Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Design Section Too German-Centric

The section is far from balanced, speaking in glowing terms of how seemingly, all aviation technological roads lead to Berlin, when in fact the article is actually about the Russian Mig-15. I understand we need to explain how the Soviets stole/copied British technology as well as their metallurgical knowledge and inheriting certain German aviation technical demonstrators but the wording suggests far more. Roland Of Yew (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

kill ratio sabre/mig15 during the Korea War

The article is still very bad on this.

Agreed. I think that this artle should contain the Russian and Chinese Korean official stats (which an be referenced)as fact (as is the case with USAF stats in the F-86 article). It would then be balanced to state that these figures are disputed by USAF official stats. Comments of aces and significant actions (e.g. Black Tuesday) would be useful as well.

First air to air kill

The comment "The MiG-15 achieved its own first air-to-air kill on 13 June 1952, but it remained a secret for many years. Its victim was a Swedish Air Force DC-3 signals reconnaissance aircraft flying over the Baltic Sea, which set off what has become known as the Catalina affair (after the shooting down of a Catalina flying boat sent out to search for the missing DC-3)" is false in that the Swedish DC-3 was NOT the first MiG kill. For example from the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office Korean War Aircraft Loss Database, an F86A shot down by a MiG 26 September 1951, 9 months earlier. http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/pmkor/korwald_info_348.htm
It might be relevant but it is factually incorrect and needs to be rewritten or removed.

MiG 26 24.205.34.217 21:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is totally inaccurate: "Three MiG-15s of the same unit intercepted 10 F-80 Shooting Stars, and the MiG-15 of First Lieutenant Semyon Fiodorovich Jominich scored the first jet-vs-jet victory in history when he bagged the F-80C of Frank Van Sickle, who would also perish (USAF credits both losses to the action of the North Korean flak)."

The same source stated for the above also states: "The Shooting Star...it bested the MiG-15 in the world’s first jet-versus-jet air combat..."

So this needs to be corrected. Zandovise (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Zandovise

Name that plane

Is this Mig-15 or Mig-17?

Is this plane still in use?

No. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 04:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A Mig-15: The 15 has two fins on the upper surface of the wing, while the 17 has three Mmartins 05:07, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The fins are a common sight on Soviet Cold War era aircraft and U.S. engineers used to comment that the fins prevented the airflow from "defecting" over the tips of the wings.-Ken keisel 20:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

They're known as wing fences - roughly speaking, they're to prevent the sliding of airflow on a swept wing from the root of the wing towards the tip. Ian Dunster 09:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why were they used on Soviet but not US aircraft? Bastie 12:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Americans engineers preferred to use wing slats to control airflow over the wing. I'm not an aeronautical engineer, but I think slats are a lot more efficient and versatile at the expense of complexity whereas wing fences are far easier to implement in the plane design. Look at the pictures in F-86 Sabre, its very interesting to compare the wings of the two rivals. The Sabre used wing slats whereas the Mig-15/17 used wing fences. Two different solutions to the same problem. --Eqdoktor 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not true for all Sabres and the 'F' variant had what is described as a 'hard wing' i.e. no slats, and more interestingly the inclusion of a fence feature that sat on the outboard top of the wing. Was this influenced by the MiG-15s? Who knows, but would not be beyond the realms of possibility. In terms of slats being more efficient...well yes but only if they are well designed and in the the 50s they were not. Any design of system on an aircraft has to offer at least the performance gain it takes in weight and the benifit of slats is not low speed efficiency (a broader wing section will always have the edge when it comes to manouver) but the overall thinner wing section which would allow for lower drag and higher speed. So you see the way it is percived is the wrong way round. The slats are there to compensate for a thin wings low speed performance while the wing fence is there to stop migration of spanwise flow over the top of the wing at high wing load i.e. one is for landing and the other is for high speed manouvering.

How did this plane get the name "Fagot"? Space Turbo (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Under NATO reporting names fighters were given names starting with "F". Also "Fagot" means bassoon in ~13 languages, (just not English, German or French). StereoTypo (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Including, apparently Russian: 9K111 Fagot. - BilCat (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Rolls Royce Nene turbojet engine history

The early version of this page up to 7 October 2004:

The lack of a suitable engine was solved when the British licensed Rolls-Royce to export their reliable Nene turbojet, which the Russians immediately copied as the Klimov RD-45.

On 12 October 2004 by user this was changed by User:67.100.103.34 to:

The Soviet fortunes changed dramatically in 1946 when the British (at the behest of Socialist Prime Minister Clement R. Atlee, who wanted to improve British-Russian relations) arranged for the Russians to acquire a manufacturing license for the Rolls-Royce Nene centrifugal flow turboject engine.

Refering to the article in the Sunday Times newspaper on 10 May 1987, it seems the original version was more accurate. It reports that Whitney Willard Straight, then deputy chairman of Rolls Royce, was horrified to discover while visiting Peking in 1958 that the Russian Mig 15 planes had counterfeit versions of the Rolls-Royce Derwent and Nene engines. Russia had been provided with 40 of these engines under an export licence authorised PM Atlee after the war, and had clearly copied the design. Straight tried unsuccessfully to claim back £200m from Russia in royalties.

If there are no objections I shall modify the current article accordingly. Op. Deo 3 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)

Surely it was known long before 1958 that the MiG was powered by a British engine? Drutt 10:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

During the Korean war England actively exported the British engines to Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.109.231 (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the Soviets were making their own copies by this time, though they had a much shorter life, it would seem.172.190.106.134 (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Derwents and Nenes were supplied to Russia in 1946 before the Cold War had got going, and Rolls-Royce certainly did not give permission, or in any way licence the Soviets, to make their own copies. The current equivalent term used today would be that they were 'pirate copies'.

The Soviets were unable to obtain Nimonic, which is a high-temperature, low-creep alloy used in the engine's turbine section. Without this their engines had very short operating lives, as if not overhauled in time, the engine would shed turbine blades and eventually disintegrate - under the high centrifugal loads, the blades elongate permanently, eventually contacting the turbine shroud. The original Nene engine runs at around 12,300 rpm at full power, whereas a contemporary piston aero-engine's maximum rpm would have been around a quarter of that, so the new jet engines would have been very demanding on the turbine blade materials compared to the materials that had been used previously in piston engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

TBO for the 1948 Klimov VK-1 was 25 hours, whereas the Nene was originally type-tested at 150 hours. By 1949 the de Havilland Goblin was type-tested at 500 hours and had a 600 hour TBO. Both latter engines used Nimonic in their turbine sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.233 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do articles on the MIG-15 claim that the Nene engine was cutting edge? It was very much WW2 era centrifugal flow technology and by the end of the war both the British and the Germans were working on much more advanced axial flow engines. It was just a lot better than anything the Soviets and the USA had at the time. The British didn't use it much on their aircraft because the much more powerful Avon was under development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.195.125 (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure we do call it "cutting edge" in the article, can you give us a clue where it makes that claim, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said cutting edge except for the Nazi's because, while the article does quote Stalin's alleged comment about "What fool will sell us his secrets?" it also points out that the Soviets "did inherit the technology of the advanced axial-compressor Junkers 012 and BMW 018 engines, in the class of the later Rolls-Royce Avon, that were some years ahead of the then currently available British Rolls-Royce Nene engine." This seems to me to give the impression that the Nene was secret because it was the best technology available to non-Nazis. The British had built the axial compressor (is that what you mean by Avon class?) Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 that was flying in the Gloster Meteor in 1943. The British had also developed Nimonic super-alloys that neither the Nazis nor the Soviets in the 1940's had access to which is one of the main reasons why the Nazi and early Soviet jet engines had very short service lives. Maybe this is not the intended impression but it would be interesting to know if it is shared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.195.125 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Bis

According to what I know, bis is latin for twice, not for 2. I am going to change it, but if someone knows more than i do about the subject, fell free to turn it back.

From what I've seen of my study of chemistry, it is two. But I believe that it's interchangable. --Laserbeamcrossfire 05:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

ain't enough information,...!!

According to Yefim Gordon, it is Latinate / French, meaning "again", "encore", and so on. It roughly corresponds to the US suffix of "plus" -- as in AV-8B Plus.

MrG -- 22 Oct 06

Russian pilots in Korea

It was finally established several years ago that many Russian pilots flew MiG-15s during the Korean War. Their presence was long suspected, but not confirmed before that. They were even issued cards with common air combat phrases translated into Korean that they were supposed to use to communicate during combat. A few years ago the Air Force Museum held their annual "gathering of aces" and invited the top Russian pilots of the Korean War. Two came to the event.-Ken keisel 20:50, 24 August 2006

This part of the article needs removing. This article is about the plane not the politics of which nationality piloted the plane. 90.220.158.22 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Map of operators

Shouldn't the US be included? κаллэмакс 06:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

MiG-15_underside.jpg is misidentified ?

I've posted a message to Image_talk:MiG-15_underside.jpg with reasons why it looks like this image is Mig-17, not Mig-15. Please somebody validate. --TAG 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, this is a MiG-17, probably an F model. Good catch. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(This discussion refers to MiG17Underside1981.png Drutt 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

Yefim Gordon's Later Book On The MiG-15 ...

... differs in a few small ways from this article:

1: The cannon tray was there from day one, not introduced in the MiG-15bis.

2: Yeager's comments appear to be exaggerated; the book reports that the Soviet pilots who Yeager claimed agreed with him roared "BULLS**T" after being told of his claims. Yeager's comments seem to have been just another example of his well-known tendency to bluster.

3: It could go out of control in a dive -- except for the fact that the airbrakes opened automatically at the flight redline limit.

4: Early production tended to roll one way or another due to manufacturing variances, and so trimmers called "nozhi (knives)" were fitted. They could be adjusted by ground crews until the roll tendency went away. The nozhi were retained in later production though they weren't really needed.

MrG -- 22 Oct 06

Kill Ratio in Korea

Doesn't comparing aircraft-lost-in-combat records for the Korean War between UN and Communist forces give an actual ratio of something like 2 UN: 3 Commies? Most of the engagements are corroborated on both sides with wildly varying kill tallies.

Look in the F-86 aricle here. The VVS lost 345 planes to the US's ~240. Presumably these counts are from all causes including accidents. 128.153.205.189 04:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at many sources, both Eastern and Western, i could certanly agree that the kill ratio of F-86 to Mig-15 in Korean War was 1:14. However, that includes all pilots, both North Korean, Chinese and Russian. It is well documented in Soviet sources and by Russian pilots that Russian pilots flying Mig-15s shot down 2 F-86's for every airplane they lost. The overall kill ratio of Mig-15's in Russian sqaudrons to all other airplanes was a lot higher. However, that is only understandable because several of these pilots were WWII veterans who fought on the tough Eastern front. Either way, i think a statistic on Rusian to American kill ratio should be included do give a reader a better view of this airplane's capability. - Aleksandar Volarevic

With all due respect for the mighty russian pilots who flew with distinction in the Korean War let me just say that your post is just a representation of how dificult is for russian pride to admit that they lost battles especially against the US in some sort. The 14:1 kill ratio you mention is absolutely ridiculous providing that all three WS countries claim they shot down about 900 sabres altogether. So this 14:1 kill ratio mig vs f-86 means that only about 65 mig-15´s were shot down?? Absolutely ridiculous especially is you take consideration that is well accepted that sabres in korea totaled about 650 and about 60% of them were not destroyed. In my opinion probably the most accurate research are the modern ones about 3:1 or 2:1 for the sabre. Actually i think that in Vietnam soviet aircrat was much more of a problem compared to Korea. - Carlos Teixeira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.169.67.133 (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Teixiera, there no need to be sarcastic about the mighty russian pilots because they were actually very good, and be clear that Volarevic is not arguing about the Chinese or North Korean, it is about the Soviet Pilots and his point made is valid,I mean permit the readers decide, and let me tell you that the number given by the Soviet are not the only ones inflated. Actually the number given by the Soviets are close to the trend. Vladimir Karls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.190.162 (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"well documented that Russian pilots flying MiG-15s shot down 2 F-86s for every airplane they lost?" OK, please cite your "documentation". Mr Teixeira's ratio is much closer to reality. I will be pleased to provide recent, impartial, carefully researched stats if anyone desires to continue this discussion. Yes, both sides inflated their claims, but asserting a 2 to 1 loss ratio in favor of the Russian piloted MiG-15 is laughable and is just another false statistic generated by a country that has been promulgating false statistics (and using copied western technology) from before the time my father was born. Charles Cote' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.165.210 (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Vladimir Karls, you are wrong i wasn't being sarcastic, because Soviet Union had a lot of hardened WW2 veterans secretly fighting in Korea. In fact, some Russian pilots disobeyed orders of maintaining radio silence to avoid radio interception by UN forces. It would be a great embarassment for the Soviet Union to admit they were actively engaging in the war. And i have most respect for these Russian Aces who fought in Korea sometimes with clear disadvantage to their Western counterparts in terms of personal equipment and conditions, like proper flight suits for instance. However, my protest was of the ridiculous number of 14:1 ratio for the Communist forces. In Korea there were a maximum 700 (i'm just rounding because it was actually a little lower) Sabres total, and if the soviets claim 600 Sabres destroyed, how could more than 60% of Sabres return to America after the war without being damaged? If the rest were lost to all causes, including shot down by ground fire, malfunctions and so on, if the Soviets alone have destroyed 600 sabres then the total number of Sabres in Korea would be around 3000 to make account of the percentage that returned home, which is totally ridiculous, since only around 10,000 Sabres were produced ever in ALL variants. Regards, Carlos Teixeira

Citations needed

One problem with the MiG articles I've been cleaning up recently is that there are a lot of statements, claims and assertions made with few, if any, sourcing. I'd like to challenge my compatriot editors — particularly those who have written those I've marked up as needing citations — to relocate and properly footnote them. Askari Mark | Talk 23:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Bloat

The list of operators is longer than Development and Operational History sections. This is major bloat and the flags are only making things worse. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Focke-Wulf ta 183?

It is generally accepted that German aircraft designs affected all post WWII fighter designs. However, I have seen countless things saying that the MiG-15 is a DIRECT descendent from the ta 183. The Soviets captured complete plans of the ta 183 as well as several prototypes. Numerous sources also stated that the Soviets made prototypes of the ta 183 and then modified the design to create the MiG-15. I have also read a few things saying that this has been discredited, but I have never seen any real evidence. Even if there is evidence, wouldn’t you think that it would be biased for the sake of soviet sovereignty? Now, logically, if the Soviets capture plans and prototypes of a fighter ten years ahead of its time, do you think that it will affect their fighter program?? Thought so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.190.58.109 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Read about Kurt Tank, Focke-Wulf Ta 183#Offspring and Russian source [1]. --TAG 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's not in english, I can't read it. I have read about Kurt Tank, and the Wikipedia article about the ta 183 only says that the sources have been discredited and do not offer any evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.190.58.109 (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I think there is sufficient evidence out there to indicate that the Ta-183 and the MiG-15 are not related. The MiG-15 is merely a progression of the MiG-9 using information that was generally understood after the WWII. The MiG-9 was developed before any of the Ta-183 data was avalible and Ta-183's key feature was the high T-tail which was also its greatest short coming. What many do not understand is that supersonic aerodynamics was not just the reserve of German engineers during WWII. I have a wonderful picture of a Yak-3 with a swept tip propeller from 1942. I have been told it was an experimental study, but this would indicate that the Soviet had far more understanding than we give them credit. The Soviet Union came away with plans for the Ta-183 but no German engineers to back up the plans with understanding. There is no doubt that there must have been some influence in this design (as was the case with the P.1101, flown as the Bell X-5, and the F-86), but the Soviets never even flew the high T-tail (for any of the MiG-15 developments) as Kurt Tank eventually did as the Pulqui II and proved to have awful characteristics. From all of the information i have seen the MiG-15 was for its time the most suitable layout and no more (hence why it was replicated for so many other aircraft manufacturer across the world at the time). There appears to be far more concern as to how to tactically use a jet fighter within the VVS. The MiG-15s developement was significant mainly due to the way that it set the mold for Soviet fighter development for the remainder of the Cold War - time in the TsAGI wind tunnels, but it is very much an original design, born through incremental developement and analysis.

"There is no doubt that there must have been some influence in this design"

I agree with that, and in my opinion that should be reflected in the main article for the MiG-15. Nobody in their right mind would not use prototypes and blueprints of fighter 10 years ahead of its time when designing their next fighter. Someone also pointed out the Sukhoi Su-9 (1946), and its resemblance to the me-262. That article also says similar things as the MiG-15 article (the planes look the same, but there is no connection). With both planes, there is an obvious resemblance. The MiG-15 article also says: "Western aircraft industries benefited from German aerodynamic research just as much as Soviets". This statement is a contradiction if the point of it is trying to defend the MiG-15 as original. The Americans admitted that they have benefited greatly from the German aircraft engineering and as you pointed out in the case of the Bell X-5, some aircraft are even direct descendents of German design. Saying that the West benefited as much as the Soviets would then imply that the Soviets also have direct descendents of German aircraft (Sukhoi Su-9 (1946), and MiG-15). So, that being said, the Americans have admitted to the designs being taken from the Germans, so why can't the Russians?

The burden of proof lies with the contributing editor. If you are going to make allegations, back them up with some credible references. No credible source (Discovery, History Channel, and teh internets forumz do not count as credible) has ever come forward stating that Soviets copied the Ta 183 or the Me 262. Swept-wing research was going on in the US and USSR at same time, although Germans were perhaps farther along. None of the nations fielded an operational swept-wing fighter during the war (Me 262 does not count, it had the sweep for the same reasons as DC-3 -- positioning CL relative to CM). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The design history of the MiG-15 is available from the Mikoyan OKB Archives. English-language secondary sources include Mikoyan OKB by Bill Gunston, Soviet Secret Projects (Fighters) by Tony Buttler and MiG-15 by Yefim Gordon. All the authors are internationally respected and authoritative sources and all have concluded that the Ta-183 and MiG-15 are not related. Incidently in Tony Buttler's book he reveals that one rejected layout for the MiG-15 had forward-swept wings.

To deal with some other points you raise. It is not "generally accepted that German aircraft designs affected all post WWII fighter designs". In fact most reliable and reputable aviation historians (see those quoted above) are quite firm that the impact of German aviation design is vastly overstated. The Soviets did not "capture complete plans of the Ta 183 as well as several prototypes." There were no prototypes for them to capture, one prototype was in the early stage of construction when the Focke-Wulf plant was overrun. Whether anybody thinks evidence "would be biased for the sake of soviet sovereignty?" or not is quite irrelevent. If anybody disputes the material in the archives of the Mikoyan OKB it is up to them to produce counter-evidence that shows those archives to be in error. Otherwise any accusations are groundless. The Ta-183 was not "a fighter ten years ahead of its time". It was, at best, comparable with aircraft at the same stage of development in the US, UK and Russia at the same time. Arguably given the low thrust from its engine, it was substantially inferior to those aircraft. Furthermore, the Germans appear to have had no idea of the problems inherent in swept wings (such things as spanwise drift and the tendancy for swept-wing aircraft to go into flat spins due to assymetric aerodynamic forces - see Gordon and Buttler for more details on this). What anybody thinks about whether "it will affect their fighter program??" is irrelevent; the question is evidence for such an effect and in any case is immaterial since the Ta-183 did not have the advanced performance you claim. There are not "numerous sources also stated that the Soviets made prototypes of the ta 183 and then modified the design to create the MiG-15." There is one source. Christian Zentner's 1977 book, Lexikon des Zweiten Weltkriegs which has been discredited as being largely a work of fiction - for example, the author claims that 50 B-17s were shot down in a single day by Wasserfall missiles. His claims on the Ta-183 were picked up by the Luft '46 website and repeated for a while but the author of that site has now deleted them due to Zentner's discredited status. The suggestion that "Germans were the ones to come up with the swept-wing design, so it is save to say that German engineering affected pretty much all post-war fighter development" is a gross oversimplification. In fact, the NACA in America were also working on swept wing design and it was their work that led to the XP-86 being redesigned with swept wings. Ironically, the German contribution to the XP-86 wasn't swept wings but the installation of leading-edge slats that were subsequently deleted from later-production versions since the reduction in performance they caused was too great for any benefit for they conferred. Finally, your quoting the Su-9 case is deliberate misrepresentation; this was drawn to your attention since the aircraft was cancelled only because it looked like the German Me-262 and that illustrates the extent to which the Russians resisted any German influence on theri design art.

Again, I disagree with almost every point in this last comment.

1. It is generally accepted that the German swept-wing research directly influenced the introduction of swept wings into practically every military aircraft starting in the later half of the 1940s. Specifically, the original paper presented by Busemann at the 1935 Volta Conference, and the 1940 wind tunnel tests were widely used throughout the industry. I'm not talking about specific aircraft designs, I'm talking about the research into high-speed flight. Even NASA freely admits the importance of this research.
2. The Germans were very well aware of the problems of swept wings, and this was fully explored in their test results. The Germans had conducted wind-tunnel tests on small swept-wing aircraft models as far back as 1940. By 1944 their work had demonstrated that swept wings offered substantial performance benefits. The main difficulty was that any swept wing that was efficient at high speeds tended to be unstable at low speeds. They experimented with a number of ways to deal with this problem, one of the most promising being a "slat" on the leading edge of the wing, which could be raised to change the airflow and generate more lift.
3. Several aircraft were in fact directly based on German designs. The original Su-9 was a redesign of the Me 262 modified to use locally-built engines (in turn direct copies of the German engines) and local production methods. The fact that the design was cancelled for being "too German" underscores that point.

It's one thing to disagree with the claim that the MiG-15 is a Ta-183 in disguise, it's another entirely to try to "expand" that argument out to the entirety of the aircraft industry. Maury 14:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to very careful here, otherwise we could simply slide into an argument over emphasis. When i originally stated:

"There is no doubt that there must have been some influence in this design"

it should be remembered that this can be very subtle. Busemann's paper was a revelation for at the time, but it should not be assumed that Germany was the only nation doing work in this area, they just appeared to be futher ahead. I still have a copy of Schlicting (which shows just how significant this work was) and know people who saw him present where he would refer back to his 'Luftwaffen papers'. As a researcher myself, other's work can take you in a new direction, but it does not often answer the question 'why?' in the detail needed to truly understand it. For that, additional research and analysis is required. This is my definition of 'influence'. As a Rolls-Royce engineer i know the Soviet engineers were far more influenced by the British engineering in powerplants than they were the Germans, and Klimov's mod of the Nene showed considerable understanding to know just how far he could play with and push the design. You can also spot this influence in later powerplants, by doing things in a different way that was an extrapolation of original understanding, modified to adapt to a new environment. It sould be noted that this is the _norm_ . Last year i went to Farnborough and this year i will go to Paris and as i wander the halls i will see something interesting and ask myself 'why have they done that?'. This may lead me in a particular direction, and i may well end up in the same location as the item i originally saw. In recent times a great example was the Buran - it merely confirmed 25 years of NASA research onto resuable orbital vehicles. But this is not to say that the Soviet Union had not spent billions of rubles on research to come to that conclusion. They were heading in another direction , the Mig-105, and this directly influenced the HL-20, but was this all influenced by Lippisch's original NASA work? Does it really matter? All of these systems would have had to be understood to have been created...and that needs research. Many Allied nations had varients of the He-162 and as revolutionary as it was, no-one headed in that direction, but it was used to aid understanding. Such was the case with the Su-9, which started development in 1944 at a point where detailed examination, let alone understanding, of the Me-262 was not possible.

If i look at an example today, i guess that the F/A-18E/F LERX and how much they differ from the F/A-18C/D and how similar they are in profile to the MiG-29 would be of interest; does this mean that Boeing does not have to understand how this works or merely that the avalible analysis took then to the same location.

I believe that this is the point that at which any 'influence' could have taken place between German research and the designs that came out of the Soviet design buros within the following decade.

I don't think that anything anyone has said is wrong just emphasis is different. Influence in aerodynamic understanding vs influence in aircraft design configuration.

Good discussion, i wish this level of detail was shown elsewhere and hopefully from this a good Wikipedia entry can be produced.

Well sheeeiiit, did you know that P-51 Mustang was like totally ripped off the Alexander Mozhayskiy's 1884 airplane? It had like two wings, an like a tail and a tail fin and like a propeller in the front and like one pilot. Shavrov states Su-9 was an original design (engine placement aside, it is a totally different airplane than the Me 262, different wing, different fuselage, more like Gloster Meteor than anything German), and Shavrov openly admits when something was copied/borrowed/stolen. Not everything that has swept wings is Ta 183, not everything with mid-wing engines is a Me 262, not every flying wing is Ho 229. These assertions are based on "looks like" assumptions and are not supported by credible research from leading aviation historians. I would also question how well Germans mastered the swept wing in either theory or practice -- it is telling that all of their production jet-powered aircraft had conventional straight wings. The same goes for their reliance on axial compressors that could not be supported by the metallurgy of the time. Certainly, captured German artifacts were used to advance the state of science in US and USSR. But to argue that either nation directly implemented what was in 1945 raw and unrefined, and by 1950 had become totally obsolete technology is frankly bullshit. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it again "I think we need to very careful here, otherwise we could simply slide into an argument over emphasis." I don't think anyone can argue that its a copy. But any engineer that is not looking around at what is out there and asking questions of it is not going to be a very good engineer. Its just part of what we do - science is incremental, so is engineering.

Your statment that "It is generally accepted that the German swept-wing research directly influenced the introduction of swept wings into practically every military aircraft starting in the later half of the 1940s. Specifically, the presented by Busemann at the 1935 Volta Conference, and the 1940 wind tunnel tests were widely used throughout the industry. I'm not talking about specific aircraft designs, I'm talking about the research into high-speed flight. Even freely admits the importance of this research." is, as stated earlier, a gross oversimplification. There is no argument that initial German research was a significant contributor to the development of swept wings. However, by 1945, the British, US, USSR and Swedes were all working on swept wings quite independently. Therefore it is absurd to state that all swept wing aircraft descend from late-war German research. You might as well argue that all automobiles today are copies of farm carts, they all have four wheels after all.

Your statement that "The Germans had conducted wind-tunnel tests on small swept-wing aircraft models as far back as 1940. By 1944 their work had demonstrated that swept wings offered substantial performance benefits. The main difficulty was that any swept wing that was efficient at high speeds tended to be unstable at low speeds. They experimented with a number of ways to deal with this problem, one of the most promising being a "slat" on the leading edge of the wing, which could be raised to change the airflow" is misleading. This refers to progressive stall and, as already acknowledged, the incorporation of leading edge slats on the F-86 was a real German contribution to this design (the fact they were deleted later since the performace penalty they imposed was unacceptable is another matter - see the history of the 6-3 wing). However the mroe fundamental problems of the swept wing were not addressed by the Germans and your quote doesn't even begin to cover them.

Your statement that "The original Su-9 was a redesign of the Me 262 modified to use locally-built engines (in turn direct copies of the German engines) and local production methods. The fact that the design was cancelled for being "too German" underscores that point." is quite simply untrue. Design work started on the Su-9 in 1944 and the aircraft itself has much closer resemblance to the Gloster Meteor than the Me-262. Or are you suggesting that the Sukhoi OKB and Messerschmitt were working in close collaboration from 1944 onwards?

Your statment that "It's one thing to disagree with the claim that the MiG-15 is a Ta-183 in disguise, it's another entirely to try to "expand" that argument out to the entirety of the aircraft industry." is a deliberate red herring. The original claim was that the MiG-15 was indeed a modified Ta-183; this has now been so comprehensively refuted that I doubt if anybody would be foolish enough to continue with the assertion. The supporters of that position have now migrated the argument to claim that all post-WW2 aircraft designs are derivatives of German research and that this justifies the claim that the MiG-15 is a modified Ta-183. The point we're trying to make - EMT147 and our engineer friend from Rolls-Royce make it very fluently and expertly - is that German design art was just one contributor to a large pool of data and to single it out as the only important contributor is gross oversimplification and is also insulting to the British, Russian and American aircraft designers. Was German research important? Of course it was, so was the work carried out in the UK, in France, in Russia, in the USA and in Japan. Was German research the be-all and end-all of aircraft deisgn art? The suggestion is absurd

What the Soviets probably got from the Germans was less obvious but more important -- high temperature alloys and lubricants for jet engines. They didn't need the Germans to teach them basic concepts like swept-back wings or turbojet engines. A graduate from the Zhukovsky Institute in the 1930s would have had a world-class education in aviation technology. You can find swept wing and delta-wing designs in aircraft by B.I. Cheranovsky in the 1920s, or the attempted supersonic SAM-4 by Moskalev in 1933. A. M. Lyul'ka invented a turbojet engine in the late 1930s, and the Soviets worked on the Gu-VRD jet fighter in 1943, using one of Lyulka's engines. DonPMitchell (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually early Soviet jet engines were seen to outperfom their equivalents from the Me262 etc in bench tests post war and it was never the Germans that really taught them about allows...it was the British and a large amount of exploratory testing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.244.246.25 (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

At the time Nazi Germany was the only country with a supersonic wind tunnel and so it was Germany that first discovered the benefits of swept wings for high speed flight at Mach numbers approaching 0.9 and above. This wind tunnel data was later captured by the Soviet and Western Allies and incorporated into their own post-war aircraft designs.

The MiG 15 wasn't a copy of the Ta 183 as the latter only ever existed as wind tunnel models, but it is possible that MiG selected the same basic configuration for the MiG 15 simply becasue they knew it was likely to work, as Tank himself also subsequently did for the FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.158 (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)