Better Mig-15

Inspired by better P-39 thread. As the title suggests, in what ways could the Mig-15 be improved?


I am not an expert on the Korean War, or the wider cold-war so my technical knowledge of the belligerents involved at this time period is limited.


Quote from About.com http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/militaryaircraft/p/MiG-15.htm

MiG-15bis Specifications:

General

  • Length: 33 ft. 2 in.
  • Wingspan: 33 ft. 1 in.
  • Height: 12 ft. 2 in.
  • Wing Area: 221.74 sq. ft.
  • Empty Weight: 7,900 lbs.
  • Crew: 1
Performance

  • Power Plant: 1 × Klimov VK-1 turbojet
  • Range: 745 miles
  • Max Speed: 668 mph
  • Ceiling: 50,850 ft.
Armament

  • 2 x NR-23 23mm cannons in lower left fuselage
  • 1 x Nudelman N-37 37 mm cannon in lower right fuselage
  • 2 x 220 lb. bombs, drop tanks, or unguided rockets on underwing hardpoints
What were some real world solutions first proposed by those who had served on them?

What innovative ideas from people here might have improved the performance of this legacy jet?
 
didnt they improve the Mig-15 with the Mig-17?

improved version of the nene engine,
fixing the bugs found in the mig-15 gives you the mig-17
 
The Fagot (yes, that was the NATO codename:eek: {It's a bundle of sticks, for those of you whose minds are in the gutter:mad:}) had stability problems. IDK how they'd be cured; razorback? Small ventral fins?
 
and there was me thinking that a faggot was a meatball made of minced wobbly bits wrapped in a caul. mmm, faggots, chips, mushy peas and gravy... Apologies for the digression.
 
The Fagot (yes, that was the NATO codename:eek: {It's a bundle of sticks, for those of you whose minds are in the gutter:mad:}) had stability problems. IDK how they'd be cured; razorback? Small ventral fins?

OOC: the rule for NATO codenames was that they have to be names not often used in conversations and phoneticaly different from words that are used often.
 
A better gunsight and guns with a higher rate of fire. IIRC, the 23mm cannon were semi-automatics with a tendency to jam.
 

Archibald

Banned
The Mig-15 was designed as a bomber destroyer, hence the big guns. Obviously their firing rate was too low (the Sabre had the opposite issue, the machine-guns were too light)
 
I would eliminate the usage of multiple calibers of armament, given that 23mm and 37mm had very different ballistic characteristics. If they developed the NR-30 autocannon earlier (entered service in 1954, but was based on the N-37, which entered service in 1946), an armament of two or three of them (similar to the MiG-19) would be excellent.
 
The Mig-15 was designed as a bomber destroyer, hence the big guns. Obviously their firing rate was too low (the Sabre had the opposite issue, the machine-guns were too light)

I think a lot of the "problems" with the Mig-15 - slow firing armament with baseball-like ballistic characteristics, poor low-altitude performance - are just functions of what it was: a bomber destroyer designed to take out B-29 class targets. Which it did an excellent job of.


Obviously things like a better gunsight, more reliable engine, all-flying tail, etc. could have been added but as I understand it, over time they were, either in upgraded versions of the Mig-15 or manifested in the Mig-17.


I mean sure there are improvements, possible, but I don't think the Mig-15 was really a design that needs to be "saved".
 
Top