'. The MiG-15bis was also operated by FG 2 (JFG 2, JG 2 'Yuriy Gagarin') at Trollenhagen, MecklenburgNorpommern (1956-57) and FG 3 (JFG 3, JG 3 'Vladimir Komarov') at Preschen, Brandenburg (28 aircraft from 24th August 1956 to August 1959). FG 7 (JFG 7, JG 7 'Wilhelm Pieck') at Drewitz, Brandenburg had nine aircraft from September 1956 to 1959; FG 8 (JFG 8, JG 8 'Hermann Matern') at Marxwalde, Brandenburg' operated 15 aircraft delivered on 4th January 1957, and FG 9 (JFG 9, JG 9 'Heinrich Rau'), also at at Drewitz,3 flew the Fagot-B in 1956-57. In addition to the six fighter wings, the type served with twq training units (to which it was progressively transferred from combat units). These were FAG 3 (Fliegerausbildungsgeschwader - flight training wing) in Bautzen, Sachsen (later renamed FAG 15 'Heinz Kapelle' and moved to Rothenburg) and FAG 2 (later FAG 25 'Leander Ratz') in Bautzen. The former unit flew the MiG-15bis from 1959 to the autumn of 1964, the latter from January 1958 to 1965; the type was gradually replaced by MiG-21 UM Mongol-B and Czech Aero L-29 Delfin advanced trainers. Up to ten UTI-MiG-15s were used for proficiency training by FG 1 (JFG 1, JG 1) at anyone time. The type continued in service even after the unit re-equipped with MiG-21 PF Fishbed-Ds and later MiG-21 SPS Fishbed-Ds in late 1966 - albeit only in the weather reconnaissance and flight calibration roles. The Midget was also flown by FG 2, FG 7 (four aircraft delivered in 1956), FG 8 (3/JFG 8), FG 9 (1956-70) and JBG 31 'Klement Gottwald' (Jagdbombenfliegergeschwader - fighter-bomber wing) at Drewitz4 from 1971 to 1978. Finally, it served with FAG 15 (from 1959 to 28th July, 1966) and FAG 25 (1958-65).' Because of East Germany's extremely limited territory, the numerous GSFG units, the three international air corridors to Berlin (which, together with the Berlin ATC zone, made up 1/7th of the country's area) and the domestic civil air traffic, operations from most LSK/LV bases, except Peenemunde, were restricted to three days a week. (The Soviet units likewise had three days a week, so that Soviet and East German military aircraft flew intermittently to avoid 'getting in each other's way'.) Moreover, most of the bases were located so close to the Polish border that the aircraft had to enter Polish airspace, which meant that appropriate clearances had to be obtained. To coordinate LSK/LV operations the VHZ-14 (Vereinigte Hauptzentrale - united main control centre) staffed by Russian-speaking East German officers was established in 1975 at the Soviet 16th Air Army HQ in Wunsdorf, Zossen. Besides the counter-air role, the fighters were also tasked with attack, close air support and reconnaissance duties. Initially the LSK/LV had no specialised reconnaissance units and aerial recce had to be performed with virtually every aircraft type available (in continuation of Hermann Goring's reputed principle 'everything that flies is mine'!). While the Fagot was phased out, starting in 1958, and replaced by the MiG-17F, the UTi-MiG-15 soldiered on well into the 1970s. After German reunification it came to light that some aircraft, including a single UTIMiG-15, were overhauled by the Dresden Aircraft Repair Plant (FWD Flugzeugwertt Dresden),' allocated new serials and clandestinely exported to Mozambique (referred to for security reasons as Land 58). The deal was considered to be so classified that the aircraft in question were officially listed as scrapped! (Speaking of which, unfortunately very little paperwork on aircraft retired by the LSK/LV before 1972 had survived by the time of German reunification and the ultimate fate of these aircraft, inclUding many MiG-15s/UTI-MiG-15s, remains unknown.) Most aircraft operated in natural metal finish but some UTI-MiG-15s later received a light grey overall finish or dark green/dark earth camouflage with pale blue undersurfaces. As was customary in the East German Air Force, the fighters had red serials, while the trainers, like all other LSK/LV aircraft, had black serials. (Single-seat MiG-15s operated by training units had black serials for a while but these were soon changed
back to red.) Initially East German military aircraft wore simple black/red/yellow rhomboid insignia officially adopted on August 1953 (star-type markings and roundels had been considered and rejected) but by 1956 or 1957 the insignia were modified by the addition of the coat of arms of the GDR. Known LSK/LV MiG-15s are listed below. Serial
Gin
Version
Remarks
1Black 2Red 2Black 3Red 3Black 4Red 4Black 5Red 5Black 6Red 6Black 7Red 8Red 8Black 9Red
612302 623743 7 7 7 623747 7 623748 612816 623740 7
Czech-built (CS-1 02). Czech-built (S-1 03).
623765 7 6237667
UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis
9Black 02 Black 04 Black
622932 712067 922259
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
06 Black 10 Red 10 Black 11 Red 11 Black 12 Black
623746 622934 623762 7 612834
UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
13 Black 14 Black 15 Red 15 Black
622474
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15
16 Red 17 Black 18 Black 22 Red 23 Red 24 Red 25 Red 26 Red 27 Red 28 Red 29 Red 30 Red 31 Red
1768 7 622928 623752 623753 623754 623755 623756 623757 623758 623759 623770 623769
MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
33 Red 33 Black 34 Red 34 Black 37 Red 38 Red 40 Black 41 Red 41 Black 43 Red
022535
MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15
7 7 623750
MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis
022540 7
44 Red 45 Red 46 Red 46 Black 47 Red 48 Red 50 Black 53 Black 66 Red 67 Black 69 Black 72 Black 75 Black
022541 7 022538 7 612827 622925
MiG-t5bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
76 Black 80 Red 81 Black 82 Black 85 Black 89 Red 91 Black 94 Red 94 Black 96 Red 97 Red 98 Black 99 Black
622926 7 7 922258 022539 1673 622057 7 7 53211127 1515305 7 622061
UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis2 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
101 Black 102 Black 103 Black
7 7 622064
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
106 Black 107 Red 108 Black 110 Red 110 Black 111 Black
7 7 7 7 7 722621
UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
112 Black
022529
UTI-MiG-15
113 Black 114 Black
022528
UTi-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
623760 623761 623763 612825 623767 7 ?
Czech-built (S-1 03). Czech-built (S-103). Czech-built (CS-1 02). JG 2. Czech-built (S-1 03).
Czech-built (S-103). DID 1957. Czech-built (S-l 03). FAG 2. C/n quoted as 627766 but probable misprint. Czech-built (CS-1 02). Czech-built (CS-1 02). JG 1. Czech-built (CS-102). DID 4-59. JG 8, later JBG 31. SOC* 30-12-80, reserialled 150 Black and sold to Mozambique 8-81 as '20'. JG 8. Czech-built (S-103). Czech-built (CS-1 02). Czech-built (S-103). Czech-built (CS-102). DID 6-56. JBG 31. SOC 25-6-78, scrapped.
Czech-built (CS-102). DID 11-56.JBG31. SOC 17-9-82, returned to the USSR. Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur or Saratov. Czech-built (CS-1 02). Czech-built (S-103). Czech-built (S-1 03). Czech-built (S-1 03). Czech-built (S-1 03). Czech-built (S-1 03). Czech-built (S-103). Czech-built (S-103). Czech-built (S-1 03). Czech-built (S-1 03). Czech-built (S-1 03). FAG 2. Damaged beyond repair Bautzen AB, wreck later transferred to Rothenburg. Czech-built (CS-102).
115 Black 116 Black 117 Black 118 Black 120 Red 120 Black 121 Black 122 Black 123 Black 124 Black 125 Black 126 Black 127 Black
7 7 722625 7 722647 7 7 7 022532
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
130 Black
7
UTI-MiG-15
7 022525 7
Czech-built (CS-1 02). Crashed Cottbus AB 1972.
Czech-built (S-103).
Czech-built (S-103). Czech-built (S-103). Czech-built (S-103). Czech-built (CS-1 02). Czech-built (S-103).
Czech-built (CS-1 02). Czech-built (CS-102). JG3. Czech-built (CS-102). Czech-built (CS-1 02). Preserved Fahrzeugmuseum Marxzell. Czech-built (CS-1 02).
Czech-built (CS-1 02). Czech-built (CS-102). Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur or Saratov. Czech-built (CS-102).
Czech-built (CS-l 02). JG 3. SOC 1972, preserved on children's playground in Wunsdorf. JG 1. JBG 31. SOC 1981. Czech-built (CS-1 02). DID 2-57. JBG 31. SOC 30-12-84, preserved Bad Freienwalde barracks as '1 031 Black'. JG 1.
Czech-built (CS-102). DID 2-58. JBG 31. SOC 9-11-79, GIA* at MTS' Bad Duben, later scrapped. Czech-built (CS-102). DID 2-60. JBG 31. SOC 28-12-83, returned to the USSR. Czech-built (CS-102). DID 2-60. JBG 31. Serial possibly altered as '1141 Black' for publicity photos. SOC 25-6-80, sold to Guinea-Bissau. Czech-built (CS-1 02).
Czech-built (CS-1 02). Czech-built (CS-102). Camouflaged. WFU, used as fire trainer. Czech-built (CS-102). DID 3-60. JG 8. Declared damaged beyond repair on overhaul at FWD, SOC 6-8-74 but later repaired. Used for weather recce by FWD until c.1990, now in museum in Rimini (Italy). Not current by 1972. MiG-15
89
Left and centre: Israeli technicians examine an Egyptian Air Force MiG-15bis at Hatzor AB. The aircraft was recovered from Lake Sirbon where it was shot down on 31st October 1956. The aircraft was restored to flying condition and evaluated by the IDF/AF. Yefim Gordon archive
3224, the only identified Egyptian Air Force UTI-MiG-15 - almost certainly a CS-102. Yefim Gordon archive
90
MiG-15
The first and the last Finnish Air Force UTI-MiG-15s (CS-102s) in front of the hangar at Kuopio-Rissala AB. Yefim Gordon archive
For a while, HiivLv 31 UTI-MiG-15s had the serial writ large on the nose, together with an equally large roundel. This photo was taken in 1963. Yefim Gordon archive
Right and below: Seen here in 1966, UTI-MiG-15 MU-4 (c/n 722479) shows the more subdued markings worn later; note the squadron badge ·on the nose. The aircraft is now preserved at the Central Finnish Aviation Museum in Tikkakoski. Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-15
/
91
131 Black 134 Black 135 Black
722650
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
136 Black
722521
UTI-MiG-15
137 Black
022534?
UTI-MiG-15
138 Black
922330
UTI-MiG-15
140 Black
722651
UTI-MiG-15
141 Black 142 Black 145 Black 146 Black
? ? ? 022526
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
148 Black
022527
UTI-MiG-15
150 Black
?
UTI-MiG-15
154 Black
1615393
UTI-MiG-15
156 Black 160 Black 163 Black
922267 ? 922257
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
166 Black
922268
UTI-MiG-15
181 Black 187 Black 197 Black 722541 1...9 Black ? 300 Red? ?
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis
311 Red 50... Red 51... Red 516 Red 52... Red 53... Red 601 Red 611 Red
? ? ? ? ?
Czech-built (CS-102). JG 8. SOC 1970, preserved Marxwalde AB as '1970 Black', later to Luftfahrthistorische Sammlung Finow, Finow AB. Czech-built (CS-102). DID 1957. JBG 31. SOC 9-11-79, GIA at MTS Bad DQben, later firefighting trainer at Drewitz, Czech-built (CS-1 02). DID 3-60. Cln also quoted as 022537. JBG 31. SOC 28-2-82, returned to the USSR. Czech-built (CS-102). DID 1959. JBG 31, SOC 28-2-82, returned to the USSR. Czech-built (CS-102). JAG 15. Preserved Klitten, to Museum Augsburg-MOhlhausen around 1991, preserved in fake markings as SovAF '44 Red'.
Czech-built (CS-102). DID 2-60. JBG 31. SOC 9-11-79, scrapped. Czech-built (CS-102). 0/02-60. JBG 31. SOC 9-11-79, scrapped. Possibly ex-04 Black (922259), which see, but could be adifferent aircraft. Preserved Cottbus Pioneers' Park, later to Flugplatzmuseum Cottbus. Czech-built (CS-1 02). Preserved Technikmuseum Speyer. Czech-built (CS-102). DID 4-59. JBG 31. SOC 23-10·85, preserved Luftwaffenmuseum Utersen, Gatow AB. Czech-built (CS-102), DID 4-59, JBG 31. Crashed 13-5-76, JG 8. Crashed near Seelow 1968. Czech-built (CS-102). JG 8. JG 9, full serial not known. Unconfirmed (drawing only); possible confusion with Lim-5 (MiG-17F) '300 Red', cln 1C 06-30.
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
* SOC - struck off charge; GIA - ground instructional airframe; MTS = Mifitiirtechnische Schute - Military Technical School
Besides the preserved aircraft listed in the table, Luftfahrtsamm/ung WDnsdorf at the former GSFG HQ in Wunsdorf (Zossen) featured a Soviet Air Force UTI-MiG-15 coded 16 Red which was later transferred to Lufffahrtmuseum Dessau. Another WS Midget, a 85th GVIAP machine coded 75 Red, was erected on a plinth in the Victory and Liberation Square in Merseburg, where the unit was stationed, in 1975. After the German reunification in October 1990 the aircraft was promptly removed and scrapped - probably for political reasons as an unwelcome reminder of the socialist past. Luftfahrtmuseum Laatzen in Hannover has a MiG-15 or MiG-15bis in Soviet markings (though these may be bogus) coded 06 Red. 92
MiG-15
A little-known fact is that East Germany had planned to manufacture the MiG-15bis and the VK-1 A turbojet for same under licence. The first aircraft built by ATG-Maschinenbau (Allgemeine Transportanlagen GmbH - ie, General Transport Systems Ltd) were to roll off the production line at Leipzig-Schkeuditz airfield (later developed into the Leipzig/Haile airport) on 1st January 1954. However, the plan did not materialise because of the 17th June 1953 uprising.
EGYPT (UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC) Egypt was the first Arab nation to operate the type. When the Egyptian monarchy was overthrown and President Gamal Abdul Nasser came to power in 1952, the new government's independent political course angered Great Britain (which was the primary arms supplier to Egypt) and new aircraft deliveries to the Egyptian Air Force dried up. Financial constraints forced Egypt to buy outdated equipment such as Gloster Meteors and de Havilland Vampires, and even this was not easy. Seeking new allies in the Eastern Bloc, Nasser turned to Czechoslovakia for help. A contract for the delivery of various weapons (mainly aircraft, tanks and air defence radars) was signed in August 1955. The first of 120 Czech-built Fagot-Bs (S-103s) delivered to the United Arab Republic Air Force (UARAF) arrived in Alexandria in October 1955 aboard the Soviet freighter M/S Stalingrad; 60 were in service by March 1956. The fighters were based at EI Qabrit (1 Sqn and 20 Sqn with 12 and 13 aircraft respectively), Abu Sueir (30 Sqn with 15 aircraft) and Inhas (15 aircraft, inoperative). During the Suez crisis (26th October to 7th November 1956) most of them did not take part in the fighting. Few Fagot-Bs were delivered after 1956, the bulk of fighter supplies to Egypt being made up by the more advanced MiG-17F and MiG-19, together with UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) trainers to supplement those supplied earlier. Most of the MiG-15s that survived the earlier conflict were destroyed on the ground during the SiX-Day War (5th -11 th June, 1967). Egyptian MiG-15s initially flew in natural metal finish and had no serials but wore green/white/green identification stripes around the rear fuselage and wingtips. Serials appeared only after the formation of the United Arab Republic, and a sand/brown/green camouflage was hastily introduced after the Six-Day War of 1967. Only three aircraft - one MiG15bis (S-103) serialled 2707 and UTI-MiG-15s (CS-102s) serialled 2711 and 3224 has been identified to date.
FINLAND Maintaining a non-aligned status and being positioned geographically between the NATO nations and the USSR, Finland purchased military equipment from the East and the West alike. In 1962 the Finnish Air Force (Suomen IImavoimat) took delivery of four Czech-built UTI-MiG-15s (CS102s) in the latest configuration, including the Bariy-M IFF and OSP-48ILS. Serialled MU-1 (c/n 922221) through MU-4 (c/n 722479), the aircraft were operated by HiivLv 31 (Havittaja Lento/aivue - fighter squadron), which was part of the Karja/an Lennosto (Karelian Air Wing), and based Kuopio-Rissala AB. The aircraft were flown in natural metal finish with the digit of the serial and the squadron badge (a leaping black lynx) on the nose. The Midgets remained in service until superseded by five MiG21 UMs in 1978. MU-4 is now on display at the Central Finnish Aviation Museum (Keski-Suomen IImailumuseo) at Luonetjiirvi airfield in Tikkakoski.
GUINEA-BISSAU Guinea-Bissau's tiny air force (Force Aerienne de Guinea-Bissau) established in the 1960s with Soviet assistance included two UTI-MiG-15 trainers supporting MiG-17F operations at Bissalanca. At least one of them, a Czech-built CS-1 02, was acquired from the East German Air Force in 1980 (ex-LSKlLV '114 Black', c/n 022528). One of the two was still in service in late 1991.
l
HUNGARY Hungary was, in the terminology ofthe time, 'on the forefront of the struggle against imperialism' (!). As such, the Hungarian Air Force (MHRC Magyar Honvedseg RepOlo Csapatai) was among the first foreign air forces to receive the MiG-15 (in 1951); the aircraft was known locally as the Jaguar. Plans to produce the MiG-15 in Adiliget had to be abandoned because ofthe 1956 Hungarian uprising. Starting in 1953, MiG-15bis single-seaters (known locally as the Sas - Eagle, pronounced 'shash') and UTI-MiG-15 trainers of Soviet and Czech origin were delivered to the MHRC and all of the original MiG-15s were returned to the USSR. Most aircraft retained retained their natural metal finish and had red three-digit serials based on the aircraft's c/n; a few were camouflaged. For a while, the MiG-15bis was operated as a fighter-bomber following its replacement by later Mikoyan fighters in the counter-air role. The UTIMiG-15 stayed in service till the early 1980s. Many aircraft wound up at disposal dumps (for instance, the Vecses storage depot near Budapest) where they were allocated phoney fourdigit serials matching the year when they were placed in storage; it was not uncommon to see three or four sister aircraft wearing the same serial at such locations. For example, the dump at Vecses contained two different Fagot-Bs marked '1977', one '1978' and one '1981 " plus no less than three UTI-MiG-15s marked '1975'. Known Hungarian MiG-15s are listed in the table. Serial
Gin
Version
Remarks
14 Red
2666
MiG-15
Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, in phoney Soviet markings.
22 Red 26 Red 011 Red 027 Red 043 Black
.. ,227 ...267 ...011 ...027 ...043
MiG-15bis MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis
060 Red
3060
MiG-15bis
061 Red
552106017 MiG-15bisR7
062 Red
3062
MiG-15bis
063 Red
30637
MiG-15bis
065 Red
3065
MiG-15bis
067 Red
3067
MiG-15bis
069 Red 108 Red 201 Red
30697 ...108 3201
MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
203 Red
3203
UTI-MiG-15
212 Red 424 Red
...212 .. .424
MiG-15 MiG-15
512 Red
4512
MiG-15bisR
543 Red 547 Red 657 Red
...543 ...547 .,.657
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
677 Red 681 Red 684 Red 701 Red
...677 ...681 .. ,684 .. .701
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, Unconfirmed (drawing only), black serial doubtful! Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses. 101 st recce regiment, Szolnok; preserved Haditechnikai Park, Budapest. Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Dumped Vecses storage depot. Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses. Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur? Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum. Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses; built in Ulan-Ude (full c/n 10993201) 7 Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum, Szolnok; built in Ulan-Ude (full c/n 10993203) 7 Czech-built (S-1 02)7 Special colour scheme. Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum, Szolnok. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Based Szolnok; preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum. Preserved Army Museum, Kilian Gy6rgy Air Training School, Szolnok, 1969. Camouflaged. Camouflaged.
707 Red 708 Red 718 Red 724 Red
315307077 .,.708 ...718 31530724
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
754 Red 771 Red 802 Red 807 Red 809 Red 812 Red 823 Red 827 Red 838 Red
.. ,754 .. ,771 31530802 ...807 ...809 ...812 315308237 315308277 .. 838
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15
902 Red 906 Red 912 Red 981 Red
315309027 315309067 315309127 31530981
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
'1950'
UTI-MiG-15
'1951' (a)
MiG-15
'1951' (b)
UTI-MiG-15
'1963'
MiG-15bis
'1974' (1)
MiG-15
'1974' (2)
MiG-15
'1976'
MiG-15bis
'1977' (a)
MiG-15bis
'1977' (b)
MiG-15
'1978'
MiG-15
Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum, Szolnok. Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses. Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses. Preserved Bekescsaba. Coded B- Bakony regiment7
Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum, Szolnok, Coded C. Coded B- Bakony regiment7 Dumped Vecses storage depot; later to Ozigetvar Muzeum, Phoney serial, preserved in Hungarian museum, Phoney serial, preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum, Szolnok, Phoney serial, preserved Gsapatai Muzeum (Aeronautical Museum), Kecskemet. Phoney serial, preserved Hadtorteneti Muzeum, Budapest. Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, Phoney serial, preserved Gsapatai Muzeum, Kecskemet. Phoney serial, preserved Haditechnikai Park, Budapest. Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses.
INDONESIA When President Soekarno was in office in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Indonesia was on fairly good terms with the Soviet Union and enjoyed Soviet military aid. Soviet hardware supplied to the Indonesian Air Force (AURI - Angkatan Udara Republik Indonesia; later TNI-AU, Tentara Nasionallndonesia - Angkatan Udara) included MiG-17F and MiG-19S fighters, a squadron of MiG-21 F-13 Fishbed-As flown by the best Soviet pilots from the 'showcase' fighter regiment in Kubinka. In early 1958 a contract was signed for the delivery of fifteen Czechbuilt UTI-MiG-15s to the AURI for training local pilots flying the MiG-17F and MiG-19S. Three aircraft serialled J 751, J 760 and J 762 have been identified so far, but it is very probable that the intervening serials were also used. The trainers were based at Kemajoran airport near Jakarta. (There is some confusion regarding MiG-15 operations in Indonesia. Some sources indicate that up to 60 Midgets were delivered! Other sources say that an unspecified number of MiG-15bis fighters - probably Czech-built - was also supplied and the fighters were operated by No 10 Sqn.) In 1966, however, Dr. Soekarno was overthrown by the staunchly antiCommunist Gen Soeharto. A wave of repressions against Communists swept through the country, and Soviet support was promptly cut off. Predictably, all Soviet-built aircraft soon became unserviceable due to the lack of spares; the UTI-MiG-15s were replaced by Lockheed T-33A MiG-15
93
94
MiG-15
707 Red (c/n 31530707?) and 059 Red, a pair of Hungarian MiG-15bises in standard natural metal finish. The MiG-15In Action
This Hungarian MiG-15bis (060 Red) has camouflaged upper surfaces. The MiG-15In Action
072 Red, another Hungarian Fagot-B, in flight. The meaning of the '0' code is unclear. Yefim Gordon archive
J 767, an Indonesian Air Force UTI-MiG-15. Yefim Gordon archive
Photographs on the opposite page: Top: 512 Red, a Hungarian Air Force MiG·15bis preserved in Szolnok. Unlike the serial, the Communist-era national markings have not been refreshed. Peter Davison Bottom: Parked right next to it is a UTI-MiG-15, 203 Red (probably a Czech-built CS-102). Peter Davison MiG-15
95
Shooting Stars in 1973. From then on, Indonesia used only Western weapons systems. It was not until thirty years later that the TNI-AU expressed an interest in a warplane of Russian origin, namely the Sukhoi Su-30MK multi-role fighter.
IRAQ After the monarchy in Iraq was overthrown in 1958 and the ultrarevolutionary and 'extremely progressive' Casem regime came to power, Soviet- and Czech-built bises and UTi-MiG-15s were delivered to the Iraqi Air Force (al Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-Iraqiya). In the 1960s, a squadron of MiG-15bis fighter-bombers was formed. There was also a training squadron equipped with UTI-MiG-15s. Only 30 of the latter type, including a Czech-built example serialled 874, were still operational in early 1987.
MOROCCO In the 1960s, the Kingdom of Morocco purchased a few Soviet military aircraft, including two UTI-MiG-15s. Later, however, the Royal Moroccan Air Force (al Quwwat al-Jawwiya a/-Ma/akiya Marakishiya or Aviation Royale CMrifienne) bought US and French aircraft only.
MOZAMBIQUE The Mozambique People's Air Force (FPA - Forqa Popular Aerea de Moqambique) received a number of UTI-MiG-15s. At least one of them (22 White, c/n 922259) had been clandestinely imported from East Germany in August 1981; this aircraft was formerly serialled 150 Black and, still earlier, operated by the LSK/LV as 04 Black. Three Midgets were reportedly operational in late 1991.
ISRAEL The Israelis captured an Egyptian Air Force MiG-15bis which ditched in Lake Sirbon near EI'Arlsh on 31 st October 1956 after being damaged by Israeli Defence Force/Air Force (IDF/AF or Heyl Ha'avir) Dassault Mystere IVAs. The aircraft was recovered, repaired and test flown at Hatzor AB by the Israelis; Heyl Ha'avir pilots logged a total of 500 hours in it. Later, the aircraft was preserved as a war memorial.
NEW ZEALAND In 1993 a Khar'kov-built UTI-MiG-15 (ex-Polish Air Force 216 Red, c/n 26016) owned by Mike Kelly and previously flown in Australia as VH-NZM was placed on the New Zealand register with the appropriate out-ofsequence registration ZK-MIG. The aircraft is based at Wanaka, a popular gathering place for all sorts of warbirds.
,
NIGERIA
LIBYA When another great 'socialist', Col Muammar Qaddafi, came to power in Libya, Soviet weapons were rushed to the country. Deliveries of combat aircraft to the Libyan Arab Republic Air Force (LARAF) began in the 1970s; these were largely state-of-the-art equipment, but a few obsolescent UTI-MiG-15s were also supplied. They were used in order to prolong the service life of more advanced and expensive combat trainers. By 1987 the UTI-MiG-15s had been withdrawn.
MADAGASCAR (MALAGASY REPUBLIC) After attaining independence this former French colony received standard Soviet 'humanitarian aid' of the time: MiG-17 and UTI-MiG-15 fighters. The entire air force was based at Ivato. Unfortunately, the number of Midgets operated by the Armee de I'Air Malgache is unknown, to say nothing of serial numbers. None remained in service by 1991.
MALI During the period when the USSR and Mali were on good terms, a sole UTI-MiG-15 was delivered to the Mali Air Force (Force Aerienne de la Republique du Mali) for training its MiG-17F pilots. The aircraft was based at Bamako and was reportedly still in service in late 1991. There have also been unconfirmed reports in 1973 of six MiG-15s being operated; possibly the truth is that they were ordered but never delivered.
MONGOLIA In the mid-80s, the Mongolian People's Army Air Force had some 150 aircraft, including a few MiG-15bis fighters (later replaced by the MiG-21) and at least three UTI-MiG-15s. The latter version was operated in 196986. Only one Midget serialled 100 Red has been identified to date. 96
MiG-15
The Federal Nigerian Air Force received a few UTI-MiG-15s (four, according to some sources) in the late 1960s for training MiG-17F pilots; two of them were serialled NAF 601 and NAF 602, which were airfreighted to Kano on 18th August 1967. Only two of the trainers were still operational by the mid-80s.
NORTH KOREA When North Korea went to war against South Korea in June 1950, it had 150 to 200 Soviet aircraft of Second World War vintage. Very soon this obsolescent air arm was all but wiped out by USAF bombing raids, but after the Soviet Union and China intervened in November 1950, with aid to the Pyongyang government, the North Korean Air Force was created anew with deliveries of Soviet-built MiG-15s -largely flown by Soviet pilots. After the war ended in July 1953 the North Korean Air Force had an inventory of several hundred Fagot-Bs and Midgets, mostly left behind by the Soviet units which had flown them during the war. The MiG-15bis remained a first-line fighter until the late 1950s when it was gradually replaced by the MiG-17 and MiG-19, while the UTI-MiG-15 soldiered on till the early 1980s. Known North Korean aircraft are listed below, with the Soviet units which operated them during the war indicated where known.
Serial
Gin
Version
03 Red 07 Red 12 Red 13 Red 16 Red
.,.03? ...077 ... 12? ... 13? ... 16
MiG·15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG·15bis MiG·15bis
17 Black 20 Blue 22 Black 93 Red 033 Red 039 Red
...177 ...20? ...22? ...93 .. ,033? .. ,039?
MiG·15bis MiG·15 MiG·15bis MiG·15bis MiG·15bis MiG·15bis
Remarks
32nd IAD/913th lAp, Antung AB, summer 1953, camouflaged. 50th IAD/177th lAP. 32nd IAD/913th lAP.
a
Unconfirmed (drawing only), red nose la 303rd lAD.
044 Red
134044
MiG-15bis
079 Red
,0797
MiG-15
122 Red 125 Black 132 Red 138 Red
.,,1...22 111025 121032 121038
MiG-15bis MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
146 Red
121046
MiG-15bis
183 Red
121083
MiG-15bis
188 Red
121088
MiG-15bis
192 Red
121092
MiG-15bis
226 Red 231 Red 271 Red 300 Red
122026 122031 2015371 1231007
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
306 Red 325 Red
1315325
UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis
327 Red 343 Red 344 Red 345 Red
123027 123043 123044 123045
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
349 Red
123049
MiG-15bis
349 Blue
".3".49
MiG-15bis
351 Red
".3".51
MiG-15bis
393 Red 406 Red 408 Red 502 Red 503 Red
2315393 2415306 2415308 2515302 ,.,5",03
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
518 Blue
".5".18
MiG-15bis
546 Red 683 Red
53210546 0615383
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
684 Blue 686 Blue 688 Red
0615384 0615386 0615388
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
689 Red 708 Red
0615389? 0715308
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
720 Red 723 Red 729 Red 735 Blue 751 Blue 768 Red
0715320 0715323 0715329 0715335 0715351 0715368
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
773 Yellow 0715373 780 Yellow 0715380 785 Yellow 0715385
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
133rd IAD/415th lAp, camouflaged, 21/2 'kills', Preserved in Chinese museum, 9'kills'; markings may be non-authentic, 303rd lAD/17th IAP/1stAE, Miaogow AB. 324th IAD/176th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB. 303rd lAD/17th lAp, Miaogow AB, 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB, Damaged 27-10-51 and repaired. 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB, Damaged 27-10-51 and repaired. 303rd lAD/17th lAp, Miaogow AB, Damaged 23-10-51 and repaired. 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 22-10-51 and repaired, 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 23-10-51 and repaired, 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP 216th IAD/518th lAP 351st lAp, Antung AB, 4'kills'. Unconfirmed (drawing only), Ex-1325 Red, 324th IAD/196th lAP To the 97th lAD/16th lAp, later probably to the 351 st lAp, Antung AB. 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 23-10-51 and repaired, 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 24-10-51 and repaired, 324th IAD/176th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB. C/n could be 1315349 or 2315349. 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB. C/n is either 123051 or 1315351, 32nd IAD/913th lAp, Antung AB, 4'kills'. 32nd IAD/913th lAp, Antung AB. 133rd IAD/726th lAP Joint Chinese/Korean Air Army (JAA). C/n could be 53210503,125003 or 2515303, JAA, C/n could be 53210518, 125018 or 2515318, 324th IAD/196th lAP To 351st lAp, Antung AB. 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB. Damaged 27-10-51 and repaired, 324th IAD/176th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB, 324th IAD/176th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB, 190th IAD/821 st lAP Damaged in combat 5-52 and repaired. 324th IAD/196th lAP To 351st lAp, Antung AB, 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB. Shot down 23-10-51. 50th lAD/29th GvIAP/1 st AE, Antung AB, 50th lAD/29th GvIAP/1 st AE, Antung AB, 324th IAD/176th GvlAP 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB. 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB. 196th IAP/324th lAD, later to the 16th IAP/303rd lAD. 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/3rd AE, Antung AB. 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/3rd AE, Antung AB. 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/3rd AE; to 324th IAD/ 176th GvIAP/1 st AE, Antung AB as 785 Blue. Damaged in combat 20-7-52 and repaired,
822 Red7
54210822? MiG-15bis
823 Blue 899 Red 925 Red
108023 ".8",99 109025
MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15
928 Red
2915328
MiG-15bis
931 Black 976 Red 1032 Red
2915331 2915376 10153327
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
1325 Red 1355 Red 2057 Red
1315325 13153557 2015357
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
2249 Red
22153497
MiG-15bis
Existence not proven; see note in US operators section. 176th Gv1AP/324th lAD, Antung AB, C/n is 1815399, 53210899 or 5899, 196th IAP/324th lAD, later to the 16th IAP/303rd lAD. 32nd IAD/535th lAp, Antung AB. Damaged in combat 16-9-52 and repaired, 32nd IAD/535th IAP/1 st AE, Antung AB. 351st lAp, Antung AB. JAA, Preserved Victory Museum, Pyongyang, 8'kills', Serial later shortened to 325 Red, which see, Defected to South Korea 21-9-53, to USAF '7616' (ie, 47-06167). Preserved Datangshan museum, China. Markings may be non-authentic (JAA aircraft if authentic).
North Korean (and quasi-North Korean) MiG-15s originally flew in natural metal finish. The forward fuselage and fin top were later painted bright red on many aircraft for quick identification purposes. Starting in February 1952, however, these markings were removed as too revealing and various camouflage patterns introduced, ranging from crudely applied green stripes over natural metal to real three-tone camouflage. Some aircraft operated by night fighter units were painted light grey overall. One MiG-15bis shot down by Lt James L Thompson (35th FIG/39th FIS) on 18th May 1953 allegedly had a dragon painted the full length of the fuselage! (It was after this 'kill' that Thompson's F-86F-1-NA 51-2897I'FU-897', already named 'Bill's Baby'I'Miss Jenny', acquired its famous dragon nose art and became 'The Huff'.) Incidentally, despite being extremely hard-line and inflexible, Kim II Sung's regime was always favoured when it came to new equipment deliveries from the Soviet Union. For example, North Korea was one of the first foreign customers to receive the MiG-29.
PAKISTAN
-
When Pakistan established military ties with China, the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) received F-2 (ex-PLAAF MiG-15bis) fighters and Shenyang FT-2 (UTI-MiG-15) trainers. The latter type was operated by the No 1 Fighter Conversion Unit at Mianwali AB; known aircraft are serialled 71-2918 and 715618 (sic), the serials matching the c/ns. Five FT-2s remained in service in 1979; they have since been retired.
POLAND As noted earlier, the Polish Air Force (PWL - Polskie Wojsko Lotnicze) began converting to the MiG-15 in mid-1951. The 1. PLM 'Warszawa' (pulk lotnictwa mysliwskiego - fighter regiment) based at MinskMazowiecki AB near the Polish capital of Warsaw was the first to receive the MiGs. This unit, which is responsible for the air defence of Warsaw, was traditionally the first to operate new fighter types. The first MiG-15s operated by the PWL were delivered from the USSR, but later the fighter units began receiving licence-built Lim-1 s. The first of these entered service in late 1952, of the MiG-15bis deliveries from the USSR began in 1953, and the first locally-built Lim-2s entered service in late 1954. The PWL received new-build UTI-MiG-15s (CS-102s) from Czechoslovakia and, according to some sources, from the USSR. Additionally, many Lim-1 sand Lim-2s were converted locally to SBLim1/SBLim-2 trainer standard; also, some MiG-15bis fighters and CS-102 trainers were converted to SBLim-2 standard with 0.8m' airbrakes (!). Various versions of the MiG-15 formed the backbone of the PWL's fighter element for a long period and in the 1970s the Lim-2 was still in MiG-15
97
service as a fighter-bomber. Units operating the type included the 7. PLM at Malbork, the 11. PLM at D€ilbrzno, the 28. PLM at R€ildzikowo AB (Slupsk), the 39. PLM at Mierz€ilcice, the 6. PLM-B (pulk lotnictwa mysliwsko-bombowego - fighter-bomber regiment) at Pila, the 32. PLRT at Belice AB (Sochaczew). The type was also operated by the Polish Navy (Marynarka Wojenna) - for instance, the 7. PLM-B at Siemirowice AB which later became the 7. PLS (pulk lotnictwa specjalnego - special air regiment). UTI-MiG-15s stayed on into the 1980s. Besides being operated by regular fighter units for proficiency training, it was operated by the WOSL (Wyzsza Oficerska Szkola Lotnicza - Officers' Higher Flying School) popularly known as Szkola Orla,t (Eaglets' School) - in D€ilblin. Some were used as trials aircraft by the Polish Air Force's test squadron, the 45.LED (/otnicza eskadra doswiadczalna - experimental aviation squadron) at Modlin AB. Some Polish MiG-15s were eventually sold to warbird collectors abroad, notably in the USA. Known PWL examples are listed below. Serial
Cln
6.Red 8Red 01 Red
21 Red
242201
Version
Remarks
MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15
Soviet-built, DID 1951. 1. PLM. Soviet-built, DID 1951. 1. PLM. Soviet-built, DID 1951. Pres. Muzeum WyNlolenia Miasta Poznania (Poznan City Liberation Museum) 16-6-64. Czech-built (S-103). Converted to, see below.
26 Red 29 Red 304 Red (a) 3404
MiG-15bis 'SBLim-2'* MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15bis
304 Red (b) 3504
'SBUm-2M'* MiG-15bis 'SBLim-2M'*
306 Red
3506
MiG-15bis 'SBLim-2A'*
308 Red
3508
MiG-15bis
309 Red
3509
'SBLim-2'* MiG-15bis
317 Red
3517
'SBLim-2'* MiG-15bis
319 Red
3319
'SBLim-2'* MiG-15bis 'SBLim-2'* MiG-15bis
346 Red
365 Red
3605?
MiG-15bis? 'SBLim-2A'*
417 Red
4017
MiG-15bis
613 Red
612713
625 Red
231873
98
MiG-15
'SBLim-2A'* MiG-15bis 'SBLim-2'* MiG-15bis
Soviet-built, DID 1951. 1. PLM. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Converted to, see below. Preserved Polish Air Force Museum, Krakow. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Converted to, see below. C/n read off airframe (reported in Euromil in error as 1A3504). Sold to USNprivate owner 7-93 as N304SB. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Converted to, see below. C/n read off airframe. Sold to the USNprivate owner (as N15HQ? - see Lim-2 cln 1B00306 below!) Built in Saratovor Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Converted to, see below. Sold to the USNprivate owner as N515MG. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Converted to, see below. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Converted to, see below. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur, Converted to, see below, 28. PLM. Cln is 5321 ...346,3153...346 or ...346. Defected to R0nne, Bornholm Island, Denmark, 5-3-53. Converted to, see below, C/n quoted in Euromil as 1A3605 but this does not make sense. Preserved Warsaw. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Converted to, see below.
1132 Red
MiG-15bis?
1305 Red
MiG-15bis?
1612Red
MiG-15bis?
1919 Red
MiG-15bis
1922 Red 2562 Red
2562
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
not known
231873
'SBLim-2'* MiG-15
06 Red 050 Red 059 Red 112 Red 126 Red 193 Red
022040 ? ? ? 10926 142693
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15? UTI-MIG-15? UTI-MiG-15? UTI-MiG-15 UTi-MiG-15
197 Red
142697
UTI-MiG-15
203 Red (a)? 247003
UTI-MiG-15
203 Red (b)? 27003
UTI-MiG-15
216 Red 266 Red
26016 242266
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
273 Red 277 Red
612273 813277
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
303 Red
723303
UTI-MiG-15
309 Red
723309
UTI-MiG-15
410 Red 543 Red 546 Red
? 522543 522546
UTi-MiG-15? UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
547 Red 555 Red
522547 522555
'SBLim-2'* UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
596 Red 619 Red 622 Red
522596? 622019 622022
'SBLim-2'* UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
D~blin.
'SBLim-2'* 626 Red 628 Red
622026 622028
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
Czech-built (S-1 03). Converted to, see below. 'SBUm-2'* Czech-built (S-1 03), Preserved Muzeum Katynskie, Warsaw, as '1964 Red' and then as '365 Red'.
Preserved Muzeum Wojska Polskiego (Polish Armed Forces Museum), Warsaw. Reported as (Soviet-built) MiG-15bis (c/n53211132, 31531132 or 1132) but could be Lim-2 cln 1B 011-32. Reported in Polish book as MiG-15bis (c/n 53211305,31531305 or 1305) but could be Lim-2 c/n 1B 013-05. Reported as MiG-15bis (c/n 53211612 or 1612) but could be Lim-2 cln 1B 016-12. 31. PLM. C/n is 53211919, 31531919 or 1919. Defected to Halland Island, Sweden, 7-7-57. Cln is 53211922, 31531922 or 1922. Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Converted to, see below, Sold to the USNprivate owner as N83GP. Czech-built (S-1 02). Preserved Muzeum Wojska Polskiego, Warsaw, 10-7-64 as '625 Red' (see above and Lim-1 pin 1A 06-025 below!) Czech-built (CS-102). WOSL. Confirmed as trainer but origin unknown. Confirmed as trainer but origin unknown. Confirmed as trainer but origin unknown. Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-EKI. Czech-built (CS-102). Preserved L6dz Museum (Ekspozicja Muzealna L6di). Czech-built (CS-1 02). WOSL, preserved
740 Red 755 Red
702740 712755
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
Czech-built (CS-102). 39. PLM, stored Mierz~cice AB, See Lim-2 section below. Khar'kov-buill. Sold to the USNprivate owner as N678. See Lim-2 section below. Khar'kov-buill. Sold to the UK/private owner, Czech-built (CS-102). 39. PLM, stored Mierz~cice AB; sold to the USNprivate owner as N41125. Czech-built (CS-1 02). Czech-built (CS-102). Sold to USNpvl owner as N2276H. Czech-built (CS-1 02). 45.LED, trials aircraft; derelict Modlin. Czech-built (CS-102). Preserved East Fortune, UK. Confirmed as trainer but origin unknown. Czech-built (CS-1 02). 45.LED, trials aircraft. Czech-built (CS-102). Reportedly converted to, see below. Sold to the USNprivate owner as N15UT. Czech-built (CS-1 02). Czech-built (CS-1 02). Reportedly converted to, see below. Sold to the USNprivate owner as N215MG. Czech-built (CS-1 02)? Czech-built (CS-102). 32. PLRT. Czech-built (CS-1 02). Reportedly converted to, see below. Stored Katowice until 3-94. Sold to the USNprivate owner. Czech-built (CS-1 02). 45.LED, trials aircraft. Czech-built (CS-1 02). Reportedly converted to, see below. Stored Katowice until 3-94. Sold to the USNprivate owner as N115MG. Czech-built (CS-1 02), Czech-built (CS-102), 45.LED, trials aircraft.
712776 712777
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
782 Red
712782
'SBLim-2'* UTI-MiG-15
906 Red 1524 Red
621524
UTI-MiG-15? UTI-MiG-15
2004 Red
27004
UTI-MiG-15
2271 Red
242271
UTI-MiG-15
3302 Red
613302?
UTI-MiG-15?
3303 Red
613303?
UTI-MiG-15?
3387 Red
613387
UTI-MiG-15
3804 Red
3804?
MiG-15bis?
3814 Red 3821 Red 6247 Red
623814 623821 622047
'SBLim-2'* UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
01 Red
1A 10-001
04 Red 05 Red
1A 05-004 1A ...-005?
06 Red
1A ...-006?
10 Red 21 Red (a)
1A 11-010 1A ...-021?
30 Red 41 Red
1A ...-0307 1A ...-041?
776 Red 777 Red
002 Red (a) 1A 05-002
'SBLim-2A'* Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1.5 Lim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-1
002 Red (b) 1A 09-002 004 Red 006 Red
Lim-1 SBLim-2 1A .. ,-004 Lim-1 1A ...-006? Lim-17 SBLim-2 t
010 Red
1A 06-010
011 Red
1A06-011
012 Red
1A 09-012
014 Red 015 Red
1A 06-014 1A 06-015
017 Red (a) '1A 04-017
Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2 Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A
Czech-built (CS-1 02). Preserved L6di Museum, Czech-built (CS-1 02). Reportedly converted to, see below, Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-LJP Czech-built (CS-1 02). Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-BVX, Could be SBLim-1 c/n 1A09-006, Czech-built (CS-102). Sold to the USA/private owner. Khar'kov-built. Preserved Polish Air Force Museum, Krak6w. Czech-built (CS-102), Sold to USA/pvt owner as N271JM. Czech-built (CS-1 02)? Reported in Euromil as SBLim-2A c/n 1A3302 but this does not make sense. Sold to the USA/private owner as N302LA, Czech-built (CS-1 02)? Preserved Muzeum Katynskie, Czech-built (CS-102). Preserved East Fortune, UK, C/n reported in Euromil as 1A3804 but this does not make sense. Converted to, see below, Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-DIE, Czech-built (CS-102), Polish Navy, Czech-built (CS-1 02), Polish Navy Czech-built (CS-1 02). Converted to, see below. Sold to the UK/private owner as G-OMIG. Converted to, see below. Preserved Poznan,
017 Red (b) 1A 10-017 018 Red (a) 1A06-018 018 Red (b) 1A ...-018
Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2 Lim-1 SBLim-2t
020 Red
1A07-020
Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A
026 Red
1A 06-026
027 Red 028 Red 029 Red 030 Red 031 Red 032 Red
1A 06-027 1A 06-028 1A 06-029 1A 06-030 1A 06-031 1A 07-032
033 Red 034 Red 035 Red
1A 06-033 1A 06-034 1A 06-035
037 Red 038 Red
1A 06-037 1A 07-038
056 Red
1A 07-056
109 Red
1A 01-009
112 Red
1A 10-012
115 Red
1A 10-015? Lim-1
312 Red 312White 315 Red
1A03-012
401 Red7 402 Red? 403 Red? 404 Red? 405 Red? 406 Red? 407 Red
1A 04-001 1A 04-002 1A 04-003 1A 04-004 1A 04-005 1A 04-006 1A 04-007
408 Red? 409 Red? 410 Red 607 Red
1A 04-008 1A 04-009 1A 04-010 1A 06-007
613 Red
1A 06-013
616 Red
1A06-016
625 Red
1A06-025
634 Red
1A 06-034
636 Red
1A06-036
Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2 Lim-1 SBLim-2A
Converted to, see below, Converted to, see below.
Converted to, see below.
1A03-015
Converted to, see below, Converted to, see below. Instytut Lotnictwa, PZL 1-22 ejection seat testbed. Preserved Warsaw, Converted to, see below, Preserved L6di Museum. Original model unknown, Converted to, see below, 7, PLS/1. eskadra (Sqn)/2, klucz (flight), Polish Navy. Converted to, see below. Preserved Warsaw. Converted to, see below. 39. PLM, stored Mierz~cice AB, Converted to, see below. Also reported as recoded 9012 Red. Sold to the USA/private owner as N9012. Preserved Polish Air Force Museum, Krak6w. Converted to, see below. Sold to Australia/private owner 1989 as VH-LSN. Converted to, see below.
SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A t Lim-1 SBLim-1A Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-2A
Converted to, see below. Sold to the USA/private owner as N15LC, Preserved Polish Air Force Museum, Krak6w. Converted to, see below. 7. PLS/1, eskadra/2, k!ucz, Polish Navy, white overall. Converted to, see below. Preserved Savigny, France, Converted to, see below. Stored Katowice, Sold to the USA/private owner 7-93,
Converted to, see below. Sold to the USA/private owner as N132DG.
Converted to, see below. 11. PLM, Preserved Polish AF Museum, Krakow, Converted to, see below, Converted to, see below, Also reported as recoded 7056 Red, Sold to the USA/private owner as N76584. Converted to, see below. Preserved L6di Museum. Converted to, see below, Preserved Muzeum Braterstwa Broni (Brotherhood-in-arms Museum), Drzon6w. C/n reported in Euromil as 1A 02-115 which does not make sense (number of aircraft in batch too high I). Converted to, see below. Sold to the USA/private owned as N115PN, Converted to, see below, Camouflaged. Converted to, see below.
Converted to, see below.
Converted to, see below, Sold to Australia/private owner 1989 as VH-BPG. Ex-013 Red? Converted to, see below, Preserved Philipville, Belgium, Converted to, see below, Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner as N15MU, Converted to, see below. Reported in Polish book as SBLim-2A (c/n 1B006-34) I Converted to, see below, Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-LKW. MiG-15
99
Don't you believe it. This very new and shiny, supposedly North Korean MiG-15bis is an impostor - probably a Czech Air Force·S-103 painted up for a movie appearance (note the Aero L-200 Morava Iightplane in the background). Letectvi+Kosmonautika
Judging by the four-digit serial, this supposedly North Korean MiG-15bis preserved at the Datangshan museum near Peking is actually a Chinese machine. However, there may be some truth in the masquerade, as this aircraft could have participated in the Korean War, fighting for the Joint Air Army. Helmut Walther
Natural metal Romanian Air Force Fagot-As (almost certainly Czech-built S-102s) lined up as the pilots listen to 'all-systems-go' reports from the ground crews. Yefim Gordon archive
This Romanian Air Force MiG-15bis (S-103?) is painted light grey overall and wears the roundels introduced in 1985. Yefim Gordon archive
100
MiG-15
638 Red
1A 06-038
Lim-1 SBLim-2A
640 Red
1A 06-040
Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-1? Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1
655 Red
1A 06-055
671 Red
1A 06-071
710 Red
1A07-010
712 Red
1A 07-012
732 Red
1A 07-032? Lim-1? SBLim-1
757 Red
1A 07-057
801 Red 802 Red 803 Red 804 Red
1A 08-001 1A 08-002 1A 08-003 1A 08-004
807 Red
1A 08-007
862 Red?
1A 08-062
905 Red
1A 09-005
908 Red
1A 09-008
Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-2 Lim-1 ? Lim-1 SBLim-2 Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A
917 Red
1A 09-017
1005 Red
1A 10-005? Lim-1 SBLim-1 1A 10-018 Lim-1 SBLim-1 1A 02-001 Lim-1 SBLim-2A t 1A 02-004 Lim-1 SBLim-2A t
1018 Red 2001 Red 2004 Red
2005 Red
1A 02-005
2032 Red
1A 02-032
5007 Red
"
1A 05-007
Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A
6008 Red
1A 06-008
Lim-1 SBLim-2A t
6010 Red
1A 06-010
6012 Red
1A 06-012
Lim-1 S8Lim-2A t Lim-1 SBLim-2A
6021 Red
1A 06-021
Lim-1 SBLim-2A
6032 Red
1A 06-032
Lim-1 SBLim-2A
Converted to, see below, Also reported as reserialled 6038, Sold to the USA/private owner as N38BM, Possibly converted to, see below, Also reported as reserialled 6040, Sold to the USA/private owner as N40BM, Converted to, see below, Possibly converted to, see below, Unconfirmed (drawing only), Ex-01O Red? Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner as N710DW. Preserved Muzeum Lotnictwa i Astranautyki (Aerospace Museum), Krak6w, 16-3-67, Possibly converted to, see below, 6, PLM-B, std Pila AB, C/n quoted in Euramil as 1A2732 but this does not make sense; could be CS-1 02 c/n 712732, C/n doubtful (this high number of aircraft in batch correct?), Converted to, see below,
6034 Red
1A 06-034
7022 Red
1A 07-022
7026 Red
1A 07-026
7031 Red
1A 07-031
7039 Red
1A 07-039
7048 Red? 1A 07-048 8017 Red
1A 08-017
8020 White 1A 08-020
9002 Red
1A 09-002
9013 Red
1A 09-013
9016 Red?
1A 09-016
not known not known not known not known not known
1A01-001 1A 01-002 1A 01-003 1A 01-004 1A 01-005
not known
1A 01-006
Converted to, see below, Converted to, see below, Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-REH, Reported in Euramil but c/n doubtful (number of aircraft in batch too high!), Converted to, see below, Preserved L6dz Museum, Converted to, see below, Sold to the UK/private owner, under restoration at Shoreham, Ex-017 Red? Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner, registration unknown, Ex-005 Red? Converted to, see below, Ex-018 Red? Converted to, see below, Instytut Lotnictwa, ejection seat testbed, Ex-001 Red? Converted to, see below, 7, PLS, Polish Navy, Ex-004 Red? Converted to, see below, 7, PLS, Polish Navy, Preserved in Polish museum, location unknown, Ex-005 Red? Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner as N687, Ex-032 Red? Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner as N5557B, Ex-007 Red? Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner 7-93 as N157GL. Ex-008 Red? Converted to, see below, Polish Navy, 7, PLS, camouflaged, WFU Siemirowice AB; later to L6dz Museum, Ex-01O Red? Converted to, see below, Preserved Muzeum Katynskie, Ex-012 Red? Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner, registration unknown, Ex-021 Red? Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner, registration unknown, Ex-032 Red? Converted to, see below, Under restoration in Warsaw,
46 Red 101 Red 102 Red 103 Red 104 Red 105 Red 106 Red 107 Red 117 Red
201 Red 202 Red 203 Red
Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A t Lim-1 SBLim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A t Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2A Lim-1 SBLim-2 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 Lim-1 SBLim-2 Lim-1
1BO,-46? Lim-2 SBLim-2 1B001-01 Lim-2 1B001-02 Lim-2 1B001-03 Lim-2 SBLim-2A 1B001-04 Lim-2R 1B001-05 Lim-2 SBLim-2 1B001-06 Lim-2 Lim-2R? 1B001-07 Lim-2 1B001-17? Lim-2 SBLim-2A SBLim-2M 1B002-01 Lim-2 18002-02 Lim-2 (c)? 18002-03 Lim-2 SBLim-2A SBLim-2M
204 Red 205 Red
18002-04 1B002-05
206 Red 207 Red 208 Red 209 Red 210 Red 211 Red 212 Red 213 Red
18002-06 18002-07 18002-08 18002-09 1B002-10 1B002-11 1B002-12 18002-13
Lim-2 Lim-2 SBLim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
Ex-034 Red? Converted to, see below, 32,PLRT. Ex-022 Red? Converted to, see below, 11, PLM, Ex-026 Red? Converted to, see below, 7, PLM, Ex-031 Red? Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner as N150MG, Ex-039 Red? Converted to, see below, 7, PLS, Polish Navy, Preserved L6dz Museum, Ex-048 Red? Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner as N90JD, Ex-017 Red? Possibly converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner as N17KM, Ex-020 Red? Converted to, see below, Camouflaged, preserved Muzeum Braterstwa Brani, Drzon6w, Now repainted as 8020 Red, Ex-002 Red? Converted to, see below. Retired, ground instructional airframe, Ex-013 Red? Converted to, see below, 39, PLM, stored Mierz~cice AB. Ex-016 Red? Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner as N1383L, First aircraft built.
Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owner 7-93,
Converted to, see below, Unconfirmed (drawing only), First aircraft built. Converted to, see below,
Converted to, see below, Possibly converted to, see below, Polish Navy, Converted to, see below, Converted to, see below, 45, PLM-B, white overall.
Converted to, see below, Converted to, see below, Photo caption states c/n as 27003 (ie, Khar'kov-built UTI-MiG-15) but acft has MiG, 15bis-style airbrakes never fitted to UTI-MiG-15s, See UTI-MiG-15 section above, Converted to, see below,
MiG-15
101
214 Red 215 Red 216 Red 301 Red
302 Red
303 Red 304 Red 305 Red
306 Red
18002-14 18002-15 18002-16 18003-01
18003-02
18003-03 18003-04 18003-05
18003-06
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2R Lim-2 S8Lim-2A
Lim-2 S8Lim-2A
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 S8Lim-2A Lim-2 S8Lim-2A
307 Red
18003-07
Lim-2R
308 Red 309 Red
18003-08 18003-09
Lim-2 Lim-2 S8Lim-2A
310 Red 311 Red
18003-10 18003-11
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2R
312 Red 313 Red 314 Red 315 Red 316 Red 317 Red 318 Red 319 Red 320 Red 321 Red 322 Red 323 Red 324 Red 325 Red 326 Red 327 Red 328 Red 329 Red 330 Red 401 Red 402 Red 403 Red 404 Red 405 Red 406 Red 407 Red 408 Red 409 Red 410 Red 420 Red 501 Red 502 Red 503 Red 504 Red 505 Red
18003-12 18003-13 18003-14 18003-15 18003-16 18003-17 18003-18 18003-19 18003-20 18003-21 18003-22 1B003-23 1B 003-24 1B 003-25 1B 003-26 18003-27 1B 003-28 1B 003-29 1B003-30 1B004-01 1B 004-02 1B004-03 1B004-04 1B004-05 1B004-06 1B004-07 1B004-08 1B004-09 1B004-10 1B 004-20? 1B 005-01 1B 005-02 1B005-03 1B 005-04 1B 005-05
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2R Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2? Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
102
MiG-15
Converted to, see below,
Cln quoted in Euromil as 1A00301 but this does not make sense, PreselVed Flugausstellung LeotPeter Junior, Hermeskeil, Germany, Converted to, see below, Cln quoted in Euromil as 1A00302 but this does not make sense, Sold to the USA/private owner as N1705U,
506 Red 507 Red 508 Red 509 Red 510 Red 511 Red 512 Red 543 Red
18005-06 18005-07 18005-08 18005-09 18005-10 18005-11 18005-12 18005-43
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2R Lim-2 S8Lim-2
597 Red
18005-977 Lim-2?
S8Lim-2? Converted to, see below, 45.LED, trials aircraft, Cln quoted in Euromil as 1A00305 but this does not make sense, Converted to, see below, Cln quoted in Euromil as 1A00306 but this does not make sense, Sold to the USNprivate owner as N15HQ, PreselVed L6dz Museum (some sources say preselVed Hatzerim, Israel), Converted to, see below, Derelict Radom, Cln quoted in Euromil as 1A00309 but this does not make sense, Converted to, see below, 6, PLM-8, Cln quoted in Euromil as 1A00311 but this does not make sense, Preserved L6dz Museum,
PreselVed L6dz Museum, PreselVed/ground instructional airframe,
601 Red 602 Red
18006-01 18006-02
Lim-2 Lim-2R
603 Red 604 Red
18006-03 18006-04
605 Red 606 Red 607 Red 608 Red 609 Red 610 Red 611 Red 612 Red 613 Red 614 Red 615 Red 616 Red 617 Red 618 Red 619 Red 620 Red 634 Red
18006-05 18006-06 18006-07 18006-08 18006-09 18006-10 18006-11 18006-12 18006-13 18006-14 18006-15 18006-16 18006-17 18006-18 18006-19 18006-20 18006-34
635 Red 666 Red
18006-35 18006-66
Lim-2 Lim-2 S8Lim-2A S8Lim-2M Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2R Lim-2 S8Lim-2A Lim-2 Lim-2
701 Red 702 Red 703 Red 704 Red 705 Red 706 Red 707 Red 708 Red 709 Red
1B007-01 1B007-02 18007-03 18007-04 18007-05 18007-06 1B007-07 1B007-08 18007-09
710 Red 711 Red 712 Red 713 Red 714 Red 715 Red 716 Red 717 Red 718 Red 719 Red 720 Red 721 Red 722 Red 723 Red
1B007-10 1B007-11 1B007-12 1B007-13 1B007-14 1B 007-15 1B 007-16 1B 007-17 18007-18 18007-19 1B007-20 1B007-21 1B007-22 1B007-23
Preserved L6dz Museum, Converted to, see below, Reported in Euromil but cln doubtful (number of aircraft in batch too high!) Possibly CS-102, Cln as reported in Euromil but doubtful (number of aircraft in batch too high!), Converted to, see below, Reported as such in Polish book but probably UTI-MiG-15 (or CS-1 02 cln 522597), 1, PLM, First aircraft with Lis-2 engine, PreselVed L6dz Museum, Converted to, see below, Converted to, see below, Polish Navy,
Converted to, see below,
Cln doubtful (is this high number of aircraft in batch correct?)
Serial known but exact version unknown,
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 SBLim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
Converted to, see below, Polish Navy,
724 Red 725 Red 726 Red 727 Red 728 Red 729 Red 730 Red 731 Red 732 Red 0732 Red 733 Red 734 Red 735 Red 736 Red 737 Red 738 Red 739 Red 740 Red 741 Red 742 Red 743 Red 744 Red 745 Red 746 Red 747 Red 748 Red
18007-24 18007-25 18007-26 18007-27 18007-28 18007-29 18007-30 18007-31 18007-32
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 S8Lim-2A Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 S8Lim-2A Lim-2? S8Lim-2A
18007-33 18007-34 18007-35 18007-36 18007-37 18007-38 18007-39 18007-40 18007-41 18007-42 18007-43 18007-44 18007-45 18007-46 18007-47 18007-48
773 Red
18007-73
801 Red 802 Red 803 Red 804 Red 805 Red 806 Red 807 Red 808 Red 809 Red 810 Red 811 Red 812 Red 813 Red 814 Red 815 Red 816 Red 817 Red 818 Red 819 Red 820 Red 821 Red 822 Red
18008-01 18008-02 18008-03 18008-04 18008-05 18008-06 18008-07 18008-08 18008-09 18008-10 18008-11 18008-12 18008-13 18008-14 18008-15 18008-16 18008-17 18008-18 18008-19 18008-20 18008-21 18008-22
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
823 Red 824 Red 901 Red 902 Red 903 Red 904 Red 905 Red 906 Red 907 Red 908 Red 909 Red 910 Red
18008-23 18008-24 18009-01 18009-02 18009-03 18009-04 18009-05 18009-06 18009-07 18009-08 18009-09 18009-10
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
Converted to, see below, 7, PLS/1, eskadra/2, klucz, Polish Navy,
Converted to, see below, Sold to the USA/private owned ar N78053, Converted to, see below, Reported in Euromil but c/n doubtful (number of aircraft in batch too high!); could be CS-1 02 c/n 722773,
C/n quoted in Euromil as 1A2822 but this does not make sense +. Sold to the USNprivate owner as N822JM,
911 Red 912 Red 913 Red 914 Red 915 Red 916 Red 917 Red 918 Red 919 Red 920 Red 921 Red 922 Red 923 Red 924 Red 925 Red 926 Red 927 Red 928 Red 929 Red
18009-11 18009-12 18009-13 18009-14 18009-15 18009-16 18009-17 18009-18 18009-19 18009-20 18009-21 18009-22 18009-23 18009-24 18009-25 18009-26 18009-27 18009-28 18009-29
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
1001 Red 1002 Red 1003 Red 1004 Red 1005 Red 1006 Red 1007 Red 1008 Red 1009 Red 1010 Red 1011 Red 1012 Red 1013 Red 1014 Red 1015 Red 1016 Red 1017 Red 1018 Red 1019 Red 1020 Red 1101 Red 1102 Red 1103 Red 1104 Red 1105 Red 1106 Red 1107 Red 1109 Red 1108 Red 1110 Red 1111 Red 1112 Red 1113 Red 1114 Red 1115 Red 1116 Red 1117 Red 1118 Red 1119 Red 1120 Red 1121 Red 1122 Red 1123 Red 1124 Red 1125 Red 1126 Red 1127White
18010-01 18010-02 18010-03 18010-04 18 010-05 18010-06 18010-07 18010-08 18010-09 18010-10 18010-11 18010-12 18010-13 18010-14 18010-15 18010-16 18010-17 18010-18 18010-19 18010-20 18011-01 18011-02 18011-03 18011-04 18011-05 18011-06 18011-07 18011-08 18011-09 18011-10 18011-11 18011-12 18011-13 18011-14 18011-15 1B011-16 18011-17 18011-18 18011-19 18011-20 18011-21 18011-22 18011-23 18011-24 18011-25 18011-26 18011-27
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2R Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2R Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
Crashed 26-6-58, mid-air collision with Lim-5 '1014 Red',
Sold to the USA/private owner as N13KM,
Sold to the USNprivate owner as N15YY.
Preserved RAF Museum, Hendon (1986),
Camouflaged, Lim-2 smugacz prototype, MiG-15
103
1201 Red 1202 Red 1203 Red 1204 Red 1205 Red 1206 Red 1207 Red 1208 Red 1209 Red 1210 Red 1211 Red 1212 Red 1213 Red 1214 Red 1215 Red 1216 Red 1217 Red 1218 Red 1219 Red 1220 Red 1221 Red 1222 Red 1223 Red 1224 Red 1225 Red 1226 Red 1227 Red 1228 Red 1229 Red 1230 Red 1301 Red 1302 Red 1303 Red 1304 Red 1305 Red 1306 Red 1307 Red 1308 Red 1309 Red 1310 Red 1311 Red 1312 Red
1B012-01 1B 012-02 1B 012-03 1B 012-04 1B 012-05 1B012-06 1B012-07 1B 012-08 1B 012-09 1B012-10 1B012-11 1B012-12 1B012-13 1B012-14 1B012-15 1B012-16 1B 012-17 1B 012-18 1B012-19 1B012-20 1B012-21 1B012-22 1B012-23 1B012-24 1B012-25 1B012-26 1B012-27 1B012-28 1B012-29 1B012-30 1B013-01 1B013-02 1B013-03 1B 013-04 1B 013-05 1B 013-06 1B 013-07 1B 013-08 1B013-09 1B013-10 1B 013-11 1B 013-12
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
1313 Red 1314 Red 1315 Red 1316 Red 1317 Red 1318 Red 1319 Red 1320 Red 1321 Red 1322 Red
1B013-13 1B 013-14 1B013-15 1B013-16 1B013-17 1B013-18 1B013-19 1B 013-20 1B013-21 1B013-22
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
1323 Red 1401 Red 1402 Red 1403 Red 1404 Red 1405 Red 1406 Red 1407 Red 1408 Red 1409 Red 1410 Red 1411 Red
1B 013-23 1B014-01 1B 014-02 1B 014-03 1B 014-04 1B 014-05 1B014-06 1B014-07 1B 014-08 1B 014-09 1B014-10 1B014-11
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
104
MiG-15
Sold to the USNprivate owner as N205JM.
Preserved Polish Air Force Museum, Krak6w. Sold to the USA?
Preserved Muzeum Wojska Pofskiego, Warsaw, 13-1-71 as '1530 Red', later as '1132 Red'.
Crashed 25-6-63, mid-air collision with Lim-5 '1528 Red'.
1412Red 1413 Red 1414 Red 1415 Red 1416 Red 1417 Red 1418 Red 1419 Red 1420 Red 1421 Red 1422 Red 1423 Red 1501 Red 1502 Red 1503 Red 1504 Red 1505 Red 1506 Red 1507 Red 1508 Red 1509 Red 1510 Red 1511 Red 1512 Red 1513 Red 1514 Red 1515 Red 1516 Red 1517 Red 1518 Red 1519 Red 1520 Red 1521 Red 1522 Red 1523 Red 1524 Red 1525 Red 1526 Red
1B 014-12 1B 014-13 1B014-14 1B014-15 1B014-16 1B014-17 1B014-18 1B014-19 1B014-20 1B014-21 1B 014-22 1B 014-23 1B015-01 1B 015-02 1B 015-03 1B015-04 1B015-05 1B015-06 1B015-07 1B015-08 1B 015-09 1B 015-10 1B 015-11 1B 015-12 1B 015-13 1B015-14 1B015-15 1B015-16 1B015-17 1B015-18 1B015-19 1B015-20 1B015-21 1B015-22 1B 015-23 1B 015-24 1B 015-25 1B 015-26
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
1527 Red 1528 Red 1529 Red 1530 Red 1601 Red 1602 Red 1603 Red 1604 Red 1605 Red 1606 Red
1B 015-27 1B015-28 1B015-29 1B015-30 1B016-01 1B016-02 1B016-03 1B 016-04 1B 016-05 1B 016-06
Lim-2R Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
1607 Red 1608 Red 1609 Red 1610 Red 1611 Red 1612 Red 1613 Red 1614 Red
1B016-07 1B016-08 1B016-09 1B 016-10 1B 016-11 1B 016-12 1B 016-13 1B016-14
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
1615 Red 1616 Red 1617 Red 1618 Red 1619 Red 1620 Red 1621 Red
1B016-15 1B016-16 1B016-17 1B 016-18 1B 016-19 1B016-20 1B016-21
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
Sold to the USNprivate owner as N416JM.
Sold to the UK/Aces High as G-BMZF.
Preserved Muzeum imieni Orla Bialego (White Eagle Museum), Skarzysko Kamienna. Preserved Andrych6w.
'The real McCoy'; see also 1312 Red.
Sold to the USNprivate owner as N606BM (N606JM?)
Preserved L6di Museum. Sold to the USNprivate owner as N614BM (N614JM?)
Sold to the USNprivate owner as N621 BM (N621JM?)
Romanian Air Force MiG-15 '244 Red' in post1985 markings (probably a Czech-built 8-102) preserved in a Romanian museum. Peter Davison
2713 Red, a Romanian Air Force MIG-15bis (8-103?) displayed at the Museul Militar National in Bucharest. Peter Davison
This very weathered UTI-MiG-15 (134 Red) is one of two preserved at the Museul Militar National. Peter Davison
The other Midget at the Museul Militar National is in much better condition. Peter Davison
MiG-15
105
1622 Red 1623 Red 1624 Red 1625 Red 1626 Red 1627 Red 1628 Red 1629 Red
1B 016-22 1B 016-23 1B016-24 1B 016-25 1B016-26 1B 016-27 1B016-28 1B016-29
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
1630 Red 1701 Red 1702 Red 1703 Red 1704 Red 1705 Red
1B 016-30 1B 017-01 1B017-02 1B 017-03 1B017-04 1B 017-05
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
1801 Red 1802 Red 1803 Red
1B 018-01 1B 018-02 1B 018-03
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
1804 Red 1805 Red 1806 Red 1807 Red 1808 Red 1809 Red
1B 018-04 1B018-05 1B 018-06 1B018-07 1B018-08 1B018-09
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2R
1901 Red 1902 Red 1903 Red 1904 Red 1905 Red 1906 Red 1907 Red 1908 Red 1909 Red 1910 Red 1911 Red 1912 Red 1913 Red 1914 Red '1980 Red'
1B019-01 1B019-02 1B019-03 1B 019-04 1B 019-05 1B019-06 1B 019-07 1B 019-08 1B 019-09 1B019-10 1B019-11 1B019-12 1B019-13 1B 019-14 7
Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2 Lim-2
Sold to the USNprivate owner as N629BM (N629JM7)
Preserved Muzeum Or(!ia Polskiego (Polish Arms Museum), Kolobrzeg, 19-4-78 as '1978 Red', later as '1984 Red'.
Preserved Elliniki Aeraporia Moussio (Greek Air Force Museum) as '301 '.
Preserved Muzeum Braterstwa Brani, Drzon6w, 26-4-79 (DID; officially donated 21-6-79). n 1,599hrs 9min, 2,509 landings.
ROMANIA
500th and last Lim-2 built. Preserved WOSL. Cln quoted as 1B019-29 which does not make sense.
* Some aircraft which look like SBLim-2s (ie, with MiG-15bis-style airbrakes) have clns shoWing obviously non-Polish origin, which means the Polish 'licence-built' designation is not applicable. t Confirmed as Lim-1/SBLim-1 converted to SBLim-2 standard (with MiG-15bis-style airbrakes). Possibly the truth is that the aircraft reported in Euramil as 'SBLim-2A cln 1A2822' was in fact aCzech-built UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) cln 022822.
*
PWL Fagots were regular participants of various local airshows. Lim-2 '724 Red' (c/n 1B 007-24) became the first such aircraft to be demonstrated to the general public, appearing in the static park at the 1st Warsaw Air Show at Okt;lcie airport (26th August to 9th September 1956). A while earlier, in mid-1956, the Polish Air Force's first jet display team flying Lim-2s had been organised, following a proposal by 1. PLM pilots. Originally the team's three fighters were flown by Captains Zygmunt Dt;lbowski, Jerzy Figurski and Ryszard Grundman. On 26th August they participated in the flying display at Okt;lcie, putting on a lively aerobatics display which included a spectacular formation barrel roll. A year later, on 8th September 1957, the biggest Polish airshowto date took place at Babice airbase. It included a formation flypast by several hundred (!) Lim-1 sand Lim-2s in flights of four, an aerobatics display (three Urns led by Capt J6zef Sobieraj and a five-ship formation led by Capt J6zef Dt;lbowski) and even a session of mock combat between a 106
MiG-15
pair of Lim-2s, complete with firing blank ammunition for added realism! On 22nd July 1959 a formation of 64 Lims took part in the grand military parade in Warsaw marking the 15th anniversary of the People's Republic of Poland. An even grander sight was presented at the 20th anniversary in 1964. On that occasion, 26 Lim-2s from the WOSL formated to create the Roman numerals 'XX'. For this performance the WOSL received the newly-established B/f?kitne Skrzydla (Blue Wings) award from the Skrzydlata Polska magazine. On 22nd July 1966, a group of 43 Polish Navy Um-2s led by Lt Col R6zewicz participated in the parade marking 1,000 years of Polish statehood, formating to create the numerals'1000'. Originally the Polish MiG-15s and Urns flew in their natural metal factory finish. In the late 1960s surviving SBLims and UTI-MiG-15s were painted in two- or three-tone tactical camouflage. Camouflage colours and patterns varied widely from aircraft to aircraft. Unusually, SBLim-2 '018 Red' operated by the 7. PLS was painted white overall and inevitably dubbed Biala Darna (White Lady). In 1957 the Soviet-built MiG-15bis supplied as the pattern aircraft for Lim-2 production (c/n 137086?) was transferred to the Polish Institute of Aeronautics (Instytut Lotnictwa) as a research aircraft and registered SP-GLZ on 18th November 1958. The aircraft retained its natural metal finish, except for the vertical tail which was bright yellow. SP-GLZ was used to investigate aerodynamic configurations of new Polish aircraft in 'the biggest-ever wind tunnel'; for instance, it carried a scale model of the PZL TS-11 Iskra (Spark) advanced trainer. Other uses included trials of location systems for finding meteorological rockets after use. To this end, SPD-3, SP-3bis and SPD-6 instrumented test pods (sometimes misidentified as towed gunnery targets) were carried on the regular wing hardpoints and dropped at high altitude; at the terminal stage of the trajectory they were slowed by parachutes. The aircraft served with Instytut Lotnictwa until late 1972 (the registration was cancelled on 4th November).
In Romania, as in Bulgaria, the MiG-15 replaced the Yak-23 in the early 1950s. The MiG-15bis served as a fighter-bomber in the Romanian Air Force (Fortele Aeriene ale Republicii Socialiste Rornane) until the mid80s; more than 40 UTI-MiG-15s were still operational in Romania at the time. 12-plus Fagot-Bs and Midgets still served in the tactical training role in late 1991. Given Romania's obsessive and all-pervasive security, few aircraft are known. Serial
Cln
Version
223 Red 244 Red 306 Red 311 Red 375 Red 386 Red 389 Red 392 Red 415 Red 584 Red 611 Blue
...223 ...244 ...306 ...311 ...375 ...386 ...389 ...392 .. .415 ...584 ...611
MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15
767 Red 1129 Red 1197 Red 2192 Red 2404 Red 2459 Red7 2506 Red 2543 Red
231767 1411297 1411977 ...2192 ...2404 ...2459 0225067 7
MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
2546 Red
...2546
MiG-15bis
Remarks Preserved Museul Militar Central, Bucharest.
Preserved Balta Verde AB, Craiova. Camouflaged. Special colour scheme with lightning side flash. Czech-built (S-102). Czech-built (S-1 03)7 Czech-built (S-103)7 Czech-built (CS-1 02)7 Czech-built (S-1 03)7 Czech-built (S-103)7 Czech-built (CS-102)7 Not CS-102 cln 522543 (see Polish section). Preserved Museul Militar National, Bucharest. Czech-built (S-103)7
2713 Red
...2713
MiG-15bis
Czech-built (S-1 03)? Preserved Museu! Aviatiei, Bucharest-Otopeni airport.
The aircraft were either in natural metal finish or painted light grey overall, with red serials. The original star-type national insignia were replaced in 1985 by the current red/yellow/blue roundels.
SOMALIA (SOMALI DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC) Starting in 1963, the Somali Democratic Republic received MiGs from the USSR in return for letting the Soviet Air Force use its bases. The aircraft supplied to the Somalian Aeronautical Corps (Oayuuradaha Xoogga Oalka Somaliyeed) included one squadron of MiG-15bis fighter-bombers based at Hargeisa, plus seven UTI-MiG-15s. Two of the latter were reportedly still operational in the 1980s - somewhat surprisingly, considering that Somalia had terminated its friendship treaty with the USSR in November 1977 because the USSR had backed Ethiopia in its 197778 border conflict with Somalia. Hence Soviet military aid was promptly cut off, forcing the Somalian Aeronautical Corps to re-equip with Western types and Chinese copies of Soviet aircraft. Only one UTI-MiG-15 serialled CC 116 has been identified so far; this aircraft is derelict in Mogadishu. However, the aircraft carried drop tanks marked' 114', suggesting that another UTI-MiG-15 serialled CC 114 also existed.
SOVIET UNION Details of the WS MiG-15s are scarce; however, as noted earlier, until 1955 the Soviet Air Force used three- or four-digit serials based on the c/n and allowing more or less positive identification. These were later replaced by two-digit tactical codes rendering identification impossible (unless the c/n is known). More or less positively identified aircraft are listed below; post-1955 tactical codes not related to the c/n are indicated in bold type. Serial/code C/n
Version
Remarks
5Red
105015
MiG-15bis
01 (Red?)
2415372
MiG-15bis
03 Red
22013
UTI-MiG-15
06 Red
922272
UTI-MiG-15
10 Red 14 Red
722682 722679
UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
15 Blue 16 Red (a)
? ... 16
'UTI-MiG-15stk' MiG-15bis
Prototype (converted MiG-15), Mikoyan OKB; originally no serial. Ex-2472 Red. Preserved Valeriy PChkalov Museum (Chkalovsk, Nizhniy Novgorod Region). Preserved Russian Air Force Museum, Monino; ex-zero-G trainer? Khar'kov-built. DOSAAF: Czech-built (CS-102), Preserved Great Patriotic War Museum, Poklonnaya Gora, Moscow. Czech-built (CS-1 02). Derelict Voronezh. Czech-built (CS-1 02). Preserved Rigas Aviacijas Muzejs, Riga-Spilve. Ejection trainer. AV-MF*/Pacific Fleet, 32nd IAD/913th lAP. To the North Korean AF. Director aircraft for Yak-25MSh target drone. C/n as quoted in Russian book - possible misquote? Czech-built (CS-1 02)? C/n off poor-quality photograph. Hose and drogue refuelling system testbed, Mikoyan OKB. DOSAAF; c/n reported as 02417 but this does not make sense (possibly CS-1 02, first digit of c/n missing?) Preserved Kuybyshev Aviation Institute (KuAI; now Samara State Aviation University), ground instructional airframe, Ejection trainer.
16 Red (b) 106216
UTI-MiG-15
16 Red (e) 212440?
UTI-MiG-15
17 Red
MiG-15bis
...17
18 Red
UTI-MiG-15
21
MiG-15
23 Blue
'UTI-MiG-15stk'
24 Blue
2815311
MiG-15bis
27 Red
2115368
MiG-15bis ISh
30 Blue 36 Red 37 Red 43 Red
1315376 1615338 53210337 55210434
MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bisR
45 Red? 53210345 46 Red (a)? 53210346 46 Red (b) 55210465
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bisR
47 Red 51 Red 58 Yellow
53210347 922347 ?
MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15
67 Red
0315367
MiG-15bis
72 Red
0315372
MiG-15bis
72 Blue
10994003
UTI-MiG-15
85 Red
512357
UTI-MiG-15
92 Red
0315395
MiG-15bis
93 Red (a)
...93
MiG-15bis
93 Red (b)
812579
UTI-MiG-15
014 Red 044 Red 101' Blue 102' Blue 110 Red 122 Red 125 Black
...014 134044 10101 10102 .. ,1..10 ...1..22 111025
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 (ST-10) UTI-MiG-15 (ST-10) MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15
132 Red 138 Red 146 Red 153' Blue 172 Blue 182 Red 183 Red 188 Red 192 Red 201 Red 201 Blue 226 Red 231 Red 235 Blue 239 Red 244 Red 271 Red 300 Red
121032 121038 121046 ...2...153? 121072 121082 121083 121088 121092 0112 ...2...01 122026 122031 122035 53211239 ...2...44 2015371 123100?
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
302 Blue 317 Red
...3...02 3317
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
325 Red 327 Red
1...3025 123027
MiG-15bis MiG-15bis
Ex-2811 Red, fighter-bomber conversion prototype, Mikoyan OKB. Ex-2168 Red. Preserved Russian Air Force Museum, Monino. Ex-1376 Red, training aircraft. 356th lAP PVO, Amderma. Nil WS, trials aircraft. Ex-434 Red. GSVG/294th ORAp, Altenburg AB. Retired as target at gunnery range (Wittstock AB), scrapped Rangsdorf AB 1992, Nil WS, trials aircraft. Nil WS, trials aircraft. Ex-465 Red. GSVG/294th ORAp, Altenburg AB. Retired as target at gunnery range (Wittstock AB), scrapped Rangsdorf AB 1992, Nil WS, trials aircraft, Czech-built (CS-1 02). Preserved Rigas Aviacijas Muzejs. C/n quoted in Euromi! as 02611 but this does not make sense. 106th IAD/29th GvIAP. To the PlAAF, mid-1950, 106th lAD/29th GvIAP. To the PlAAF, mid-1950. 105th ADIS/559th APIB, wrecked Finsterwalde. Czech-built (CS-102). 4th VN239th Baranovichskaya IAD/159th Novorossiyskiy GvIAp, Kluczewo (Stargard) AB, Poland. 106th lAD/29th GvIAP. To the PlAAF, mid-1950. AV-MF/Pacific Fleet, 32nd IAD/913th lAP. To the North Korean AF. Czech-built (CS-102). GSVG, preserved Allstedt AS until 1991. Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur? 133rd IAD/415th lAP. To the North Korean AF. Ejection seat testbed, L11. Ejection seat testbed, L11. C/n could be 111010 or 0115310. 303rd lAD/17th IAP/1 st AE. To NKorean AF. 324th IAD/176th GvlAP/2nd AE. To North Korean Air Force. 303rd lAD/17th lAP. To the North Korean AF. 303rd IAD/523rd lAP. To the North Korean AF. 303rd IAD/523rd lAP. To the North Korean AF. Czech-built (CS-102). Aerodynamics research aircraft, L11. Nil WS, trials aircraft. 303rd lAD/17th lAP. To the North Korean AF. 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF. 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF. Saratov-built. Nil WS, trials aircraft. 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF. To the North Korean AF. Development aircraft, Mikoyan OKB/NII WS. Nil WS, trials aircraft. 2161h IAD/518th lAP. To the North Korean AF. 351st lAP; unconfirmed (drawing only). To the North Korean AF, Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur, Nil WS, trials aircraft. AV-MF. C/n is either 123025 or 133025, 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF, MiG-15
107
Top and below: The ex-North Korean MiG-15bis (47-0616?) at a late stage of its evaluation by the USAF. The aircraft wears an Air Force Systems Command badge on the fuselage; the TC buzz code reportedly stood for Tom Collins. Yefim Gordon archive
This unmarked MiG·15bis sits in a private museum somewhere in California. Helmut Walther
Polish Navy 58-lim-2M '604 Red'. Waclaw Holys
MiG-15
109
none none none none none none none none none none none
115002 120113 132020 53210114 53210120 55210101 2415398 3810102 3810203 3810510 01246?
not known not known not known
10444 103012 106220
not known not known not known not known
122040 122058 122067 127035
not known not known not known not known not known
3810510 0215341 0815358 53210434 53210668
not known
2301
not known not known not known
31530504 022618 022712
MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraft, MiG-15 MiG-15bisR (SR) MiG-15bisS (SD-UPB) Prototype, Mikoyan OKB, MiG-15bisR (SR) Prototype, Mikoyan OKB, MiG-15bisR First production aircraft, MiG-15bis Became 2498 Red? MiG-15 (SA-1) Mikoyan OKB development aircraft, MiG-15 Mikoyan OKB development aircraft, MiG-15 UTI-MiG-15P (ST-7) Prototype, Mikoyan OKB, C/n read off poorquality photograph, UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraft, UTI-MiG-15 Director aircraft for Yak-25MSh target drone, C/n quoted in Russian book - possible error? MiG-15bis (SYa) Mikoyan OKB development acft/NII WS trials, MiG-15bis (SYa) Mikoyan OKB development acft/NII WS trials, MiG-15bis (SYa) Mikoyan OKB development acft/NII WS trials, MiG-15bis Mikoyan OKB development aircraft (drop tank tests)? MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraft, MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraft MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft, MiG-15bis Mikoyan OKB development aircraft, MiG-15bis Mikoyan OKB development acft (0,8m 2 airbrake tests), MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Nil WS, trials aircraft. MiG-15bis W/O in landing accident at Tbilisi plant 24-5-52. UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). GSVG/19th GvAPIB, Liirz AB; retired/scrapped by 1993.
* AV-MF = aviahtsiya voyenno-morskovo flota - Naval air arm t Curiously, aMiG-15bis was used in a (possibly American) movie, painted in pre-1955 Soviet markings with the serial '8170' (!!) on the nose and the c/n 0615316 writ large on the upper fin section! The serial, which does not match the c/n, and the size and location of the latter are totally incongruous, not to mention the fact that the real 0615316 was a'pure' MiG-15 Fagot-A, not abis!
SRI LANKA (CEYLON) On 22nd April 1971 the Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF), formerly Royal Ceylon Air Force (RCyAF), received a single UTI-MiG-15 serialled CF 901 from the USSR for training its MiG-17 pilots. Spares for the MiGs and a team of Soviet instructors arrived at Katunayake (China Bay) on the same day. The Midget was operated by the 6th Sqn. at Katunayake until 1979.
SUDAN
SYRIA The Syrian Air Force (al Ouwwat al Jawwiya al-Arabiya as-Suriya) ordered its first 25 MiG-15bis fighters in 1955. These were delivered from Czechoslovakia in 1956, along with a few UTI-MiG-15s, to Abu Sueir AB in Egypt where the Syrian pilots were taking their training. Alas, all of them except four Midgets were destroyed on the ground at Abu Sueir by Royal Navy Westland Wyvem attack aircraft on 1st November 1956 without ever flying a single sortie. MiG-15
TANZANIA'
' ,
The Air Wing of the Tanzanian People's Defence Force was largely equipped with aircraft of Chinese origin, including two FT-2s (UTI-MiG15s) based at Mikumi AB 130km (80 miles) north of Dar es Salaam. These were still operational in the mid-80s.
UGANDA',
.
Two UTI-MiG-15s were supplied to the Uganda Army Air Force in the mid70s to support about 12 MiG-17s. The aircraft were based at Entebbe.
UNITED KINGDOM Several MiG-15s retired by the Polish Air Force have found their way to warbird collectors and museums in the UK. A Czech-built UTI-MiG-15 (ex-6247 Red, cln 622047) converted to SBLim-2A standard with 0.8m' airbrakes and a camera fairing was operated by Graham Hinkley (Shoreham) under the appropriate out-of-sequence registration G-OMIG, makingh its first post-restoration flight on 19th November 1993 (still in PWL camouflage). Later it went to the Old Flying Machine Company (RAF Duxford) and was put on display at the Imperial War Museum. The aircraft is now natural metal with red trim and painted in pre-1955 Soviet markings as '6247 Blue'. The serial presentation is open to doubt, since only Novosibirsk-built SovAF Midgets are known to have had four-digit serials; had this aircraft actually been supplied to the USSR, the serial could just as easily have been 247' Blue. Lim-2 '1420 Red' (c/n 1B 014-20) was acquired by Aces High Ltd which operates the aircraft in its original markings under the registration G-BMZF. This aircraft gained fame in February 1987 when it was used as a backdrop for a Pilot's Pal photo session with model Susan Jane Watts; in 1993 it was repainted in North Korean markings with the absolutely non-authentic serial 01420 Red. Another Lim-2 (1120 Red, cln 1B 011-20) is on display at the RAF Museum at Hendon since 1986. Finally, an SBLim-1 (ex-908 Red, c/n 1A 09-008) was reportedly under restoration by Graham Hinkley at Shoreham in 1995. It is not known if the restoration was to airworthy condition or just as a static exhibit.
.
After President Jaffar Nimairy came to power, the Sudan Air Force (al Ouwwat al-Jawwiya as-Sudaniya) received Soviet aircraft, including UTIMiG-15s to complement Shenyang F-5s (MiG-17Fs) supplied by China. No details are known.
110
Further deliveries came later, including UTI-MiG-15s. Syrian MiG-15s took part in all subsequent Middle Eastem conflicts with Israel, but most of the aircraft lost in these conflicts were destroyed on the ground, not in the air. One squadron of UTI-MiG-15s remained by early 1987; more than 25 aircraft were reportedly still operational in late 1991. Only one Syrian UTI-MiG-15 serialled 273 has been identified. This camouflaged (and extremely weathered) aircraft now survives in a museum whose location is unknown - possibly in Israel.
A Novosibirsk-built MiG-15bis serialled 2057 (c/n 2015337) fell into American hands when it was flown to Kimpo AB near Seoul by defector Ro Kim Suk on 21 st September 1953. Painted in USAF markings and reserialled '7616' (ie, 47-06167), the fighter was evaluated at Kadena AB (Okinawa, Japan) and later at Eglin AFB (Florida) and Wright-Patterson AFB (Dayton, Ohio) in 1954. At a late stage of the evaluation trials it received the buzz number TC-616 (the letters reportedly stood for Tom Collins, one of the test pilots flying it), an Air Force Systems Command badge on the centre fuselage (on the starboard side only) and a USAFstyle red caution stripe around the aft fuselage. Curiously, this stripe was applied immediately ahead of the fin (approximately at frame 21), not at the fuselage break point. The aircraft is now preserved in accurately restored original markings atthe USAF Museum (Wright-Patterson AFB).
Later, the Defense Test and Evaluation Support Agency (DTESA) obtained a number of MiGs from Poland in the mid-80s for use in clandestine research programmes and for realistic threat simulation during exercises such as Red Flag, These included Lim-2 '822 Red' (c/n 1B 00822) painted in a spurious sandlgreen camouflage scheme. Another DTESA aircraft was SBLim-1 '038 Red' (c/n 1A 06-038)' based at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. This had matt white uppersurfaces, deep blue undersurfaces and a black horse's head logo on the fin; unlike some of the other aircraft, though, it was devoid of national insignia. The aircraft was fitted with Western communications and naVigation equipment, as evideneed by the non-standard aerials under the forward fuselage and on the sides of the fin. Later, 038 Red was donated to the Pima Air Museum (Pima County, Arizona). Another SBLim-2 operated by DTESA (possibly ex-N271 JM, cln 242271) was painted in Soviet markings with the tactical code '71 Red'. Apart from that, numerous Polish- and Chinese-built MiGs began pouring into the USA in 1986 when the Iron Curtain was lifted - much to the joy of warbird enthusiasts and collectors. Such aircraft have been operated in the Experimental category with a limited certificate of airworthiness. Known civil MiG-15s operated in the United States are listed below. Registration Cln N13KM
N106JB N15HQ
1B010-13
Version
Remarks
Lim-2
Ex-PWL 1013, Classics in Aviation (Reno, Nevada) via Middlesbrough, UK. Later sold as, see below, War Eagles Air Museum (Santa Teresa, NM). Ex-PWL 306; cln also reported as '1 A03506' (ie, 3506, converted MiG-15bis ?). Owned by Josephs Four, Inc (Fayetteville, GA, did 15-6-94), later Minnesota Air National Guard Historical Foundation, Inc (St Paul, MN), registration date 16-1-97, Ex-PWL 017. Owned by Raymond JWeible (New Kensington, PAl, regn date 4-5-95. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on·Amur. Owned by EAA Aviation Center (Oshkosh, WI), registration date 2-2-93; later sold to Combat Jets Flying Museum (Houston, TX). Ex-PLAAF, painted in Chinese markings as '4115 White', red aft fuselage &tail. Ex-PWL 625? Owned by MiG, Inc (Pittsford, Ny), registration date 4-5-1998. Converted Czech-built CS-1 02. Owned by Phoenix Warbirds (Phoenix, AZ), registration date 15-3-96; sold to Richard AFowler (Park City, UT). Ex-PWL 1016. Owned by Donald RYoung (Santa Barbara, CA, did 8-88), then Stephen JCraig (Lawrence, KS, did 10-93), then Combat Air Museum, Inc (Topeka, KS), registration date 28-7-97, Ex-PWL 8017. Owned by John McGuire (Santa Teresa, NM, did 2-87), then AI Reddick (Classics in Aviation, Reno, NV, did 6-87). Sold to Howard Torman (Aviation Classics Ltd, Reno, NV, did 1991), then Tacair Systems (Reno, NV) as 'Soviet AF 17 Red', registration date 29-6-91. Ex-PWL 638. Owned by John McGuire (Santa Teresa, NM, did 23-1-87), then AI Reddick (Classics in Aviation, Reno, NV, did 6-87). To DTESA as 038 Red; WFU 10-89, stored AMARC 1992-93, to Pima Air Museum as 'PWL 038' 1993, Ex-PWL 640. Owned by John McGuire as 'Soviet AF 640 Red'.
1B003-06? SBLim-2A
N15LC
1A 10-017
SBLim-2A
N15MG
1411
MiG-15bis
N15MU
1A 06-025
SBLim-1
N15UT
522546
'SBLim-2'
N15VY
1B010-16
Lim-2
N17KM
1A 08-017
SBLim-2A
N38BM
N40BM
1A 06-038
1A 06-040
SBLim-2A
SBLim-1?
N51MG
1961
MiG-15bis
N83GP
2562
UTI-MiG-15
N87CN
MiG-15bis
N90JD
1A 07-048
SBLim-1
N115MG
622028
'SBLim-2A'*
N115PW
SBLim-2
NX115PN N115UT
31040
UTI-MiG-15
N132DG
1A 07-032
SBLim-2A
N150MG
1A 07-031
SBLim-2A
N157GL
1A05-007
SBLim-2A
N205JM
1B 012-05
Lim-2
N215MG
522555
'SBLim-2'
N271JM
242271
UTI-MiG-15
N302LA
613302?
'SBLim-2A'
N304SB
3504
'SBLim-2M'
N416JM
1B014-16
Lim-2
N515MG
3508
'SBLim-2'
Ex-PLANAF. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'skon-Amur, Owned by James EBeasley (Philadelphia, PA, did 3-89), later NASW Foundation (Cape May, NJ), regn date 23-4-99, Ex-PWL 2562, converted MiG-15bis. Owned by GPanaitescu (Vintage Wings, Inc; Anchorage, AK), registration date 3-93; sold to Air Station, Inc (Arlington, WA) 2-9-98, Ex-PLAAF 83277 Red. Owned by Cinema Air (Carlsbad, CA, did 14-6-91), later Air Museum (Chino, CA), registration date 3-2-99. Cln reported as 910-51 but this doesn't make sense. Ex-PWL 7048. Owned by Jerry DGuffey (Kowloon, Hong Kong), regn date 28-9-96. Ex-PWL 628, converted CS-1 02. Owned by Brunetto Flying Services (Coolidge, AZ), did 3-94; sold to Phoenix Warbirds (Phoenix, AZ) 16-3-94, then to Steve Ottosi (Hidden Hills, CAl 25-8-94, then to Michael ABroderick (Mansfield, OH) 14-12-98 Ex-PWL 115? Owned by Wilke &Associates, Inc (Rocklin, CAl, registration date 12-6-92; displayed at Cavanaugh Flight Museum (Dallas-Addison, TX). Re-registered, see below. Owned by Cavanaugh Flight Museum as 'PWL 115'. Khar'kov-built. Owned by Vernon Ricks (Greenwood, MS), registration date 5-4-99, Ex-PWL 032; cln also reported as 1A06-032! Owned by Donald AGianquitto (Melrose, MT), registration date 4-8-94. Ex-PWL 7031 ,Owned by Fantasy Fighters (Santa Fe, NM), registration date 23-9-93. Ex-PWL 5007. Owned by George Lazik (Van Nuys, CA, did 21-7-93), later Laurie Rollings (Tesuque, NM), registration date 13-4-96. Ex-PWL 1205. Owned by John McGuire (Santa Teresa, NM, did 23-1-87), then AI Reddick (Classics in Aviation, Reno, NV, did 6-87). To DTESA 1988; WFU 10-89, stored AMARC 1990-93, to be shipped to the UK, Ex-PWL 555; converted Czech-built CS-1 02. Owned by James CGood (Casper, WY), registration date 7-7-99. Czech-built (CS-102). Ex-PWL 2271, Classics in Aviation via Middlesbrough. To DTESA as 'Soviet AF 71 Red'? Later sold to Evergreen Vintage Aircraft, Inc (McMinnville, OR), registration date 23-4-99. Ex-PWL3302; converted CS-102? (c/n reported as 1A3302 but this does not make sense). Owned by Krzysztof Kulinski (did 12-93), later CDavid Austin (Derry, PA), registration date 1-6-94. Ex-PWL 304; converted MiG-15bis, Owned by George Lazik (Van Nuys,CA, did 21-7-93), later Laurie Rollings (Tesuque, NM), registration date 13-4-96, as 'PWL 304'. Ex-PWL 1416, Classics in Aviation via Middlesbrough. To John McGuire/War Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87). Ex-PWL 308; converted MiG-15bis (c/n reported as 1A03508 but this does not make sense). Owned by Richard Sugden (Wilson, WY), registration date 21-8-98. MiG-15
111
N606JM
1B 016-06
Lim-2
N614JM
1B016-14
Lim-2
N621JM
1B016-21
Lim-2
N629JM
1B016-29
Lim-2
N678
27003
UTI-MiG-15
N687
1A 02-005
SBLim-2A
N710DW
1A07-010
SBLim-1
N822JM
1B008-22
Lim-2
N996
122071
MiG-15bis
N1383L
1A 09-016
SBLim-2
N1705U N2069
1B 003-02 2238
SBLim-2A UTI-MiG-15
N2276H N5557B
813277 1A02-032
UTI-MiG-15 SBLim-2A
N7013L
MiG-15bis
N7013N
JJ-2
N9012
1A09-012
SBLim-2A
N41125
242266
UTI-MiG-15
N76584
1A07-056
SBLim-2A
N78053
1B 007-48
SBLim-2A
N90589
3292
MiG-15bis
112
MiG-15
Ex-PWL 1606, Owned by John McGuirel War Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87), Also reported as N606BM! Ex·PWL 1614, Owned by John McGuirel War Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87), Also reported as N614BM! Ex-PWL 1621, Owned by John McGuirel War Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87), Also reported as N621 BM! Ex-PWL 1629, Owned by John McGuirel War Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87), Also reported as N629BM! Khar'kov-built. Ex-PWL 203, Owned by Steven GPenning (Windsor, CAl, registration date 8-8-95, Ex-PWL 2005, Owned by Steven GPenning (Windsor, CAl, registration date 3-2-94, Ex-PWL 710, Owned by Dan AWesley (Pleasanton, CAl, registration date 15-8-95, Ex-PWL 0822; registration sometimes reported in error as N822LM, Owned by John McGuire (did 1-87), then AI Reddick (as 'Soviet AF 822 Red', did 6-87), To DTESA; WFU 1990, std AMARC 1990-92, to Pima Air Museum (rolled out as 'North Korean AF 822 Red' 22-6·92), Ex-PLANAF. Owned by Terence GKlingele (Belleville, IL), registration date 23-3-93, Ex-PWL 9016, Owned by Donald AGianquitto (Melrose, MT), registration date 3-9-97, Ex-PWL 302, Chinese-built (JJ-2)? Owned by Earl JCurtis (Phoenix, AZ), registration date 15-11-95, Czech-built (CS-1 02), ex-PWL 277. Ex·PWL 2032; based Reno, NV. Cln also reported as 1A512032 which does not make sense (ie, converted CS-102 cln 512032?) Ex-PLAAF 81072; cln reported as 81072 but this does not make sense, Owned by Warren Sessler (China Technologies, Inc, Chino, CAl, registration date 6-88, Later to Planes of Fame Museum as PLAAF 81072; loaned to US Navy Air Museum, MCAS EI Toro, Ex-PLAAF 81676; cln reported as 81676 but this does not make sense, Owned by Warren Sessler (China Technologies, Inc, Chino, CAl, registration date 6-88, Ex·PWL 012 (9012?), Owned by Robert L Reid/Lusso Service (Mesa, ALj, stored Duiven (Holland) 1992-93 in airworthy condition, delivered to the USA 15-1-94, Czech-built (CS-102), Ex-PWL 266, overall golden colour scheme, Owned by Thomas M Smith (Granada Hills, CA), registration date 1-5-96, Ex-PWL 056, Owned by Jack's Air Service of Florida, Inc (Daytona Beach, FL), registration date 22·4-97, Ex-PWL 748, Owned by Michael FBauman (Olney, IL), registration date 3-95, Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur; cln also reported as 2292, Ex-PLAAF, Owned by First City Ai rCharter Ltd (Los Angeles, CA, flf 297-87), then James KWickersham (Danville, CA, registration date 31-1-92), painted as Soviet Air Force '1170 White' to suggest cln 1115370; twin red stripes on nose, To Bill
122073
MiG-15bis
not known
621524
UTI-MiG-15
not known
622022
'SBLim-2A'*
not known
1A01-005
SBLim-2A
not known not known
1A 06-012 1A 06-021
SBLim-2A SBLim-2A
not known
1A 06-026
SBLim-2A
not known not known
1A 09-017 3506
SBLim-2A 'SBLim-2A'*
not known
137077
MiG-15bis
not known
137085
MiG-15bis
N90601
N15PE
not known
JJ-2
ReesmaniYak Attack Airshows, Inc (did 5-92), painted as Soviet AF '577'; badly damaged by in-flight fire at Aurora, CO, 1-3-94, Ex-PLANAF. Painted in Soviet Air Force markings as '15 White', twin red stripes on nose, Later sold as, see below, Owned by Paul Entrekin (Pensacola, FL), registration date 5-6-87, Czech-built (CS-1 02), Ex-PWL 1524, stored AMARC, Ex-PWL 622, converted CS-102, Owned by Brunetto Flying Services, Ex-PWL. Owned by Phoenix Warbirds (Phoenix, ALj, did 7-93, Ex-PWL 6012, Ex-PWL 6021, Owned by Brunetto Flying Services, did 3-94, Ex-PWL 026, Owned by Phoenix Warbirds, did 7-93, Ex-PWL 917, stored AMARC, Ex-PWL 306, converted MiG·15bis, Owned by Brunetto Flying Services, Ex-PLANAF, Owned by Unlimited Aircraft Ltd (Chino, CA), did 3-87. Ex-PLANAF. Owned by the Champlin Fighter Museum (Mesa, ALj, did 1986; loaned to San Diego Aerospace Museum (San Diego, CA) as 'PLANAF 70201 " Ex-PLAAF 83238, Stored Phoenix-Deer Valley, AZ,
The Chinese MiG-15s and other aircraft, hundreds of which had been in storage there, started arriving Stateside in 1986, The initial batch was restored by Unlimited Aircraft ltd at Chino, California, a well-known warbird rebuilder, whereupon the aircraft were offered for sale, Prices ranged from US$100,000 (Ro Kim Suk's thirty pieces of silver? - Auth,) to US$250,000, depending on condition, total time etc, Classics in Aviation at Stead Airport, Reno, Nevada, became another MiG rebuilder, acquiring former Polish aircraft, (Classics in Aviation abbreviates as CIA. Neat.) The biggest challenge was to get the aircraft registered because the flight manuals needed to be translated for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), However, getting the aircraft into the country wasn't always easy either, China enjoyed most-favoured nation status until the 1989 student protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing which were crushed by the government. Hungary and Poland, however, were not on such a status and Cold War-era laws forbade the importation of former combat jets from these countries, This resulted in an all-out fight with the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in mid-1989 when the Planes of Fame Museum purchased a MiG-15, a MiG-17 and an Antonov An-2T Colt utility biplane (HA-AND, to N90400) in Hungary and Poland, The ATF raised hell, forcing the US Customs to admit they had made a 'mistake' by allowing the planes to enter the country - even though the aircraft had been duly cleared through Customs, Then the ATF demanded that the aircraft be given to the US government at no cost or immediately scrapped on site! Incensed by this idiocy, the museum drew up a petition to save the aircraft, signed by more than 7,000 aviation enthusiasts, but the ATF stuck rigidly to its position, It was not until a special bill was passed through Congress that the danger was past. Classics in Aviation apparently avoided trouble with the ATF by 'donating' a few aircraft to DTESA. (There may be more than mere coincidence about that 'CIA' abbreviation.,,) Typical modifications during restoration included removal of the guns or changes to them so as to make them inoperable (a demand of the ATF) and the installation of modern Western communications and navigation equipment identifiable by the non-standard blade and whip aerials on the underside whose type and location varies. Some aircraft have part of the flight instruments replaced with Western equivalents,
Privately-owned MiGs often make spectacular appearances at the numerous local airshows. One former Polish Air Force Lim-2 (N205JM) starred in several TV films, including the film Steal the Sky in which it portrays an Iraqi fighter serialled 524. For the movie the aircraft was painted in spurious green/sand camouflage with oversized Iraqi Air Force insignia. One SBL..!rn-2A resides in a US museum wearing applique (!) Soviet markings. GL1ripusly, the number and location of the stars is pre-1955 style but the aircraft sports a post-1955 tactical code (11 Red). Speaking of which, a natural metal MiG-15bis is on display at the Pima Air Museum, wearing North Korean markings and the serial 822 Red. The rather angular serial style suggests Gor'kiy production and hence c/n 53210822. 8 Yet, while Gor'kiy-built Batch 8 bises did take part in the concluding stage of the Korean War, this aircraft is an impostor - a Lim-2, ex-Polish Air Force 822 Red painted up for display, possibly with a photo of the real North Korean Air Force '822 Red' as a reference." The Korean insignia are inaccurate, having a white background (quasi-North Korean aircraft flown by Soviet pilots had no white background to the insignia unless painted in a camouflage scheme). Similarly, a MiG-15bis is preserved at Cal-Aero Field in California as Soviet Air Force' 1301 Red', suggesting c/n 1315301. However, the serial style doesn't even resemble a Novosibirsk-built aircraft and the fighter is probably a Lim-2 (c/n 1B 013-01). Decode for US States Occasional reference is also made in the text to State and Territory abbreviations. They follow the official government standards and may be de-coded as follows:
AL = Alabama AK = Alaska AR = Arkansas AZ = Arizona CA = California CO = Colorado CT = Connecticut DC = Dist of Columbia DE = Delaware FL = Florida GA = Georgia HI = Hawaii IA = Iowa 10 = Idaho
IL = Illinois IN = Indiana KS = Kansas KY = Kentucky LA = Louisiana MA = Massachusetts MO = Maryland ME = Maine MI = Michigan MN = Minnesota MO = Missouri MS = Mississippi MT = Montana NB = Nebraska
NC = North Carolina NO = North Dakota NH = New Hampshire NJ = New Jersey NM = New Mexico NV = Nevada NY = New York OH = Ohio OK = Oklahoma OR = Oregon PA = Pennsylvania PR = Puerto Rico RI = Rhode Island SC = South Carolina
SO = South Dakota TN = Tennessee TX = Texas UT = Utah VA = Virginia VI = Virgin Islands VT = Vermont WA = Washington WI = Wisconsin WV = West Virginia WY = Wyoming
(NORTH) VIETNAM The Vietnamese People's Air Force (VPAF) received weapons from both the USSR and China, thus operating both Soviet- and Chinese-built MiG15s. A squadron of UTI-MiG-15s/JJ-2s remained operational in the mid80s but none of them have been identified. Known Vietnamese Fagot-Bs are listed below.
Serial
Version
Remarks
2013 Red 2014 Red 2018 Red 2110 Red 2310 Red 2410 Red 2537 Red
20153137 20153147 20153187 21153107 23153107 24153107 25153377
Unconfirmed (drawing only); pictured as Fagot-A!
YEMEN (NORTH YEMEN/YEMEN ARAB REPUBLIC AND SOUTH YEMEN/PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF YEMEN) Both countries, allies of the USSR, received MiGs, including an unknown number of bises and UTI-MiG-15s (the latter were used for training MiG17F pilots). Four and three UTI-MiG-15s respectively were reported to remain in service in the North and South by 1979. In passing, the supplier never imagined that the aircraft of these brother nations would meet in combat when the YAR and the PDRY clashed a border conflict in 1972. According to Interavia, in early 1987 the YARAF was withdrawing its four Midgets while the PDRYAF was still keeping its three aircraft. However, Flight International states that when the two Yemens finally merged in 1990, the new united Yemen Air Force still had four UTI-MiG-15s! Only one YARAF MiG-15bis serialled 72 has been identified to date.
A technician performs maintenance on a UTI·MiG·15 with access panels in the canopy fairing open. Yefim Gordon Archive
MiG-15
113
Chapter Six
The MiG·15bis in Detail The following structural description applies to the late-production standard MiG-15bis.
Type Single-engined tactical fighter with limited strike capability designed for day and night operation in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and instrument meteorological conditions (IMG). Fuselage Semi-monocoque all-metal stressed-skin structure with frames, longerons and stringers. The riveted fuselage structure is made mainly of 0-16 duraiumin. Type 30KhGSA steel is used for most of the joints, except the frame/ longeron fittings which are made of Type 20 steel. Fuselage length is 8.08m (26ft 6in), fuselage diameter 1.45m (4ft 9in), and air intake diameter 0.747m (2ft 5in). Maximum cross-section area (less cockpit canopy) is 1.65m2 (17.74ft2) and aspect ratio is 5.57. Structurally the fuselage consists of two sections: forward (up to frame 13, which is the fuselage break point) and rear. The latter is detachable for engine maintenance and removal; the two fuselage sections are held together by 13 bolts. The forward fuselage incorporates the forward avionics/equipment bay (frames 1 to 4), the nosewheel well, the pressurized cockpit (frames 4 to 9), the armament bay and aft avionics/equipment bay located under it, and the No 1 fuel tank (frames 9 to 13). The circular air intake located at frame No 1 has a vertical splitter which divides it into two elliptical-section air ducts passing along the fuselage sides, flanking the cockpit, nosewheel well, No 1 fuel tank and avionics bays. The forward fuselage has 13 frames (including four mainframes absorbing the main structural loads, Nos 4, 5A, 9 and 13) and three auxiliary frames. Mainframes Nos 4 and 5A seNe as attachment points for the nose gear unit and weapons tray respectively; wing spar attachment fittings are installed at frames Nos 9 and 13. The latter also carries the engine bearer with. ten attachment points for the engine. Frame 1 has a flanged cutout on top for the S-13 gun camera; the nose fairing with the intake splitter is attached to this frame. There are four forward longerons (two upper and two lower) running from frame 1 to frame 9 and four rear longerons (between frames 9 to 13), plus an auxiliary central upper longeron between frames 11 to 13. The longerons are 114
MiG-15
attached to each frame by welded gusset plates made of Type 20 steel. Finally, the cockpit floor also adds structural stiffness. Fuselage skin thickness varies from 0.6 to 1.2mm (0.023 to 0.047in). The forward fuselage has numerous hinged or detachable access panels. The cockpit is contained by pressure bulkheads at mainframes 4 and 9 and is enclosed by a bubble canopy. The fixed windshield consists oftwo cUNed triangular Perspex sidelights 8mm (0.31 in) thick and an elliptical optically-flat bUlletproof glass 64mm (2.5in) thick; the stamped duralumin windshield frame is hermetically riveted to the forward fuselage structure. The aft-sliding canopy moves on guide rails and can be jettisoned manually or pyrotechnically in an emergency. The blown Perspex glazing held by inner and outer frames is likewise 8mm thick. The cockpit features an ejection seat (with guide rails attached to the rear pressure bUlkhead), an instrument panel and side control consoles. The rear fuselage (frames 14 to 28) houses the engine with its accessories and jetpipe, the two-section rear fuel tank and control linkages. The engine jetpipe is attached to frame 28 by a special flexible fitting. The rear fuselage structure consists of 15 frames, ten longerons and a number of stringers supporting the skin. Two lateral airbrakes with a total area of 0.5m 2 (5.37ft2) are incorporated between frames 26 and 28; late production bises have 0.8m 2 (8.6ft2) airbrakes. The airbrakes are electrohydraulically-actuated and deflected 55°. A system of mechanical linkages ensures simultaneous operation. Wings Cantilever mid-wing monoplane. Leadingedge sweep 37°, sweepback at quarter-chord 35°, anhedral 2°, incidence 1°, aspect ratio 4.85, taper 1.61. The wings utilise TsAGI S-1 OS airfoil at the root and TsAGI SR-3 airfoil at the tip; mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) is 2.12m (6ft 11.46in) and mean thickness/chord ratio 10.3%. Wingspan is 10.18m (33ft 2.4in) and wing area 20.6m 2 (221.5ft2). The wings are of all-metal, three-spar stressed-skin construction, with forward spar, main spar and auxiliary rear spar; they are onepiece structures joined to the fuselage at the root rib. Each wing has 20 ribs and two beams which, together with the main spar, form the mainwheel well. Skin thickness varies from 1.0 to 2.0mm (0.039 to 0.078in). Each wing incorporates an anti-flutter weight and has a detach-
able tip fairing attached to rib 20 by screws and anchor nuts. The wing/fuselage joint is covered by a fillet attached to fuselage and wing in similar fashion. The wings have hydraulically-actuated, onepiece TsAGI flaps (modified Fowler flaps) terminating at approximately half-span, with pneumatic extension in emergency. These are single-spar structures with one tip stringer, one auxiliary stringer, 19 ribs and duralumin skin. The flaps are powered by separate actuators linked by cables to ensure simultaneous operation; there are three flap settings (fUlly retracted, take-off and landing). Each wing has two boundary layer fences on the upper surface and a ground-adjustable trim tab riveted to the trailing edge. A pitot tube is installed on the starboard wing between ribs 15 and 16. Tail unit Cantilever cruciform tail surfaces of all-metal stressed-skin construction. Fin leading-edge sweep 55° 41', sweepback at quarter-chord 45°, aspect ratio 1.21, taper 2.67, mean thickness/chord ratio 9.0%. Stabilizer leading-edge sweep 40°, incidence _0° 30', aspect ratio 3.52, taper 2.49, mean thickness/chord ratio 8.7%. Total vertical tail area is 4.0m 2 (43.0ft2) and total horizontal tail area 3.0m 2 (32.25ft2). Both horizontal and vertical tail utilise symmetrical NACA-0009 section. For technological reasons the fin is made up of two sections (upper and lower); the lower fin is built integrally with the rear fuselage. The upper section is bolted to the lower and can be easily detached - eg, for removing the horizontal tail if the aircraft is to be crated, overhauled etc. The fin is a single-spar structure with a front false spar, 11 ribs in the lower section and five ribs in the upper section, stringers and duralumin skin 1.2 to 1.5mm (0.047 to 0.059in) thick. The horizontal tail is built in two symmetrical halves joined at the reinforced central ribs by duralumin plates and fittings; each half is a single-spar structure with a rear false spar, ribs and duralumin skin 0.8mm (0.0314in) thick. The horizontal tail is attached by means of one fitting at the front and two at the rear; the forward fitting is adjustable, allowing stabilizer incidence to be varied. Landing gear Hydraulically-retractable tricycle type, with pneumatic extension in emergency; wheel track 3.81 m (12ft 6in), wheelbase 3.475m (11 ft
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..
_._._-----------------------------------------------
5in). Nose unit retracts forward, main units inward into wings so that the wheels lie in the wing roots ahead of the main spar. In the retracted position the landing gear is secured by uplocks, in the extended position by shutoff valves trapping hydraulic fluid in the retraction jacks which double as downlocks. All three landing gear struts have oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers. The main units have single 600 x 160mm (23.6 x 6.3in) wheels with expander-tube brakes; some aircraft manufactured by the Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1 in 1952 have a UA-11 anti-skid unit. The nose unit has a single 480 x 200mm (18.9 x 7.87in) nonbraking wheel and is equipped with a shimmy damper. The castoring nosewheel can turn ±50° for taxying; steering on the ground is by differential braking. Tyre pressure is 7.5 bars (107psi) for the mainwheels and 3.2 bars (45.7psi) for the nosewheel. The nosewheel well is closed by twin lateral doors, the mainwheel wells by triple doors (one segment is hinged to the front spar, one to the root rib and a third segment attached to the oleo leg). All doors remain open when the gear is down. Landing gear position is indicated by warning lamps on the instrument panel and by mechanical indicators (popularly known as soldahtik - little soldier) on the wing and forward fuselage upper surfaces. A sprung tail bumper is provided to protect the rear fuselage and jetpipe in a tail-down landing. Some aircraft built in Kuybyshev in 1952 (izdeliye SD-P) are equipped with a 15m' (161.29ft') PT-2165-51 brake parachute housed in a special bay under the jetpipe. The dual bay doors and the parachute release lock are actuated pneumatically. Powerplant One Klimov VK-1 or VK-1 A non-afterburning turbojet rated at 2,700kg (5,952Ibst) or 2,740kg (6,040Ibst) respectively, with a single-stage centrifugal compressor (with dual inlet ducts), nine straight-flow combustion chambers, a single-stage axial turbine, a subsonic fixed-area nozzle and an extension jetpipe. The latter is attached flexibly. The engine features an accessory gearbox for driving fuel, oil and hydraulic pumps and electrical equipment. Starting is electrical by means of an ST2 or ST2-48 starter. The engine is mounted on a bearer via four attachment points: two trunnions on the right and left sides of the compressor casing below the axis of the engine and two mounting lugs in the upper part of the engine. The engine is attached to fuselage frame 13; when the rear fuselage is detached, the engine is completely exposed. Control system The MiG-15bis has a conventional mechanical flight control system with push-pull rods, control cranks and levers. Roll control is provided by ailerons with internal aerodynamic balancing. These are singlespar structures with 12 ribs and duralumin skin
0.8mm (0.0314in) thick. The ailerons are powered by a BU-1 (BU-1A) reversible hydraulic actuator mounted on the front spar of the starboard wing to reduce stick forces. The port aileron has a trim tab. Total aileron area is i.01m' (1 0.86ft') , including 0.39m' (4.19ft') for the aerodynamic balances and 0.02m' (0.21ft') for the trim tab. Relative aileron chord is 18.6%, ai leron deflection ± 15° and trim tab deflection likewise ± 15°. Directional control is provided by a rudder which, like the fin, is built in two sections; the upper and lower sections are connected by a universal joint. Each section is a single-spar structure with duralumin skin 1.2 to 1.5mm (0.047 to 0.059in) thick; the upper and lower sections are suspended on two and three brackets respectively. The rudder is aerodynamically balanced; additionally, both sections have mass balances - 3.12kg (6.87Ib) for the upper section and 5.8kg (12.78Ib) for the lower section. The rudder is controlled manually (in a manner of speaking) by means of pedals and pushpull rods, cranks and levers. The lower section is equipped with a ground-adjustable trim tab. Rudder area is 1m' (10. 75ft'), including 0.19m' (2.04ft') for the aerodynamic balance; rudder deflection is ±20°. The elevators are symmetrical single-spar structures with seven ribs and duralumin skin 0.8mm (0.0314in) thick. They have both aerodynamic and mass balances, with 1kg (2.2Ib) weights at the tips and a 3kg (6.6Ib) weight in the middle. Each elevator is suspended on three brackets. The elevators are manually-controlled by means of push-pull rods, cranks and levers; the port elevator features a trim tab. Elevator area is 0.853m' (9.17ft'); elevator deflection is 32/ + 16° and trim tab deflection ± 10°. Aileron and elevator trim tabs are remotely controlled by UT-6D electric motors transmitting torque through a system of levers and rods. Fuel system Apart from its obvious purpose, the fuel system maintains the aircraft's CG. Internal fuel is carried in two tanks holding a total of 1,410 litres (31 0.2 Imperial gallons). The main fuel cell (bag tank) housed in the forward fuselage between frames 9 and 13 holds 1,250 litres (275 Imperial gallons). An integral tank of 160 litres (35.2 Imperial gallons) capacity is located in the rear fuselage between frames 21 and 25 and is divided into left and right halves with an avionics bay between them. To maintain CG position the fuel is used as follows: 345 litres (75.9 Imperial gallons) from the main fuel cell, then all fuel from the rear tank and finally the remaining fuel from the main fuel cell. A gauge in the main fuel cell monitors fuel quantity, illuminating a red warning light when the aircraft is down to 'bingo fuel' (emergency reserve) - 300 litres (66 Imperial gallons). A PTsR-1 electric centrifugal transfer pump located below the engine between frames 20
and 21, with associated SD-3 sensor, delivers fuel from the rear tank to the main fuel cell. Thence the fuel goes to the PNV-2 main delivery pump located on the bottom plate of the main fuel cell bay and is fed via a rubber hose to the shut-off cock located. aft of frame 13. From there the fuel goes to the low-pressure filter and then to the engine. Another cock installed ahead of the low-pressure filter serves for defuelling and for fuel jettisoning in an emergency. The tanks are equipped with a vent system. The MiG-15bis uses T-1 jet fuel or its Western equivalent, JP-4. Refuelling is by gravity via two filler caps immediately aft of the cockpit (offset to port) and on the port side of the aft fuselage. Two 'wet' wing hard points provide for the carriage of 250 litre (55 Imperial gallon), 300 litre (66 Imperial gallon) or 600 litre (132 Imperial gallon) slipper tanks or 400 litre (88 Imperial gallon) conventional drop tanks on B02-48, BD3-53 or D4-50 shackles. The drop tanks are pressurized by engine bleed air at 0.4 bars (5.7psi). With drop tanks fitted, the fuel burn sequence is changed: 100 litres (22 Imperial gallons) from the main fuel cell, followed by all external fuel, then 250 Iitres (55 Imperial gallons) from the main fuel cell, then all fuel from the aft integral tank and finally the remaining fuel from the main fuel cell. A warning light in the cockpit tells the pilot that the drop tanks are empty. Hydraulics The hydraulic system works the landing gear, flaps, airbrakes and the aileron actuator. It includes a hydraulic fluid tank, low-pressure reduction gear, a pump installed on the engine accessory gearbox, a hydraulic accumulator, a filter, safety and return valves, a manometer, hydraulic lines etc. Hydraulic pressure is 140 bars (2,000psi) or, on late versions, 125 bars (1,785psi). Unusually, the system uses a mixture of alcohol and glycerin rather that the usual oil-type hydraulic fluid. Electrics 28.5 V DC main electrical system with a 3kW GSR-3000 generator as the main power source. Backup DC power is provided by a 12A-30 (28 V, 30 Ah) or 12SAM-25 (28 V, 25 Ah) silver-zinc battery in the forward avionics/ equipment bay. High-voltage DC for some systems is supplied by an RU-11 dynamotor; AC power for other systems is supplied by MA-1 00 and MA-250 AC converters. There are 13 major wiring circuits, the total length of wiring being 38km (23.6 miles). Electrical system switches are arranged on the side control consoles in the cockpit. Pneumatic system Two subsystems (main and emergency). The main pneumatic system actuates the wheel brakes, cannon recharging mechanisms and is responsible for cockpit pressurization. The emergency system is responsible for landing MiG-15
115
gear and flap emergency extension (in the event of hydraulics failure) and emergency braking. The main pneumatic system has two high-pressure air bottles charged at 110 bars (1,571 psi); the emergency system has one bottle charged at 50 bars (714psi). The pneumatic system includes shutoff and reduction valves, cocks, pipelines and flexible hoses. Armament Built-in armament comprises one 37mm (1.45 calibre) Nudel'man N-37 cannon on the starboard side with 40 rounds and two staggered 23mm (.90 calibre) Nudel'man/Rikhter NR-23 cannons on the port side with 80 rounds per gun. Both models utilise recharging by recoil action, which allowed the heavy-calibre cannons to have a high rate of fire and be relatively lightweight. The N-37 weighs 103kg (227Ib) and fires 750-gram (26.475-oz.) projectiles; rate of fire is 400 rounds per minute and muzzle velocity 690m/sec (2 ,263ft/sec). The NR-23 weighs 39kg (86Ib) and fires 200-gram (7.06oz.) projectiles; rate ottire is 800 to 950rpm and muzzle velocity 680m/sec (207.2ft/sec).' Initial charging is done by a pneumatic mechanism operating at 30 bars (428.5psi); the charging buttons are located on a special panel to the left of the gunsight. Firing is controlled electrically; the N-37 is fired by pushing a guarded button on top of the control stick and both NR-23s by pushing a common button on the upper forward part of the stick. The N-37 uses fragmentation/incendiary/traced (FI-T) and armour-piercing/incendiary/traced (API-T) rounds; the NR-23 uses FI-T and API rounds. The big cannon can expend its entire ammunition supply in a single six-second burst and the smaller cannons in 5.3 seconds. All cannons are belt-fed; belt links and ammunition cases are discarded during firing. All three cannons are mounted on a common tray under the forward fuselage which can be lowered qUickly by means of a built-in winch for reloading and maintenance. Gun barrel fairings have to be removed and retaining screws loosened before the tray is lowered. The tray also carries the ammunition boxes and pneumatic charging mechanisms. In the strike role the standard MiG-15bis can carry two 50kg (110 Ib) or 100kg (220Ib) bombs on the wing hard points. Bomb release is electrically-actuated. The aircraft is equipped with an ASP-3N automatic gunsight. An S-13 gun camera mounted on the air intake upper lip records the shooting and bombing results. The gun camera can operate independently from the cannons or in conjunction with them. Film capacity is 150 exposures; at a speed of 8 frames per second, the S-13 can shoot continuously for 19 seconds.
A 50kg (110 Ib) bomb suspended under the wing of a MiG-15; unusually, bombs were carried without any pylons. Yefim Gordon archive
116
MiG-15
Oxygen system For operations above 9,000m (29,257ft), oxygen bottles are installed in the forward avionics/equipment bay. Air conditioning and pressurization system The MiG-15bis has a ventilation-type cockpit pressurized by engine bleed air to a pressure differential of 0.3 bars (4.28psi). Cockpit air pressure is governed by an RO-2IM pressure regulator. The canopy is sealed by an inflatable rubber hose pressurized to 3 bars (42.8psi). Fire suppression system Two 3 litre (0.66 Imperial gallon) fire extinguisher bottles charged with carbon dioxide installed vertically on fuselage frame 13. System operation is manual. In the event of engine fire several flame sensors trigger a fire warning light in the cockpit and the pilot pushes a button, activating pyrotechnic valves and letting out the carbon dioxide into a manifold around the engine. Crew escape system The MiG-15bis is equipped with a cartridgefired ejection seat. A Czech source quotes the model as 'production code SO 7505' but it is not known if this was a Soviet or a Czech designation. The seat pan is dished to take a ribbon-type parachute. Ejection is accomplished by pulling a canopy jettison handle located on the right side of the seat (or on both sides on aircraft built from 1st July 1952 onwards). Avionics and equipment a) navigation equipment: OSP-48 instrument landing system comprising ARK-5 Amur automatic direction finder (ADF) with omnidirectional aerial and loop aerial, RV-2 Kristall radio altimeter with two dipole aerials under the port wing and the lower forward fuselage, and MRP48 Oyatel marker beacon receiver. The RV-2, MRP-48 and its antenna and AOF loop aerial are located in the aft avionics bay in the lower rear fuselage. A OGMK-3 remote gyromagnetic compass is installed in the starboard wing.
b) communications equipment: RSIU-3 Klyon two-way VHF radio (RSI-6M receiver and RSI6K transmitter) in the forward avionics/equipment bay with whip aerial installed on the right side aft of the cockpit. c) flight instrumentation: KUS-1200 airspeed indicator (ASI, kombineerovannw ookazahtel' SkOrostl), VO-17 altimeter, RV-2 radio altimeter indicator, AGK-476 artificial horizon, EUP-46 electric turn and bank indicator (elektreecheskiy ookazahtel' povorota), VAR-75 vertical speed indicator (VSI, variometr) , OGMK-3 gyromagnetic. compass indicator, M-0,95 Mach meter and ARK-5 AOF indicator. d) IFF equipment: SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder with dorsal or ventral blade aerial on the aft fuselage. e) electronic support measures (ESM) equipment: Sirena-2 radar homing and warning system (RHAWS) with aerials on the fin, wing leading edges and wingtips. f) exterior lighting: BANO-45 port and starboard navigation lights. Originally FS-155 landing/taxi light in air intake splitter; later aircraft had a retractable LFSV-45 landing light in the port wing root ahead of the mainwheel well. ESKR46 four-round signal flare launcher on the starboard side of the aft fuselage.
Top left: The air intake with an 8-13 gun camera on the upper lip. Dmitriy Komissarov Top right: The cockpit canopy. Dmitriy Komissarov Centre left: The port wing of a UTI·MiG·15. Dmitriy Komissarov Centre right: The original MiG·15 Fagot-A and UTI·MiG·15 had 0.48m'triangular airbrakes. Dmitriy Komissarov Bottom left: The starboard main gear unit. Dmitriy Komissarov Bottom right: The tail unit. Dmitriy Komissarov Bottom right, lower: The port wing of a UTI·MiG-15. The UBK-E machine gun has been removed. Dmitriy Komissarov
L
~====~;;;;;::==:======:;;;;;;;~~=---====~_-----l
MiG-15
117
Chapter Seven
Production Totals Family Specification Tables The following table illustrates MiG-15 production in the USSR. The figures in bold type show actual production for each version, year by year; the figures in parentheses indicate planned production (as determined by the Soviet state planning authorities) for the respective years.
Notes:
1. Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1named after losif VStalin
5. Tbilisi aircraft factory No 31 named after Gheorgi Dimitrov
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 MiG-15
510' 301" (550) (300)
MiG-15bis
4W 820 460 (350) (792) (425)
MiG-15bisP
5 (5)
UTI-MIG-15
Total 813
2 (0)
i Plus 2 MiG-15 ground instructional airframes; ii Plus 4 ground instructional airframes (2 MiG-15s, 1 MiG-15bis and 1 UTI-MiG-15); iii Plus 10 UTI-MiG-15 shipsets for assembly elsewhere.
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 MiG-15bis
1,681 5
50" 371'" 333 127 (50) (365) (315) (0)
Total Tbilisi production
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 MiG-15
Total Kuybyshev production 3,380 MiG-15bis
MiG-15
144 308 (550) (300)
453
MiG-15bis
1 (0)
1
1 (0)
MiG-15
209 715 (200) (700)
924
Total Komsomol'sk-on-Amur production
833
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959
Total
2 (0) 131 509 354 (275) (457) (350)
994
MiG-15bisS
49 (100)
49
3. Moscow aircraft factory No 381
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 75 (n/a)
2
MiG-15bis Total Novosibirsk production 3,979
MiG-15
832
42 362 428 (250) (337) (400)
7. Saratov aircraft factory No 292
360 1,196 863 (500) (1,173) (840)
UTI-MIG-15
Total
(0)
2. Novosibirsk aircraft factory No 153 named after Valeriy P Chkalov
Totat
225
6. Komsomol'sk-on-Amur aircraft factory No 126 named after the Lenin Young Communist League
881
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959
Total 225
35 190 (35) (190)
Totat
Total Saratov production 1,045
75 8. Khar'kov aircraft factory No 135 named after the Lenin Young Communist League Total Moscow production
75
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 UTI-MiG-15
4. Gor'kiy aircraft factory N021 named after Sergo Ordzhonikidze
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959
6 (25)
50 85 158 212 (50) (150) (150) (200)
Total
MiG-15bis (izdeliye 53)
367 992 425 (350) (937) (395)
1,784
MiG-15bisR (izdeliye 55)
64 300 (60) (300)
364
Total 511
Total Khar'kov production
511
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959
Total
9. Ulan·Ude aircraft factory No 99
UTI-MiG-15 Total Gor'kiy production 2,148
O' (25)
29 53 127 206 245 173 (75) (125) (150) (200) (225) (0)
113 (0)
106 (0)
65 (0)
Total Ulan-Ude production
1,117 511
GRAND TOTAL 13,131
118
MiG-15
The main changes introduced on the production lines and in service (as mid-life updates) are detailed below. MiG-15 Modification: Instrument panel with 6instruments on centre section (mounted on rubber shock absorbers) Plant: No 1 No 153 N0381
Incorporated (aircraft clns): 101001 through 109030 0115300 through 0215326 3810101 through 3810305
OSP-48ILS
OSP-48ILS
No1 No21 No31 No126 No153 No292
No1 No99 No 135 No153
From 10444 onwards From 10990401 onwards 0213501 through 0213510 and from 0313501 onwards All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)
BU-1 hydraulic actuator in the aileron control circuit BU-1 hydraulic actuator in the aileron control circuit No 1 No21
New instrument panel with rearranged instruments
N031 N0126 N0153
No 1 No 153 N0381
No 292
From 109031 onwards From 0215327 onwards From 3810306 onwards
From 121004 onwards Starting 1st June 1950 From 31530101 onwards Starting 1st June 1950 From 0615378 onwards From 0603 onwards
From 121004 onwards All aircraft (from 53210101 and 55210101 onwards) All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards) From 1201 onwards 0415399,0515345,0515367,0515381, 0615336 through 0615338, 0615345, 0615360, 0615363 and from 0615378 onwards From 0102 onwards
No 1 No 99 No 135 No 153
All aircraft (from 10101 onwards) All aircraft (from 10990101 onwards) All aircraft (from 0013501 onwards) All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)
LFSV-45 landing light in port wing (new-build) No 1 No 99 No 135 No 153
From 11240 onwards 10990301 and from 10990404 onwards Starting in 1952 All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)
PS-2 engine starting panel
LFSV-45 landing light in port wing
LFSV-45 landing light in port wing (retrofit)
No 1 No 153 No 381
No 1 No 21
No 1 No99
108021 and from 108031 onwards All aircraft (from 0115300 onwards) From 3810306 onwards
Improved in-flight engine starting capability (as built) No 1 N0153 N0381
109032, 110001,110017 and 110021
N031 N0126 N0153 N0292
134001 and from 134050 onwards MiG-15bis - from 53211626 onwards MiG-15bisR from 55210651 onwards All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards) From 5425 onwards 0815321,0815371 and from 2515375 onwards From 1506 onwards
NR-23 cannons Improved in-flight engine starting capability (upgrade) No 1 No 153 N0381
All aircraft except 109032, 110001, 110017 and 110021 All aircraft (from 0115300 onwards) All aircraft (from 3810101 onwards)
BU-1 hydraulic actuator in the aileron control circuit N01 N0153 N0381
120101 through 120131
Modification: SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder (as built)
N031 No 126 N0153 No 292
N021 N031 N0126 N0153 N0292
122035,126094,126100 and from 128051 onwards MiG-15bis from 53211001 onwards MiG-15bisR - all aircraft (from 55210101 onwards) All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards) 2301 and from 2901 onwards From 1515351 onwards 4907 and from 1210 (2610?) onwards
Eccentric adjustable wing/fuselage fittings (for eliminating wing drop)
MiG-15bis, MiG-15bisR, MiG-15bisS
Plant: No 1 N021
No 1
Incorporated (aircraft clns): From 128080 onwards MiG-15bis -from 53211001 onwards All MiG-15bisRs (from 55210101 onwards) All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards) 1202,1709,2303,2319,2320 and from . 2521 onwards 1315351 through 1315355 and from 1415365 0nwards 3508 through 3808, 4608, 1110through 1310, 2110 through 2310 and from 3110 onwards
No 1 No 21 N031 No 126 No 153 No 292
From 134041 onwards From 53211905 onwards From 31530701 onwards From 5601 onwards From 2615301 onwards From 3218 onwards
Additional cockpit armour (as built) No 1
March 1952 (armoured seat back on 133051 through 135050, plus armoured headrest from 135051 onwards)
Additional cockpit armour (retrofit) No 1
121004 through 135050 (armoured headrest only on 133051 through 135050)
SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder (retrofit)
UTi-MiG-15
No 1 No 21 N031 No126
Modification: SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder
N0153 No 292
121004 through 128079 53210226 through 53211001 1004 through 2520 (except 1202,1709,2303, 2319 and 2320) 0615378 through 1315350 and 1315356 through 1415364 0201 through 3010 (except 3508 through 3808, 4608, 1110 through 1310 and 2110 through 2310)
Plant: No 1 No 99 No 135 No 153
10444 through 11239 10990101 through 10990403 (except 10990301 )
No135 No153 Modifications to stop the ADF aerial on the aft avionics bay cover from being damaged by spent cases and belt links when the cannons were fired were introduced on the production lines on 15th November 1950. All Fagot-AlBs manufactured before this date were upgraded accordingly. Additional cockpit armour (armoured seat back and headrest) was retrofitted to all MiG-15s, as well as all bises, MiG-15bisR recce aircraft and MiG-15bisS escort fighters manufactured before March 1952. The RSIU-3 radio replacing the RSI-6 was introduced in production on the single-seaters in August 1952 and on the UTI-MiG-15 on 1st January 1953. Prior to that, it had been fitted to 12 new Gor'kiy-built bises in 1951 and 60 new Novosibirsk-built bises from batches 23 and 24 in February 1952. All bises, MiG-15bisR recce aircraft and MiG-15bisS escort fighters built by then were retrofitted with the new radio set. In April 1953 all bises received equipment associated with the PPK-1 G-suit. The ASP-3N gunsight was replaced by the improved ASP3NM - first on 64th Fighter Corps aircraft fighting in Korea (in November 1952) and, starting in May 1953, on all other aircraft. From August 1953 onwards all MiG-15s were fitted with external 'gear down' indicator lights.
Incorporated (aircraft clns): From 10501 onwards From 10990907 onwards From 09009 onwards All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)
MiG-15
119
MiG-15 Family specifications
51
53
Construction number
MiG-15
MiG-15 (no serial)
MiG-15 (no serial)
103012
3810510
115002 '';
.
MiG-15
MiG-15 '616 Red'
0215341
0615316
N0153
N0153
Nov 1949
May 1950
Manufacturer (plant number)
N0155
N0155
N01
N0381
Nol
Manufacture date
Dec 1947
Mar 1948
Apr 1949
Oct 1949
Nov 1949
Powerplant
RR Nene I
RR Nene II
RD-45F
RD-45F
RD-45F
RD-45F
RD-45F 2,270 (5,004)
Thrust, kgp (Ibst)
2,040 (4,497)
2,270 (5,004)
2,270 (5,004)
2,270 (5,004)
2,270 (5,004)
2,270 (5,004)
Overall length, m(It)
10.2 (33' 5W')
10.1 (33'2")
10.1 (33'2")
10.1 (33' 2")
10.1 (33'2")
10.1 (33'2')
10.1 (33'2")
Height on ground, m(It)
3.1 (10'2')
3.165 (10' 5")
3.7 (12' 2")
3.7 (12' 2")
3.7 (12' 2')
3.7 (12' 2')
3.7 (12' 2")
Wing span, m(It)
10.08 (33' 1")
10.08 (33' 1")
10.08 (33' 1')
10.08 (33' 1')
10.08 (33' 1')
10.08 (33' 1')
10.08 (33' 1'1
Wing area, m' (It')
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)'
Empty weight, kg (Ib)
3,176 (7,001)
3,149 (6,942)
3,263 (7,193)
3,273 (7,215)
3,247 (7,158)
3,458 (7,623)
3,635 (8,013)
Take-off weight, kg (Ib)
4,840 (10,670)
4,806 (10,595)
4,915 (10,835)
4,938 (10,886)
4,917 (10,840)
4,879 (10,756)
4,880 (10,758)
Fuel capacity, litres (Imp gals)
1,538 (338,36)
1,450 (319)
1,457 (320.54)
1,451 (319,22)
1,456 (320.32)
1,440 (316,8)
n/a
Top speed, km/h (kts): atS/L at 5,000m (16,4041t) at 10,000m (32,8081t)
905 (489.18) 1,028 (555.67) 972 (525.4)
1,047 (565.94) 1 1,031 (557.29) 983 (531.35)
1,052 (568.64) 1,020 (551.35) 976 (527.56)
1,044 (564.32) 3 1,024 (553.51) 976 (527.56)
1,042 (563.24) 1,021 (551.89) 974 (526.48)
1,038 (561.08) 1,017 (549.73) 968 (523.24)
1,040 (562.16) 4 1,027 (555.13) 974 (526.48)
Unstick speed, km/h (kts)
n/a
n/a
230 (124.32)
230 (124.32)
230 (124.32)
225 (121,62)
n/a
Landing speed, km/h (kts)
172 (92.97)
168 (90.81)
168 (90.81)
178 (96.21)
174 (94.05)
174 (94.05)
172 (92.97)
Time to height, min: to 5,000m (16,4041t) to 10,000m (32,8081t)
2,3 6.1
2,3 6,1
2.75' 7.172
2.7 7.6
2.4 6,8
2.4 6.4
2.6 6.7
Rate of climb, m/sec (It/min): atS/L at 5,000m (16,4041t) at 10,000m (32,8081t)
42,0 (8,267) 30.0 (5,905) 17.8 (3,504)
42.0 (8,267) 30.0 (5,905) 17.8 (3,504)
36.0 (7,086) , 25,2 (4,960) , 13.5 (2,657) ,
40.0 (7,874) 27.28 (5,370) 14.55 (2,864)
41.0 (8,070) 28.0 (5,511) 16.1 (3,169)
41.4 (8,149) 28.7 (5,650) 16.9 (3,326)
38.0 (7,480) 27.5 (5,413) 17.1 (3,366)
Turning time, sec: at 2,000m (6,561It) at 5,000m (16,4041t) at 10,000m (32,8081t)
32' 40' 71 '
32' 40' 71 '
n/a 40' n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a 40' 71 '
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
Turn radius, m(It): at 2,000m (6,5611t) at 5,000m (16,4041t) at 10,000m (32,8081t)
700 (2,296) , 1,050 (3,444) , 2,000 (6,561) ,
700 (2,296) , 1,050 (3,444) , 2,000 (6,561) ,
n/a 1,050 (3,444) , n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a 1,050 (3,444) , 2,000 (6,561) ,
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
Altitude gained in ayo-yo manoeuvre, m(It): at 2,000m (6,561 It) n/a at 5,000m (16,4041t) 2,340 (7,677) at 10,000m (32,8081t) 1,280 (4,199)
2,750 (9,022) 2,340 (7,677) 1,280 (4,199)
3,300 (10,826) 2,340 (7,677) n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a 2,340 (7,677) 1,280 (4,199)
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
Service ceiling, m(It)
15,200 (49,868)
15,200 (49,868)
14,600 (47,900)
14,750 (48,392)
15,100 (49,540)
14,900 (48,885)
14,900 (48,885)
Range at 10,000m, km (nm): on internal fuel with drop tanks
1,395 (754) n/a
1,310 (708) n/a
1,335 (721) n/a
1,295 (700) n/a
1,335 (721) 1,920 (1,038)
1,245 (673) n/a .
1,305 (705) n/a
Take-off run, m(It)
600 (1,968)
600 (1,968)
605 (1,985)
640 (2,099)
605 (1,985)
605 (1,985)
620 (~,034)
Landing run, m(It)
765 (2,510)
710 (2,329)
755 (2,477)
1,040 (3,412)
755 (2,477)
n/a
n/a
Armament
1xN-37 2xNS-23KM
1xN-37 2 xNS·23KM
1xN-37 2xNS·23KM
1xN-37 2xNS·23KM
1x N·37 2x NS-23KM
1 xN-37 2xNS-23KM
1 xN-37 2xNS·23KM
Notes: 1 At 2,000m (6,5611t); speed at S/L was limited to 905km/h (489kts) due to flutter problems. 2 With the engine at 12,000rpm. 3 At 1,600m (5,2491t); top speed could not be determined at lower altitude due to wing drop, 4 At 1,000m (3,2801t),
120
MiG-15
MiG-15 Family specifications (continued)
UT/-MiG-15 (ST-I)
UTI-MiG-15 (ST-2)
MiG-15bis '5 Red'
MiG-15bis '5 Red'
MiG-15bis '182 Red'
MiG-15bis '37 Red'
MiG-15bis '497 Red'
105015
105015
121082
53210337
53210497
Construction number
104015
Manufacturer (plant number)
No155
No155
No155
No155
No1
N021
N021
Manufacture date
May 1949
Jul1950
Jul1949
Jul1949
Jun 1950
Jul1950
Sep 1950
Powerplant
RD-45F
RD-45F
VK-1 c/n 94-291
VK-1 c/n F-0143
VK-1
VK-1
VK-1
Thrust, kgp (Ibst)
2,270 (5,004)
2,270 (5,004)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
Overall length, m(ft)
10.11 m(33'2")
10.11 m(33' 2")
10.11 m(33' 2")
10.11 m(33' 2")
10.11 m(33'2")
10.11 m(33'2")
10.11 m(33' 2")
Height on ground, m(It)
3.7 m(12' 1W')
3.7 m(12' 1W')
3.7 m(12' 1W')
3.7 m(12' 1W')
3.7 m(12' 1W')
3.7 m(12' 1W')
3.7 m(12' 1W')
Wing span, m(ft)
10.08 m(33' 1")
10.08 m(33' 1")
10.08 m(33' 1")
10.08 m(33' 1")
10.08 m(33' 1")
10.08 m(33' 1")
10.08 m(33' 1")
Wing area, m' (ft')
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
Empty weight, kg (Ib)
3,617.5 (7,975)
3,694 (8,143)
3,582 (7,896)
3,582 (7,896)
3,628 (7,998)
3,635 (8,013)
3,630 (8,002)
Take-off weight, kg (Ib)
4,788 (10,555)
4,850 (10,692)
4,960 (10,934)
4,960 (10,934)
4,982 (10,983)
4,987 (10,994)
5,015 (11,056)
Fuel capacity, litres (Imp gals)
1,110 (244.2)
1,080 (237.6)
1,400 (308)
1,400 (308)
1,385 (304.7)
1,390 (305.8)
1,420 (312.4)
Top speed, km/h (kts): atS/L at 5,000m (16,404ft) at 10,000m (32,808ft)
1,010 (545.94) 6 1,004 (5842.7) 958 (517.83)
1,015 (548.64) 6 1,010 (545.94) 963 (520.54)
1,076 (581.62) 1,045 (564.86) 987 (533.51)
1,055 (570.27) 1,035 (559.46) 985 (532.43)
1,068 (577.29) 1,040 (562.16) 992 (536.21)
1,075 (581.08) 1,044 (564.32) 988 (534.05)
1,059 (572.43) 1,033 (558.37) 992 (536.21)
Unstick speed, km/h (kts)
223 (120.54)
223 (120.54)
227 (122.7)
227 (122.7)
227 (122.7)
n/a
n/a
Landing speed, km/h (kts)
n/a
172 (93)
170 (91.89)
170 (91.89)
n/a
177 (95.67)
n/a
Time to height, min: to 5,000m (16,404ft) to 10,000m (32,808ft)
2.75 7.1
2.6 6.8
1.95 4.9
2.0 5.3
2.13 5.51
2.1 5.3
2.0 5.2
Rate of climb, m/sec (It/min): atS/L at 5,000m (16,404ft) at 10,000m (32,8081t)
n/a n/a n/a
38.5 (7,578) 26.4 (5,196) 14.5 (2,854)
50.0 (9,842) 35.2 (6,929) 20.8 (4,094)
46.4 (9,133) 33.2 (6,535) 20.0 (3,937)
46.5 (9,153) 32.4 (6,378) 1~.3 (3,602)
47.8 (9,409) 33.6 (6,614) 19.6 (3,858)
51.2 (10,078) 36.2 (7,126) 21.0 (4,133)
Turning time, sec: at 2,000m (6,561ft) at 5,000m (16,404ft) at 10,000m (32,808ft)
n/a n/a n/a
32.0' n/a 71.5'
20.7 ' 34.0 63.7
20.7' 34.0 63.7
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a 44.0 65.0
Turn radius, m(ft): at 2,000m (6,561 ft) at 5,000m (16,404ft) at 10,000m (32,808ft)
n/a n/a n/a
715 (2,345) , n/a n/a
460 (1,509) , 845 (2,772) 1,840 (6,036)
460 (1,509) , 845 (2,772) 1,840 (6,036)
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
Altitude gained in ayo-yo manoeuvre, m(ft): at 2,000m (6,561 ft) n/a at 5,000m (16,404ft) n/a at 10,000m (32:8081t) n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a 3,090 (10,137) 1,450 (4,757) 7
n/a 3,090 (10,137) 1,450 (4,757) 7
n/a 3,020 (9,908) n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a 3,050 (10,006) 1,300 (4,265)
Service ceiling, m(ft)
14,625 (14,625)
15,500 (50,853)
15,500 (50,853)
15,825 (15,825)
15,500 (50,853)
15,500 (50,853)
14,150 (46,428)
i; ~::.
:1,
Range at 10,000m, km (nm): on internal fuel with drop tanks
950 (513) 1,340 (724)
950 (513) 1,424 (769)
1,200 (648) 'i ,976 (1p68)
1,200 (64~) 1,~(6 (1",068)
1,180 (637) n/a
1,W5 (640) 1;505 (8),3)
n/a
Take-off run, m(ft)
570 (1,870)
570 (1,870)
475 (1,558)
475 (1,558)
490 (1,607)
485 (1,591)
n/a
Landing run, m(ft)
n/a
740 (2,427)
670 (2,198)
670 (2,198)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Armament
1xNR-23 1xUBK-E
1xUBK-E
1xN-37 2x NR-23
1xN-37 2xNR-23
1x N-37 2x NS-23KM
1x N-37 2x NS-23KM
1x N-37 2x NS-23KM
:.,1"' ;"
1,2~0 (670)
\
Noles: 5 AI1 ,000m (3,2800) 6 A13,000m (9,842ft) 7 Starting from 11 ,450m (37,565ft)
MiG-15
121
MiG-15 Family specifications (continued) MiG-15bis '570 Red'
MiG-15bis
MiG-15bis '421 Red'
MiG-15bis (no serial)
MiG-i5bis '588 Red'
MiG-15bis '1141 Red'
MiG-15bis '633 Blue'
Construction number
53210570
0815358
2104
1207
125088
1115341
3306
Manufacturer (plant number)
N021
N0153
N0292
N0126
N01
No153
N0292
Manufacture date
Oct 1950
Oct 1950
Oct 1950
Nov 1950
Feb 1951
Feb 1951
Feb 1951
Powerplant
VK-1
VK-1
VK-1
VK-1
VK-1
VK-1
VK-1
Thrust, kgp (Ibst)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
Overall length, m(It)
10.11 m(33' 2")
10.11 m(33' 2")
10.11 m(33' 2'1
10.11 m(33' 2')
10.11 m(33' 2")
10.11 m(33'2")
10.11 m(33' 2")
Height on ground, m(It)
3.7 m(12' 10/.')
3.7m (12' 10/.')
3.7m (12' 10/.')
3.7m (12' 10/.')
3.7 m(12' 10/.'1
3.7 m(12' 10/.')
3.7m (12' 10/.')
10.08 m(33' 1')
10.08 m(33' 1')
10.08 m(33' 1')
10.08 m(33' 1")
10.08 m(33' 1')
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)'
Wing span, m(It)
10.08 m(33' 1')
10.08 m(33' 1')
Wing area, m' (It~
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
Empty weight, kg (Ib)
3,662 (8,073)
3,665 (8,079)
3,725 (8,212)
3,631 (8,005)
3,678 (8,108)
3,669 (8,088)
3,652 (8,051)
Take-off weight, kg (Ib)
5,054 (11,142)
5,037 (11,104)
5,000 (11,023)
5,005 (11,034)
5,050 (11,133)
5,016 (11,058)
5,034 (11,097)
Fuel capacity, litres (Imp gals)
1,415 (311.3)
1,390 (305.8)
1,390 (305,8)
1,410 (310,2)
1,405 (309.1)
1,395 (306.9)
1,400 (308)
Top speed, km/h (kts): atS/L at 5,000m (16,404It) at 10,000m (32,8081t)
1,078 (582.7) 1,048 (566.48) 986 (532.97)
1,036 (560.0) 8 1,028 (555.67) 979 (529.19)
1,058 (571.89) 8 1,044 (564.32) 982 (530.81)
1,064 (575.13) 10 1,042 (563.24) 988 (534.05)
1,072 (579.46) 1,037 (560.54) 992 (536.21)
1,066 (576.21) 10 1,048 (566.48) 989 (534.59)
1,075 (581.08) 1,045 (564.86) 987 (533.51)
Unstick speed, km/h (kts)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Landing speed, km/h (kts)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
TIme to height, min: to 5,000m (16,4041t) to 10,000m (32,8081t)
2.2 5.4
2.5 6.3
2.0 5.3
2.15 5.55
2.15 5.63
2,1 5.45
2.15 5.5
Rate of climb, m/sec (It/min): atS/L at 5,000m (16,4041t) at 10,000m (32,8081t)
47.0 (9,252) 33.0 (6,496) 19.0 (3,740)
39.8 (7,834) 28.2 (5,551) 16.6 (3,267)
47.0 (9,252) 33.1 (6,515) 19.4 (3,819)
46.0 (9,055) 31.8 (6,260) 17.8 (3,504)
47.0 (9,252) 32.3 (6,358) 17.5 (3,444)
47.0 (9,252) 32.3 (6,358) 17.6 (3,464)
46.0 (9,055) 32.2 (6,338) 18.4 (3,622)
Turning time, sec
n/a
not measured during checkout trials
Turn radius, m(It)
n/a
not measured during checkout trials
Altitude gained in ayo-yo manoeuvre, m(It): at 2,000m (6,561 It) n/a at 5,000m (16,4041t) n/a at 10,000m (32,8081t) n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a 3,150 (10,334) n/a
Service ceiling, m(It)
15,350 (50,360)
15,330 (50,295)
15,500 (50,853)
15,575 (51,099)
n/a"
15,500 (50,853)
15,500 (50,853)
Range at 1O,OOOm, km (nm): on internal fuel with drop tanks
n/a n/a
1,210 (654) n/a
n/a n/a
1,195 (646) n/a
1,220 (659) 1,749 (945)
1,210 (654) n/a
1,200 (648) n/a
Take-off run, m(It)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Landing run, m(It)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Armament
1xN-37 2x NS-23KM
1xN-37 2xNS-23KM
1xN-37 2xNS-23KM
1xN-37 2xNS-23KM
1xN-37 2x NS-23KM
1xN-37 2x NS-23KM
1xN-37 2 xNS-23KM
Notes: 8 At 1,500m (4,9211t); top speed could not be determined at lower altitude due to wing drop. 9 At 3,000m (9,842ft); top speed could not be determined at lower altitude due to wing drop. 10 At 2,000m (6,5611t); top speed could not be determined at lower altitude due to wing drop. 11 Not attained due to engine surge above 9,000m (29,2571t).
122
MiG-15
not measured during checkout trials not measured during checkout trials not measured during checkout trials
MiG-15 Family specifications (continued) MiG-15bis
MiG-15bis '341 Red'
MiG-15bis '341 Red'
MiG-15bis '239 Red'
MiG-15bis '317 Red'
MiG-15bis '1776 Red'
Construction number
2301
130041
130041
53211239
3317
1715376
Manufacturer (plant number)
No126
Nol
N01
N021
No126
No153
Manufacture date
Jun 1951
3rd quarter of 1951
Powerplant
VK-l
VK-1
Thrust, kgp (Ibst)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
Overall length, m(11)
10.11 m(33' 2")
Height on ground, m(11) Wing span, m(11)
3rd qrtr of 1951
3rd qrtr of 1951
3rd qrtr of 1951
VK-l
VK-l
VK-l
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
10.11 m(33'2")
10.11 m(33' 2")
10.11 m(33' 2")
10.11 m(33' 2")
10.11 m(33' 2")
3.7 m(12' HI")
3.7 m(12' 1%")
3.7 m(12' 1%'1
3.7 m(12' 10/.")
3.7m (12' 10/.')
3.7m (12' 10/.')
10.08 m(33' 1")
10.08 m(33' 1")
10.08 m(33' 1")
10.08 m(33' 1')
10.08 m(33' I')
10.08 m(33' 1")
Wing area, m' (11
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
Empty weight, kg (Ib)
3,656 (8,060)
3,668 (8,086)
3,668 (8,086)
3,668 (8,086)
3,683 (8,119)
3,667 (8,084)
Take-off weight, kg (Ib)
5,009 (11 ,042)
5,064 (11,164)
5,064 (11,164)
5,064 (11,164)
5,059 (11,153)
5,063 (11,161)
Fuel capacity, Iitres (Imp gals)
1,388 (305.36)
1,425 (313.5)
1,425 (313.5)
1,425 (313.5)
1,400 (308)
1,425 (313.5)
Top speed, km/h (kts): atS/L at 5,000m (16,40411) at 10,000m (32,80811)
1,088 (588.1) 1,043 (563.78) 987 (533.51)
1,052 (568.64) 1,023 (552.97) 963 (520.54)
1,062 (574.05) 1,030 (556.75) 970 (524.32)
1,074 (580.54) 1,040 (562.16) 984 (531.89)
1,072 (579.46) 1,038 (561.08) 984 (531.89)
1,074 (580.54) 1,041 (562.7) 987 (533.51)
Unstick speed, km/h (kts)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Landing speed, km/h (kts)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Time to height, min: to 5,000m (16,40411) to 10,000m (32,80811)
2.25 5.6
2.5 6.5
2.1 5.3
2.1 5.45
2.04 5.1
2.1 5.4
Rate of climb, m/sec (ft/min): atS/L at 5,000m (16,40411) at 10,000m (32,80811)
45.0 (8,858) 31.8 (6,260) 18.5 (3,641)
40.0 (7,874) 27.5 (5,413) 15.1 (2,972)
47.0 (9,252) 33.2 (6,535) 19.3 (3,800)
47.2 (9,291) 32.8 (6,546) 18.6 (3,661)
48.0 (9,448) 34.4 (6,771) 20.8 (4,094)
47.0 (9,252) 32.6 (6,417) 18.4 (3,622)
2 )
,
j
c/n F121847
3rd quarter of 1951 VK-l
c/n V123264 12
Turning time, sec
not measured during checkout trials
Turn radius, m(11)
not measured during checkout trials
Altitude gained in ayo-yo manoeuvre, m(11)
not measured during checkout trials
Service ceiling, m(11)
15,600 (51,181)
Range at 10,000m, km (nm): on internal fuel with drop tanks
1,159 (626)
n/a
Take-off run, m(11)
n/a
Landing run, m(11) Armament
Notes: 12 VK-1
15,050 (49,376)
15,700 (51,509)
15,400 (50,525)
16,000 (52,493)
15,650 (51,345)
1,205 (651)
1,205 (651)
1,190 (643)
n/a
1,200 (648) 1,510 (816)
1,180 (637)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1xN-37
1x N-37
1x N-37
1xN-37
1x N-37
1x N-37
2xNR-23
2x NR-23
2x NR-23
2xNR-23
2x NR-23
2xNR-23
c/n V123264 was taken from MiG-15bis '201 Red' (c/n 0112)
MiG-15
123
MIG-15 Family specifications (continued) MiG-15bis '201 Red'
MiG-15bis '417 Red'
MiG-15bis '440 Red'
MiG-15bisP (SP-I)
MiG-15bisS (SO-UPS)"
MiG-15bisR (SR)"
Construction number
0112
134017
134040
102005
?
53210120?
Manufacturer (plant number)
N0292
N01
N01
N0155
No 292
N021
Manufacture date
3rd qrtr of 1951
Feb 1952
Feb 1952
Apr 1949
1951
1951
Powerplant
VK-1
VK-1
VK-1
VK-1
VK-1
VK-1
Thrust, kgp (Ibst)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
2,700 (5,952)
Overall length, m(ft)
10.11 m(33'2")
10.11 m(33' 2')
10.11 m(33' 2')
10.23 m(33' 6*")
10.11 m (33' 2')
10.11 m(33' 2')
Height on ground, m(ft)
3.7 m(12' 1*')
3.7 m(12' 1*")
3.7 m(12' 1*')
3.7 m(12' 1*")
3.7 m(12' 1*")
3.7 m(12' 1*")
~ing
10.08 m(33'1")
10.08 m(33'1")
10.08 m(33'1 ")
10.08 m(33'1")
10.08 m (33'1 ")
10.08 m(33'1 ")
Wing area, m' (ft')
20:6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
20.6 (221.5)
Empty weight, kg (Ib)
3,667 (8,084)
3,699 (8,154)
3,695 (8,146)
3,760 (8,289)
3,636 (8,015)
n/a
Take-off weight, kg (Ib)
5,059 (11,153)
5,088 (11,217)
5,076 (11,190)
5,080 (11,199)
6,106 (13,461)
n/a
Fuel capacity, litres (Imp gals)
1,420 (312.4)
1,420 (312.4)
1,410 (310.2)
1,400 (308)
2,612 (574.64)
2,600 (572)
Top speed, km/h (kts): atS/L at 5,DOOm (16,404ft) at 10,000m (32,808ft)
1,075 (581.08) 1,045 (564.86) 984 (531.89)
1,076 (581.62) 1,046 (565.4) 992 (536.21)
1,062 (574.05) 1,036 (560.0) 979 (529.19)
1,015 (548.64) 1,022 (1,022) 979 (529.19)
800 (432.43) 990 (535.13) 918 (496.21)
800 (432.43) 990 (535.13) 920 (497.29)
Unstick speed, km/h (kts)
n/a
n/a
n/a
230 (124.32)
255 (137.83)
255 (137.83)
Landing speed, km/h (kts)
n/a
n/a
n/a
179 (96.79)
170 (91.89)
170 (91.89)
TIme to height, min: to 5,000m (16,404ft) to 10,000m (32,808ft)
2.1 5.4
2.1 5.4
2.1 5.5
2.15 5.35
2.7 7.2
2.7 7.2
Rate of climb, m/sec (ft/min): atS/L at 5,000m (16,404ft) at 10,000m (32,80Bft)
47.1 (9,271) 33.2 (6,535) 19.4 (3,819)
48.0 (9,448) 33.3 (6,555) 18.8 (3,700)
47.0 (9,252) 32.4 (6,378) 17.8 (3,504)
45.4 (7,827) 32.8 (6,546) 20.1 (3,956)
36.2 (7,126) 25.7 (5,059) 12.4 (2,440)
36.2 (7,126) 25.7 (5,059) 12.4 (2,440)
Turning time, sec: at 2,000m (6,561 ft) at 5,000m (16,404ft) at 10,DOOm (32,80Bft)
not measured during checkout trials
n/a n/a 54.5
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
26.4 13 n/a n/a
26.4 14 n/a n/a
Turn radius, m(ft): at 2,000m (6,561ft)
not measured
n/a
n/a
n/a
585 (1,919)
at 5,000m (16,404ft)
during checkout
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
at 10,000m (32,80Bft)
trials
1,840 (6,036)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
span
Altitude gained in ayo-yo manoeuvre, m(ft): at 2,DOOm (6,561 ft) not measured
13
585 (1,919) 14
at 5,000m (16,404ft)
during checkout
n/a
n/a
2,950 (9,678)
n/a
n/a
at 10,DOOm (32,808ft)
trials
1,800 (5,905) 15
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Service ceiling, m(ft)
15,550 (51,017)
15,500 (50,850)
15,400 (50,525)
14,700 (48,228)
13,400 (43,963)
13,400 (43,963)
Range at 10,000m, km (nm): on internal fuel
1,185 (640)
n/a
n/a
1,115 (602)
1,200 (648)
1,200 (648) 2,220 (1,200)
with drop tanks
nJa
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,220 (1,200)
Take-off run, m(ft)
n/a
n/a
n/a
510 (1,673)
805 (2,641)
805 (2,641)
Landing run, m(ft)
n/a
n/a
n/a
800 (2,624)
800 (2,624)
800 (2,624)
Armament
1x N-37 2x NR-23
1x N-37 2x NR-23
1xN-37 2xNR·23
1x N-37
1xN-37 2x NR-23
1x N-37 2x NR-23
Notes: 13 Performance measured with two 600 litre (132 Imperial gallon drop tanks). 14 At 1,000m (3,2800). 15 At 8,200m (26,902ft) and higher. The preceding lables have been compleled using information from the book MiG·15 by Yevgeniy Arsen'yev (Armada series, ©M-Hobby, Moscow 1999).
124
MiG-15
End Notes Introduction 1 LL = letayuschchaya laboratoriya - lit. 'ilying laboratory'. The Russian term is used indiscriminately and can denote any engine/avionics/weapons etc testbed or research/survey aircraft. 2 A division oi the Ministry of Aircraft Industry. UI is now named after test pilot Mikhail M Gromov. 3 F = forseerovannw - uprated. The designation usually applied to afterburning turbojets at the time, but not in this instance, as the RD-45F was non-afterburning. 4 The first aircraft to have this designation (1948); not to be confused with the Yak-3D Magnum jet trainer of 1960. 5 OKB = opytno-konstrooktorskoye byuro - experimental design bureau; there were no 'companies' as such in the USSR. The number is a code allocated for security reasons. 6 MMZ = Moskovskiy mashinostroitel'nw zavod Moscow Machinery Plant number something-or-other. MMZ 'Zen it' or MMZ No 155 was the name of Mikoyan's experimental shop. 7 Pronounced izdeliye - 'product', a term often used for coding Soviet military hardware items. 8 The first aircraft to have these designations before the Sukhoi OKB was deactivated in 1949; not to be confused with the single-engined Su-9 Fishpot-A (T-43) of 1957 and the Su-11 Fishpot-B/C (T-47) of 1958 developed by the resurrected OKB. 9 At the time it was still customary for fighter prototypes to be designated by the 1- prefix, just as in the pre-war days. A 'personalized' designation using the first two letters of the OKB leader's last name - eg, 'Yak' for Yakovlev - was usually allocated only when the aircraft entered service (though this practice was already being relinquished, as illustrated by the Sukhoi and Lavochkin bureaux!). 10 Being nominally head of OKB-2, Rossing was, in fact, subordinate to Bereznyak as politically unreliable. 11 DFS = Deutsche Forschungsinstitut fOr Sege/flug - German Gliding Flight Research Institute. The aircraft was also referred to in Russian sources as Siebel 346 since manufacture was contracted to Siebel Flugzeugwerke KG. 12 This aircraft (ex-USAAC 42-6256) was one of three Super/ortresses interned by the Soviets in the Far East (in July 1944) and used for launching production olthe reverseengineered Tu-4 Bull. After being converted for the mother ship role at the Kazan' aircraft factory No 22 in April 1948 (when the Tu-4 was already in production) the bomber received a new TU-4-style construction number, 230503. Upon completion of the 346's trials the B-29 was briefly used in other programmes and finally scrapped. 13 The aircraft had nothing in common with the 'pure' La174 which was the manufacturer's designation of the production swept-wing La-15. Chapter One The 'MiG Menace' is Born 1 The designations S-01, S-02 and S-03 have also been quoted for the original MiG-15 prototypes in Russian documents, but S-1, S-2 and S-3 is more correct and in line with other Mikoyan prototypes. 2 Ootka literally means 'duck' but, when used as an aeronautical term, the word means 'canard (tail-first) layout'. 3 Contrary to allegations by some Western authors, the Zh does not stand for zhidkoye toplivo (liquid fuel) - it is just a product code. 4 The designation 1-320 was re-used in 1949 for the twoseat, tandem-engine izdeliye R night fighter which was tested but did not enter service. 5 There was also the MiG-23-01 Faithless, aka MiG-23PD (podyomnwe dveegateli - lift engines), an experimental delta-wing STOL fighter which had little in common with the Flogger, and the MiG-23-31 (izdeliye 92) STOL technology demonstrator - actually a heavily modified MiG-21 PFM Fishbed-F obstinately misidentified in the West as the MiG21 PD. Both featured Kolesov RD36-35 lift-jets. 6 Not to be confused with the production twin-engined, swept-wing Yak-25 Flashlight interceptor (Yak-120/Yak-125) of1951. 7 OSP = oboroodovaniye s/epoy posahdki - blind landing equipment; ARK = avtomateecheskiy rahdiokompas ADF; RV = rahdiovysotomer- radio altimeter; MRP = markernyy rahdiopreeyomnik. The MRP-48 has also been desig-
nated Khrizantema (Chrysanthemum) in some sources. 8 The UI air/ield is now referred to as the one in Zhukovskiy; this town was built later around the air/ield and is much closerto itthan the town of Ramenskoye. Still, many in the West continued referring to the UI air/ield as 'Ramenskoye'. 9 The official title of Soviet OKB heads. 10 The main facility later moved to Akhtoobinsk on the Volga River (near Astrakhan' in southern Russia), leaving only a branch of the institute responsible for transport aircraft trials at Chkalovskoye. In the early 1990s, Nil WS was renamed GUTs (Gosoodahrstvennyy /yotno-ispytahtel'nyy tsentr - the State Flight Test Centre named after Valeriy Chkalov). 11 This term applies to additional trials held after the aircraft has passed State acceptance trials and has been recommended for service. Chapter Two The Aluminium Rabbit: MiG-15 Version Briefing 1 This factory is now called the Samara aircraft factory 'Aviacor'. See note on construction number systems below. 2 Factory No 21 is now called NAZ (Nizhegorodskiy aviatseeonnyy zavod - Nizhniy Novgorod aircraft factory) 'Sokol' (Falcon). Factory No 31 is now called TAGO, Tbilisskoye aviatseeonnoye gosoodahrstvennoye obyedineniye - Tbilisi stateowned aviation [production] association. The acronym TAPO was already in use by factory No 84 in Tashkent. Factory No 99 is now called U-UAPO, Oo/ahn-oodenskoye aviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye obyedineniye - UlanUde aviation production association. Factory No126 is now called KnAAPO, Komsomol'skoyena-Amoore aviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye obyedineniye - Komsomol'sk-on-Amur aviation production association named after Yuriy A Gagarin. Factory No 135 is now called KhGAPP, Khar'kovskoye gosoodahrstvennoye aviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye predpreeyahtiye - Khar'kov state-owned aviation production enterprise (formerly KhAPO). Factory No 153 is now called NAPO, Novoseebeerskoye aviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye obyedineniye - Novosibirsk aviation production association named after Valeriy P Chkalov. Factory No381 merged with MMZ N030 'Znamya Trooda' (Banner of Labour) in 1949. The latter plant is now part of the aviatseeonnoye MAPO association (Moskovskoye proizvodstvennoye obyedineniye) named after P V Demen'tyev, former Minister of Aircraft Industry. 3 SRO = samo/yotnyy rahdi%katseeonnyy otvetchik lit. aircraft-mounted radar responder (ie, transponder) 4 The designation MiG-17 was used very briefly for the MiG-15bis during Nil WS trials. 5 D = delZhahtel' -lit. 'holder', in this case, weapons rack 6 BD = bah/ochnW delZhahtel' - 'beam-type weapons rack', ie, pylon 7 Also called SR-1 in some documents (ie, izdeliye SR, version 1); see by comparison, a reconnaissance derivative of the MiG-17 Fresco-A was called izdeliye SR-2. The same principle applied to the SP interceptor prototype series, which see. 8 This became the Moscow Research Institute oflnstrument Engineering (MNIIP - Moskovskiy naoochno-iss/edovatel'skiy institoot preeborostroyeniya), aka NPO 'Vega-M', in 1967. 9 This figure turned out to be theoretical; the actual detection range was 9 to 9.5km (4.86 to 5.13nm). 10 ARS = aviatseeonnw reaktivnyy snaryad - [high-velocity) aircraft rocket (HVAR). APU-O-212 = aviatseeonnaya pooskovaya oostanovka, odinochnaya, [dlya snaryadov kalibra] 212 millimetrov - aircraft-mounted launcher, single, for 212mm HVARs; also called PU-21. 11 ORO = odinochnoye reaktivnoye oroodiye - lit. 'single jet gun' (by analogy with recoilless guns). 12 OF = osk%chno-foogahsnyy - high-explosive/fragmentation [warhead] 13 The strategic bomber arm of the WS 14 TBAD = tyazhe/obombardeerovochnaya aviadiveeziya - heavy bomber division ('" bomber group [heavy]); GvTBAP = gvardeyskiy tyazhe/obombardeerovochnyy aviapo/k
- Guards heavy bomberregiment (", bomber wing [heavy]); AE = aviaeskadril'ya - air sqUlldrpn;'IAD = istrebitel'naya aviadiveeziya -fighter division ('" fighter group); GvlAP = gvardeyskiy istrebitel'nyy aviapo/k - Guards fighter regiment ('" fighter wing). The Guards units are the elite of the Soviet (Russian) armed forces; this appellation was given for gallantry in combat, thus being an indication that this is a Second World War-vintage unit. The Smo/ensko-Berlinskiy honorary appellation was given forthe unit's part in liberating Smolensk and taking Berlin. The 57th TBAD and the 171 st GvTBAP also bore the Krasnoznamyonnaya (Krasnoznamyonnyy) title respectively, ie, they had been awarded the Order of the Red Banner of Combat. 15 Some sources state 1,110 Iitres (244.2 Imperial gallons). 16 UBK = ooniversahl'nyy [poo/emyot sistemy] Berezina, kryl'yevoy - versatile Berezin machine gun,_wing-mounted (non-synchronised) version. Turret-mounted (UBT) and synchronised (UBS) versions were also available. 17 The designations MiG-15UTI and UTMiG-15 quoted sometimes are incorrect. 18 DOSAAF = Dobrovol'noye obschchestvo sodeystviya armii, aviahtsii i flotu - the Voluntary Society for the Support of the Army, Aviation (read: Air Force) and Navy. In postSoviet times the organization was renamed ROSTO (Rosseeyskoye oboronnoye sporl/vno-te!
=
=
MiG-15
125
Chapter Four The MiG-15 in Action, or The Aluminium Rabbit Goes to War 1 Another play on Harry Harrison: another one of his novels is titled The Steel Rat Goes to War 2 The honorary appellation Sveerskaya was given for gallanfry in fighting near the River Sveer' in north-western Russia during the Great Patriotic War. 3 Transferred to the 149th lAD in May 1955. The unit became the 42nd IBAP (istrebitel'no-bombardeerovochnyy aviapolk - fighter-bomber regiment) in 1960 and reequipped with MiG-21 PFs in 1972, ultimately becoming the 149th BAD/42nd GvBAP in 1983. 4 The honorary appellation Baranovichskaya was given lor the 239th lAD's part in iiberating the Beiorussian town of Baranovichi during the Great Patriotic War. Likewise, the appellation Novorossiyskiy was given for the 159th lAP's part in liberating the city of Novorossiysk. 5 Grooppa sovetskikh voysk v Ghermahnii - Group of Soviet Forces in Germany; renamed ZGV (Zahpadnaya grooppa voysk - Western Group of Forces) in 1989. 6 NATO and the Soviet comman\! often used different names for the same East German airbases. In such cases the Soviet name comes first with the NATO name following in parentheses. 7 ORAP = otdel'nyy razvedyvatel'nyy aviapolk - independent reconnaissance regiment (ie, not part of a division). APIB - aviapolk istrebite/ey-bombardeerovschhikov - fighter-bomber regiment. 8 A Western author would have said 'blue-on-blue', but it's them who are the 'blues'; we are the 'reds'. In NATO exercises, Blue Force is the 'good guys' and Red Force is the 'bad guys'; in Soviet (Russian) exercises, it's vice versa. 9 In the air, UN forces were mostly represented by the USAF but also by the British Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the South African Air Force. 10 At first the Soviet Air Force MiG-15s in Korea wore Chinese markings but these quickly gave way to North Korean ones. 11 The spelling mayor may not match the Western spelling of Korean locations. These names were translated directly from the Russian spelling in the Soviet documents. And there are variations in that as well; eg, the base called Miaogow in most sources is referred to as Miaochow in others. 12 Lieutenant, senior grade (the Soviet equivalent of 1st Lieutenant) . 13 Korean War Aces (Robert F Dorr, Jon Lake, Warren
126
MiG-15
Thompson, Osprey Publishing, London, 1995, p. 16) is the only Western publication mentioning this fact. 14 According to US sources, the first F-86 shootdown of the Korean War took place on 22nd December when Capt Nikolay Ye Vorob'yov (177th lAP/50th lAD) shot down Lawrence V Bach (4th FIG). 15 Robert Jackson. Air War Over Korea. Ian Allan Ltd, London 1975, p. 90. 16 Air War Over Korea, p. 132. 17 Stel'makh was shot down and ejected, landing amid South Korean positions - or so he thought. He fought back until he was out of ammunition, then shot himself with his last bullet. Tragically, it turned out these were North Koreans .. 18 There is considerable confusion as to the spelling of his name; some sources call him No Kum Suk. 19 MiG-15 ace V A Nazarkin recalled that in high-G manoeuvres the MiG-15 would warn of an impending stall by making 'a din like an iron roof in a hurricane. Holy s**t, I never imagined a plane could do anything iike that.' 20 This 'Sabre-stealing Kondrat'yev' is not to be confused with Vyacheslav P Kondrat'yev who is responsible for the Yakovlev Yak-18T cabin monoplane, the Sukhoi Su-26 championship aerobatic aircraft and the SM-92 Finist iight utility aircraft designed by his own company, Technoavia. 21 Possibiy in MiG-15bis '406 Red' (c/n 2415306). After this 'kill' Karpov was promoted to Captain; later he, too, was shot down and killed in a dogfight with nine Sabres. 22 MTAP = minno-torpednyy aviapolk - aerial minelayer and torpedo-bomber regiment. 23 Pronounced 'Kheb'. 24 The second-ranking Soviet ace of the Second World War with 59 'kills', triple HSU. 25 GvORAP = gvardeyskiy otdel'nyy razvedyvatel'nyy aviapolk - independent Guards reconnaissance regiment (= tactical reconnaissance wing). 26 Possibly it was GSA Czechoslovak Airlines' OK-MCT (c/n 807103) which crashed near Slavkov on 10th September 1962 27 Again, there is considerable confusion as to the spelling of this name; some sources call the place Bir Gifgafa or even Bir Gilgafa. 28 The Syrian MiGs did not take part in the fighting. Their presence at Abu Sueir is explained by the fact that Syrian pilots were taking their training there; hence the aircraft were delivered to and assembled at Abu Sueir so that the Syrians could depart in their new jets after completing the training course.
Chapter Five MiG-15 Operators Worldwide 1 Some sources claim it was based at L'atec AB in northwestern Czech ia. 2 Marxwalde reverted to its original name, Neuhardenberg, following German reunification in 1990. 3 The unit moved to PeenemOnde, MecklenburgNorpommern, in 1961. 4 A German book on the LSK/LV stated the unit number as JBG 37. However, the fleet list section in the same book uses JBG 31 throughout and this is corroborated by other German publications. 5 JG 2 was named after the famous Soviet cosmonaut who was the first man in space; JG 3 after another Soviet cosmonaut who died on 24th April 1967 when his spacecraft's heat shield failed during reentry; JG 7 after the East German president of the early 1950s; FAG 25 after a colonel of the East German Armed Forces; and JBG 31 after the first Czech president. 6 Formerly Flugzeugwerke Dresden (Dresden Aircraft Factory), a manufacturer of VEB-14s (licence-built Ilyushin IL-14P Crates). The East German aircraft industry was killed off by the government in 1961 as 'uneconomical'. 7 The Polish serial prior to delivery to the USA has also been quoted as 6038 Red. 8 The style of the serial's digits varied perceptibly from factory to factory, allowing an educa1ed guess as to where the aircraft was built. For example, Novosibirsk used thin and angular digits, usually outlined in white; Kuybyshev and Saratov normally used narrow and very rounded digits, again outlined in white, while Gor'kiy had something in between (bold and rather angular) and with no white outline. 9 This aircraft was earlier flown by DTESA as 822 Red (exN822JM, see table). Chapter Six The MiG-15bis in Detail 1 The rounds for the N-37 and NR-23 weigh 1,300g (45.890z) and 340g (120z) respectively.
A line-up of retired MiG-15s in use for training exercises. The explosion is to simulate a nuclear detonation. Yelim Gordon Archive
Appendix One
MiG·15 Family Drawings
'8' project (March 1947)
'8' project (August 1947)
8-1 (1-310) prototype
o
8-2 prototype
MiG-15
127
Production MIG·15 (SV)
128
MiG-15
S·3 prototype
First series production MIG·15 (SV)
Modified MiG·15 No 101003
= Modified MiG·15 No 105015 The first SO prototype
_..
_~---_.
~·o·
0
Modified MiG·15 No3810102 (SA·1)
00
MiG-15
129
Production MiG·15bis (SD)
130
MiG-15
Production MiG·15bis (SO)
o
jJT13-.2bO
0;<'
ITg-3 0 o
.feuL fC/A/RS
o I
I
-
-
@
@)
I
I
I
I
oI
oFAg--(tJCJI1 0/1 'FOTA.8--(OO
o
"/I.
FAg -$"O 011
Ao-50-.(&tJl'f ""M.4~
o I
G
Ol~=~
o
MiG-15
131
MiG·15 No 109035 (SU)
o o
Production MiG·15bis (SO)
o
0
o
0
MiG·15bis with NS·23KM guns and OSP·48, Barii-M, RSIU·6 equipment
Late production MiG-.15bis
MiG·15bis No 122035
132
MiG-15
The first SR prototype (MiG-15bis No53210120)
Production MiG-15Rbis (SR) No53210101 with 600L fuel tanks
MiG·15bisR Czechoslovakian Air Force
o
MiG-15
133
50-21 prototype (MiG-15bis No 134007) with 5-21 rockets
50-25 prototype with two PR05AB-250 bombs
MiG-15bis No 135039 with 'Grad' pods
MiG-15bis No2815311 with 4 FAB-250 bombs
15h prototype (MiG-15bis 5h)
134
MiG-15
MiG-15bis No53210114
MiG-15bis for 'Burlaki' system
MiG-15bis with refuelling system
MiG-15bis with refuelling system
MiG-15bis No 2315393 with big speed brakes
MiG-15
135
UTI-MiG-15 (ST-1) prototype
UTI-MiG-15 (ST-2) prototype
UTi-MiG-15 production series No 1·5
UTI-MiG-15 from 6th series
UTI-MiG·15 with fuel tanks and modified speed brakes
136
MiG-15
Production UTi-MiG-15 series No 1-5
MiG-15
137
UTI-MiG-15 (ST-10) test·bed
UTI·MiG-15 (ST.10) modified test·bed
ST·10 with KS-1 ejection seat
.0
UTI·MiG-15 test-bed (c/n 401')
ST trainer project (1949)
.p---.------.--
138
MiG-15
SP-1 prototype
o
0
o
SP-5 prototype
o o
Modified SP-5 prototype (State tests)
ST-7 (UTI-MiG-15P) prototype
o <= 0
MiG-15
139
Lim·1
Lim·1,5
o o
Lim-2
Lim-2R
140
MiG-15
Modified SBLim·1
SBLim-2A
SBLim-2M
MiG-15
141
Czech-built MiG-15SB
Czech-built MiG-15bis SB with 400L tanks and AA·2 rockets
o
MiG·15T
o o
MiG·15bis T
142
MiG-15
0
MiG·15bis with PPZ-1 ILS
Czech·built S·102 (c/n V-15)
Czech-built S-103
o
MiG·15bis R with 600L tanks
MiG-15
143
Modified UTI·MiG·15
o·
Czech·built CS·102
Chinese· built JJ·2 (FT·2)
o·
CS·102 with PPZ·1 ILS
(;)
0
UTI·MiG·15P No 2626
o CD
144
MiG-15
0
Appendix Two
MiG·15 in Colour
Above: The MiG·15bis (ISh) at the Russian Air Force Museum, Monino. Yefim Gordon
Below left: Another view of the MiG·15bis (ISh) in Monino. Yefim Gordon
Below right: The massive pylons of the MiG·15bis (ISh) could carry up to three bombs each. Yefim Gordon
MiG-15
145
20 Red, a MiG-15M (M-15) target drone operated by the State Flight Test Centre (GLlTs) in Akhtoobinsk around 1994. Yefim Gordon Lim-2 '1809 Red'(c/n 18018-09) on display at the Muzeum Braterstwa Broni, Drzon6w. Yefim Gordon
146
MiG-15
Ex·DOSAAF CS·102 '06 Red' (c/n 922272) at the Great Patriotic War Museum, Poklonnaya Gora, Moscow. The damaged rear canopy glazing has been substituted by sheet metal. Yefim Gordon
UTI·MiG·15 '03 Red' (c/n 22013) at the Russian Air Force Museum, Monino. Yefim Gordon
Another view of the UTI·MiG·15 in Monino. Yefim Gordon
MiG-15
147
1132 Red, a MiG·15bis displayed at the Muzeum Wojska Po/skiego in Warsaw. Its origin is unclear; it could be a Soviet-built example or a Lim-2 (c/n 1B 011-32). SBLim-2 '035 Red' (ex-Lim-1 cln 1A 06-035) on display at the Muzeum Lotnictwa i Astronautyki, Krakow. Both Yefim Gordon
148
MiG-15
01 Red, one of the first Soviet-built MiG-15s delivered to Poland, in the Poznan City Liberation Museum. Yefim Gordon
Another view of SBLim-2 '035 Red' in Krakow; note the large MiG-15bis-style airbrakes. Yefim Gordon 365 Red, a MiG-15bis displayed at the Muzeum Wojska Po/skiego in Warsaw. Its origin is unclear; it could be a Soviet-built example or a Lim-2 (c/n 1B 011-32). Yefim Gordon
((
MiG-15
149
Former Polish air force Lim-2 N822JM seen at Stead Airport, Reno, Nevada painted in spurious markings for a film. Jay Miller
A UTI-MiG-15 in non-authentic markings as '18 Red' in the Auto- und Technik Museum, Sinsheim. This aircraft has since moved to the museum's second location at Speyer. Yefim Gordon A privately-owned British Midget, G-OMIG, at ILA-94 in Berlin, painted in Soviet markings as 6247 Blue. Originally a Czech-built CS·102 (c/n 622047), this aircraft flew with the Polish Air Force and has been upgraded to SBLim·2A standard. Yefim Gordon
150
MiG-15
Paul Entrekin's MiG-15bis N15PE (ex-N90601, c/n 122073) painted in pre-1955 Soviet markings but with the post-1955 tactical code '15 White'. (Speaking of which, WS fighters in natural metal finish never had white codes!). Yefim Gordon archive MiG-15bis VH-BPG flies in Polish Air Force colours as '607' and is seen here at Richmond in October 1991. Midland Publishing collection
MiG-15
151
The first MiG-15 prototype was designated 1-310 (S-Ol)
MiG-15bis with OSP-48 blind landing system and detachable external fuel tanks
A Soviet MiG-15 in an early 1950s paint scheme that soon appeared in the Korean sky
UTI-MiG-15 that was operated by the Voluntary Society for Support of the Soviet Army, Air Force and Navy (DOSAAF) in 1970s
UTI-MiG-15P (ST-7) two-seat trainer equipped with the RP-1 Izumrud radar
152
MiG-15
UTi-MiG-15 intended for the SK ejection seat development program
A Czech Air Force MiG-15 SB with PPZ-1 landing system
MiG-15bis of the Czech Air Force aerobatic team
A MiG-15bis from Czech Air Force Ostrava-based fighter bomber regiment
A Czech Air Force MiG-15Rbis that was used as an adversary aircraft during tactical exercises (note blue stripes on the fuselage sides and fin)
MiG-15
153
MiG-15 of the Czech Air Force aerobatic team of the early 1950s
-----"-"-- ~-----
-----
The only Czech Air Force UTI-MiG-15 equipped with RP-1 Izumrud radar
o
A Polish-built Lim-2R reconnaissance aircraft with photographic equipment. The Lim-2 was the Polish version of the later production series MiG-15bis
.--------------
Another Polish-built Lim-2R reconnaissance aircraft with photographic equipment.
The SBLim·2 is the two-seat combat trainer version of the Lim-2 single-seater
li I:J 154
MiG-15
..--------
.._____-----
o
o
-,-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A North Korean MiG·15bis of the 64th Fighter Air Corps (FAC), painted in a camouflage scheme was introduced since 1952
---~-----------
~----------
A former Chinese Navy MiG-15bis (J-2) now in the US, registered as N15MG, in a paint scheme similar to that of Soviet MiG-15s of the 324th Fighter Air division, which participated in Korean operations in spring and summer of 1951 ~-~
_--~
~~-
------
-~
----------
A North Korean Air Force MiG-15bis
A later production series MiG-15bis equipped with OSP·48 system and RSIU-3 radio station of the Chinese Air Force
A later production series MiG-15bis equipped with OSP-48 system and RSIU-3 radio station of the Chinese Air Force
MiG-15
155
A Czech-built UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) of the East German Air Force
o
An East German Air Force MiG-15bis
A Hungarian Air Force MiG-15bis
MiG-15bis, manufacturer's No 2015337, that was flown to Kimpo Air Base near Seoul on 21st September 1953 by Korean pilot Ro Kim Suk. The aircraft was evaluated on Okinawa and at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, in 1954
The stolen MiG-15bis at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa
156
MiG-15
A Finnish Air Foce UTI-MiG-15, one of four aircraft exported to Finland
An Indonesian Air Force UTI·MiG-15, exported in early 1960s, was used for training of Indonesian pilots for the MiG-17
An Iraqi Air Force MiG-15 two-seater as seen in Prague, Czechoslavakia, in 1963, several days before delivery to the Middle East
o A Hungarian Air Force MiG-15bis equipped with the OSP-48 blind landing system
MiG-15
157
An early production series MiG-15bis with OSP-48 blind landing system. It was used in the Hungarian Air Force as a fighter-bomber
A Cuban Air Force MiG-15bis equipped with the OSP-48 blind landing system
A former Polish SBLim·2 (manufacturer's code 1A·06-038) that was imported to the US and was used by the Defense Test and Evaluation Agency at Kirkland Air Force Base, New Mexico
One ofthe American, privately-owned MiG-15bis
A Polish Lim-2 (manufacturer's code 1B-01-205, civil registration number N205JM), used in Steal the Sky, a TV movie
158
MiG-15
Advertisement
BRITISH SECRET PROJECTS JET FIGHTERS SINCE 1950
SOVIET X-PLANES
Yefim Gordon & Bill Gunston
Tony Buttler
We hope you enjoyed this book, . , Aerofax and Midland Publishing titles are edited and designed by an experienced and enthusiastic transAtlantic team of specialists.
THE X·PLANES X-1 to X-45
New, totally revised third edition Jay Miller
BRITISH SECRET PROJECTS JET RGHTERS SINCE 1950
Further titles are in preparation but we always welcome ideas from authors or readers for books they would like to see published. In addition, our associate company, Midland Counties Publications, offers an exceptionally wide range of aviation, spaceflight, astronomy, military, naval and transport books and videos for sale by mail-order around the world. For acopy of the appropriate catalogue, or to order further copies of this book, and any of the titles mentioned on this or the facing page, please write, telephone, fax or e-mail to: Midland Counties Publications 4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, Leics, LE10 3EY, England Tel: (+44) 01455 254450 Fax: (+44) 01455 233 737 E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com
TONY BUTTLER
A huge number of fighter projects have been drawn by British companies over the last 50 years, in particular prior to the 1957 White Paper, but with few turned into hardware, little has been published about these fascinating 'might-have-beens'. Emphasis is placed on some of the events which led to certain aircraft either being cancelled or produced. Some of the varied types included are the Hawker P.11 03/P.1136/ P.1121 series, and the Fairey 'Delta III'
US distribution by Specialty Press see page 2.
Hbk, 282 x 213 mm, 176 pages 130 b/w photos; 140 three-views, and an 8 page colour section 1 85780 095 8 £24,95/US $39,95
SOVIET COMBAT AIRCRAFT OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR
SOVIET COMBAT AIRCRAFT OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR
Volume One: Single-Engined Fighters Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov
A detailed review of Soviet experimental aircraft from the early 1900s through to the latest Russian prototypes of today. The book is the first to collect the stories of the more important Soviet experimental aircraft into one volume. Working from original sources the authors have produced an outstanding reference which although concentrating on hardware also includes many unflown projects. About 150 types are described, each with relevant data, and including many three-view drawings. Hardback, 282 x 213mm, 240 pages 355 b/w, 50 colour photos; 200 dwgs 1 85780 099 0 £29,95/US $44,95
This new, totally revised and updated version of 'The X-Planes' contains a detailed and authoritative account of every single X-designated aircraft. There is considerable new, and newlydeclassified information on all X-Planes. Each aircraft is described fully with coverage of history, specifications, propulsion systems and disposition. Included are rare cockpit illustrations. Each X-Plane is also illustrated by a detailed multi-view drawing. Hardback, 280 x 216mm, 440 pages c850 b/w, 52 colour photographs, approximately 110 drawings 1 85780 109 1 £39.95/US $59,95
VIETNAM AIR LOSSES
US AIR FORCE
Twin Eng Fighters, Attack Acft & Bombers
USAF, Navy and Marine Corps Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in SE Asia 1961-1973
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . .
Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov
Chris Hobson
Volumcr",o: rwin-Enpned FlPJtcrs. Atuc.k Airel' an.d60mben
The New Century
.
Bob Archer
oJ 4;;
,
Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazancj with Alexandu Medved'
Arranged by manufacturer, this includes the prototype and operational products of famous designers such as Lavochkin, Mikoyan and Yakovlev as well as the lesser known, such as the Bereznyak-Isaev rocket propelled fighter. Rich Russian sources including manufacturers, flight test establishments and Soviet air force and naval aviation records provide awealth of new material, much of which rewrites preViously held Western views.
Arranged by designer, this includes the products of famous names such as Ilyushin, Petlyakov and Tupolev as well as lesser known types. In his introduction, Bill Gunston explains the unique nature of Soviet aviation, the politics and strategies and the problems created by the vastness of the country - and confirms that the two volumes of Soviet Combat Aircraft are set to become the premier reference on this facet of aviation history.
Hardback, 282 x 213 mm, 184 pages 358 b/w photos; 28 layout diagrams, 16 full colour side views 1 85780 083 4 £24.95/US $39,95
Hardback, 282 x 213 mm, 176 pages 285 b/w photos; 27 layout diagrams; 17 full colour side views 1 85780 084 2 £24,95/US $39.95
Amost thorough review of all the fixed wing losses suffered over atwelve year period. The information is basically a chronological recording of each aircraft loss including information on unit, personnel, location and cause of loss. Information is also provided on the background or future career of some of the aircrew involved. There are extensive orders of battle, plus an index of personnel, as well as statistics of the war, list of abbreviations, glossary of codenames and bibliography.
Covers current active duty flying wings and autonomous groups, with full details of formation and changes of designation, home stations, aircraft types, years assigned, and a history of each unit with its emblem in colour. Almost 50 aircraft types currently in service or planned for the USAF are detailed including development, unit assignments, serial batches and an explanation of the role of each variant. Bases are examined, and a list of current tail codes is presented.
Softback, 280 x 215 mm, c1 92 pages c1 00 b/w photographs 1 85780 115 6 c£1 9,95/US $29,95
Softback, 280 x 216mm, 176 pages 190 colour photos, 127 unit emblems 1 85780 1024 £18.95/US $29.95
I~I In 1982, American author Jay Miller published his first major book, the 'AeroGraph' on the F-16. Since then there has been asteady flow of widely acclaimed books from the Aerofax line. After many years acting as European distributors, Midland Publishing Limited acquired the rights to the Aerofax name and have since commissioned many new titles for the series. Some will continue to be produced for Midland by Jay Miller in the USA, others will be originated by atalented team of internationally known authors. The previous categories of AeroGraph, DataGraph, MiniGraph, and Extra are no longer used; all new titles are simply published as 'Aerofax' books. These softback volumes are full of authoritative text, detailed photographs, plus line drawings. They also contain some colour, and cockpits, control panels and other interior detail are well illustrated in most instances. Some of the more recent titles are outlined alongside, whilst a listing of the others in the series that are still in print, plus details of newly announced titles, is available upon request.
ILYUSHIN 1L-76
Russia's Versatile Jet Freighter Yefim Gordon & Dmitriy Komissarov
Aerofax TUPOLEV Tu-95/Tu-142 'BEAR'
Aerofax MIG-25 'FOXBAT' and MIG·31 'FOXHOUND'
Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant
Yefim Gordon
IL-76
Tupolev Tu-95/-142 'Bear'
MiG-25 'Foxbat' MiG·31 'Foxhound'
Russla'sVersatlleJet Fretghter
Ruula'slnlen:onlinentl'·RtllliIG Hnvy Bomba,
Russla'Sdelenslvofronllino
Ilyushin
Dmllriy Komlssarov and YClfim Gordon
V.lim Gordon Bnd Vladimir Rillmant
YCllmGordon
i====~====i
F====~====i
F====~====I
The Soviet Union's answer to the Lockheed Starlifter first flew in 1971 and has become familiar both in its intended military guise and as a commercial freighter. It has also been developed as the IL-78 for aerial refuelling, and in AEW and other versions. There is not only afull development history and technical description, but extensive tables detailing each aircraft built, with c/n, serial and so on, and detailed notes on every operator, both civil and military, and their fleets.
During the 'Cold War' Tupolev's Tu-95 'Bear' strategic bomber provided an awesome spectacle. It was the mainstay of the USSR's strike force, areliable and adaptable weapons platform. Additional roles included electronic/photographic reconnaissance and maritime patrol, AEW and command and control. The author has had unparalleled access to the Tupolev OKB archives, taking the lid off astory previously full of speculation to produce the most comprehensive study to date.
This book takes adetailed, informed and dispassionate view of an awesome aeronautical achievement - the titanium and steel MiG-25 - which became the backbone of the USSR defensive structure. Its follow-on was the similarlooking MiG-31 'Foxhound', very much a new aircraft designed to counter US cruise missiles and in production from 1979. Includes a large amount of previously unpublished material plus extensive and lavish illustrations.
Softback, 280 x 215 mm, 160 pages c250 b/w and colour photos, drawings 1857801067 £19.95/US $34.95
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 128 pages 236 b/w, 24 col photos, 12 diagrams 1 85780046 X £14.95/US $24.95
Aerofax CONVAIR B·58 HUSTLER
Aerofax
Aerofax
McDONNELL DOUGLAS
McDONNELL DOUGLAS
More Than Just aTanker
The World's First Supersonic Bomber
DC-10 AND KC-10 EXTENDER
MD·11
Robert S Hoskins III
Jay Miller
Arthur ACSteffen
Arthur ACSteffen
Aerofax BOEING KC-135
Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
Convair B-58
More thtlnjust a Tanker
The World's First Supersonic Bomber
Hustler
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 96 pages 110 b/w and colour photos plus 91 line and colour airbrush illustrations 1 85780 064 8 £13.95/ US $21.95
McDonnell Douglas DC·10 and KC·10 Extender
McDonnell Douglas MD·11
Wlde.OodyWorkhorSeII
Along Bench SWllnsong
Robert S Hopkins III
Jay Miller
F====~====1
F====~====1
This book, written by aformer USAF RC-135 crew commander, follows the development and service use of this globe-trotting aircraft and its many and varied tasks. Every variant, and subvariant is charted, the histories of each and every aircraft are to be fou nd within; details of the hundreds of units, past and present, that have flown the Stratotanker are given. This profusely illustrated work will interest those who have flown and serviced them as well as the historian and enthusiast community.
Instantly recognisable with its delta wing and 'coke bottle' area-ruled fuselage the B-58 was put into production for the US Air Force in the 1950s. First published, in 1985, this is a revised edition, which takes aretrospective in-depth look at this significant aircraft, from design studies, through its development and comparatively short service life, to and beyond retirement. It includes yet more amazing material and 80 new illustrations, bringing the story up to date.
From 1970 to 1988 McDonnell Douglas built 446 DC-1 Os of all models and they are at work around the clock carrying passengers and freight. The central part of this book gives details of each DC-10 operator, including illustrations of all major colour schemes. The United States Air Force has 60 of the KC-10A Extender tanker/transport version, a very capable addition to the inventory. The illustrations are almost totally full colour, to show to best advantage the wide range of schemes and operators.
McDonnell Douglas' follow-on to the DC-10 proved less successful in terms of numbers produced and has fallen casualty to the Boeing takeover. However it has seen service with many airlines worldwide and is entering a second phase of existence as apure freighter conversion. Again, this book details each and every aircraft and operator. The illustrations are almost totally full colour, to show to best advantage the wide range of schemes and operators.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 224 pages 210 b/w and 46 colour photos 1 857800699 £24.95/US $39.95
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 152 pages 462 b/w, 15 colour, 100 line i1lusts. 1 857800583 £16.95/US $27.95
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 128 pages 276 colour, 14 b/w photos, 11 line dwgs 1 85780051 6 £19.95/US $34.95
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 112 pages c230 mostly colour photos, 19 drawings 1857801172 £19.95/US $34.95
).~---------------
Made in England
Top: A line-up of AV-MF/Baltic Fleet MiG-15bis. Above: 20 Red, a MiG-15M (M-15) target drone operated by the State Flight Test Centre (GUTs) in Akhtoobinsk around 1994. , Front cover illustration: Four MiG-15bis of the Soviet Air Force's first jet display team, unofficially known as 'T,he Red Five', formed at Kubinka AB in 1950. All Yefim Gordon archive
ISBN 1-85780-105-9
1111111 1111
9 781857 801057 USA $29.95 UK £17.95