MIKoyan-GurevichMiG·15

The Soviet Union's Long-lived Korean War Fighter

Yefim Gordon

Mikoyan-GurevichMiG-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 GordonISBN 1 85780 105 9

Published by Midland Publishing4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, LE10 3EY, EnglandTel: 01455254490 Fax: 01455254495E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com

Midland Publishing is an imprint ofIan Allan Publishing Ltd

Worldwide distribution (except North America):

Midland Counties Publications4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, LE10 3EY, EnglandTelephone: 01455254450 Fax: 01455233737E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.comwww.midlandcountiessuperstore.com

North American trade distribution:Specialty Press Publishers & Wholesalers Inc.11605 Kost Dam Road, North Branch, MN 55056Tel: 651 5833239 Fax: 651 5832023Toll free telephone: 8008954585

Title page: The ST-1 during State acceptancetrials. See page 41.

Below: A pair of Polish Air Force SBLim-2Asat dispersal. 6010 Red is in the foreground;note the ubiquitous Antonov An-2 to the rear.Both Yefim Gordon

Design concept and layout© 2001 Midland Publishing andStephen Thompson Associates

Printed in England byIan Allan Printing LtdRiverdene Business Park, Molesey Road,Hersham, Surrey, KT12 4RG

All rights reserved. No part of thispublication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, transmittedin any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical or photo-copied, recordedor otherwise, without the writtenpermission of the publishers.

Contents

Introduction 3

Chapters

1 The 'MiG Menace' is Born 7

2 The Aluminium Rabbit:MiG-15 Version Briefing 12

3 Foreign Production 47

4 The MiG-15 in Action orThe Aluminium Rabbit Goes to War. 54

5 MiG-15 Operators Worldwide 79

6 The MiG-15bis in Detail 114

7 Production Totals andFamily Specification tables ..... 118

End notes 125

Appendices

1 MiG-15 Family Drawings 127

2 MiG-15 in Colour 145

2 MiG-15

The Second World War brought about majorchanges in aircraft design. The piston enginehad reached the limit of its development poten­tial; a new aircraft powerplant was required.Hence the first experimental jet engines of theprewar period quickly paved the way for proto­type and production jet-powered combat air­craft. The Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe(Swallow)/Sturmvogel (Storm Petrel), the AradoAr 234 Blitz (Lightning) and the Gloster Meteorbecame the first jets to see actual combat.Thus, progress that might have taken decadeswas crammed into just a few years.

In the postwar years, achievements in aero­dynamics, engine design and manufacturingtechnologies led to the development ofsweptwing jet aircraft. Predictably, the first ofthese were fighters. The first-generation jetfighters which entered service in 1945-1952featured swept or thin straight wings and werecapable of near-sonic speeds of 900 to1,200km/h (486 to 648kts). The most success­ful and popular of these are the Mikoyan/Gure­vich MiG-15 and the North American F-86Sabre. Both flew for the first time in 1947, wentthrough similar development stages andserved operationally in their own countries andthose of allies. Though differing somewhat inconfiguration, avionics, equipment and arma­ment, the F-86 and MiG-15 were more or lessequivalent in flight performance. When flownby equally skilled and experienced pilots, thetwo aircraft were quite a match for each other.

The MiG-15 was to have a long servicecareer. It was built in huge numbers both in andoutside the Soviet Union, evolving into manyversions, and paved the way for Soviet fighterdesign for the next decade. Many are activeeven now, albeit mostly as privately-ownedwarbirds; in passing, it should be noted that theMiG-15 has undoubtedly earned the warbirdtitle!

As a result of the Cold War and all its impli­cations, for decades Soviet aircraft have beendeveloped in total secrecy. For this reason,myths have taken hold concerning the creationof the MiG-15 which need to be put to rest.

Myth number one: the MiG-15 was not a newaircraft but a major rework of the projectedFocke-WulfTa183 developed by Kurt Tank.

Myth number two, which arose as a conse­quence of the first: Soviet aircraft designerswere incapable of producing something worth­while and the MiG-15 would never haveappeared without the use of captured Germanresearch data and 'captive brains'. However,

Introduction

the use of captured materials in advancedtechnology development was not an unusualpractice, and the USSR was not alone in doingthis. The United States, Great Britain, and othernations made good use of German projectsafter the war.

By the end of the Second World War theSoviet aircraft industry was fUlly capable ofdeveloping and producing jet aircraft on its own.Indisputably, the USSR could have quickly cre­ated powerful turbojets and transonic fighterswithout resorting to captured research, but,given the pressures of the incipient Cold War,Soviet engineers had very little time to producean 'answer to the West' - months, sometimesliterally days. Under the regime of losif V Stalin,failure to meet the objective could meanprompt execution. This is why Soviet engineerssometimes preferred to play safe by using'imported' technologies.

The capabilities of the MiG-15 were derivedfrom what Russians called three 'whales', orground rules: a turbojet rated at over 2,000kgp(4,409Ibst), a new configuration with sweptwing and empennage, and new pilot survivalaids, including an ejection seat. These, togeth­er with heavy armament and ease of manufac­ture and operation, turned the MiG-15 into asuperb technical product.

Engine developmentTurbojet development in the USSR dated backto the early 1920s. In 1923 V Bazarov receiveda patent for the world's first turboprop enginelayout. Three years later a special gas turbineengine research group led by NikolayRomanovich Brilling was organized at the Sci­entific Automobile and Engine Institute (NAMI­Naoochnyy avtomotornyy institoot) inMoscow; the main focus of this group was theturboprop engine. After 1930, the group washeaded by V Oovarov, a famous scientist andengineer in the field of turbine engine design. In1936 NAMI developed the 1,150eshp GTU-3turboprop for Andrey Nikolayevich Tupolev'sTB-3 bomber. Two prototype engines were builtand tested in 1938-40, but the TB-3 flew withpiston engines only.

The next step in Soviet jet engine develop­ment came when Arkhip Mikhailovich Lyul'kadesigned the RD-1 turbojet (reaktivnyy dvee­gate!' - jet engine) at the Khar'kov Aviation Insti­tute. This first Soviet turbojet was rated at500kgp (1,1 02Ibst); development was 75%complete when the Great Patriotic War beganon 22nd June 1941. The Oovarov group at

NAMI also designed an engine rated at2,000kgp (4,409Ibst).

The war with Germany caused turbojetdevelopment in the USSR to be put on hold.The work resumed only in 1944 when the out­come of the war could be foreseen and itappeared possible to spare some efforts for thedevelopment of new advanced engines. A MLyul'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 thedesign bureau led by Aleksandr Aleksan­drovich Mikulin also started work on a similarengine.

By then, however, jet engines and aircraftwere in production in the West. The USSRrisked 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 Jumo004 Orkan (Hurricane) and the 800kgp(1,763Ibst) BMW 003 Sturm (Storm). Thereverse-engineered versions were designatedRD-10 and RD-20 respectively. These turbojets(and the Yakovlev Yak-15 and Mikoyan/Gure­vich MiG-9 fighters they powered) gave theSoviet aircraft industry its first taste of jet tech­nology. At the same time, it was decided to buythe most advanced Western turbojets with cen­trifugal-flow compressors - the Rolls-RoyceNene and RR Derwent - and build them underlicence in the USSR.

Soviet engine designers needed two to threemore years for prototype and full-scale devel­opment of newer, more powerful axial-flow tur­bojets. This time was used effectively: severalturbojets with thrust ratings from 3,000kgp to9,000kgp (6,613 to 19,841 Ibst) entered pro­duction in the early 1950s. All were based onindigenous Soviet prototypes.

In 1946 the Soviet Minister of Aircraft Indus­try Mikhail V Khroonichev and aircraft designerAleksandr Sergeyevich Yakovlev approachedStalin, 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 thetime, and Stalin's 'fools' abounded at Rolls­Royce and in the British Labour Government.

Hence, aircraft designer Artyom IvanovichMikoyan, engine designerVladimirYakovlevichKlimov and metallurgical engineer S Kishkinwere sentto England to negotiate acquisition of

MiG-15 3

the turbojets. They purchased 30 Derwent Vand 25 Nene 1/11 engines which were carefullystudied at the Central Institute of Aero Engines(TsIAM - Tsentrahl'nw institoot aviatseeonno­vo motorostroyeniya). Both types were testedon a Tupolev converted into the Tu-2LL enginetestbed, 1 a converted Tu-2 Bat twin-enginebomber operated by the Flight Test Institute (L11- Lyotno-ispytahtel'nw institoot) in Zhukovskiynear Moscow! Later the Nene-1 powered theTu-72 and Tu-73 bomber prototypes whichevolved into the well-known Tu-14 Bosun. TheDerwent-5 was considered a fighter engine andused for projects developed by the designbureaux under AS Yakovlev and Semyon Alek­seyevich Lavochkin.

Concurrently, licence production of theBritish turbojets began in Moscow. The Der­went V was manufactured under the local des­ignation RD-500, while the Nene I and Nene IIbecame the RD-45 and RD-45F respectively.'The numbers 500 and 45 were the numbers ofthe engine plants producing the respectivemodels (plant No 500 was located in the Tushi­no district not far from the well-known airfield).Vladimir Ya Klimov was head of production andwas 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, madetheir maiden flights in 1947-48. The heavierRD-45 was intended for the Tu-14 and IL-28Beagle tactical bombers.

In choosing the RD-45 for its new fighter, theMikoyan/Gurevich design bureau, aka OKB­1555 or MMZ· 'Zenit' (Zenith), took a calculatedrisk - just as it had done in 1939 with the MiG-1powered by the brand-new Mikulin AM-35engine. The risk paid off; the MiG-15 poweredby the RD-45 and (and the MiG-15bis poweredby the RD-45F) became the mainstay of theSoviet fighter force. Although the competingYakovlev fighters were more agile, the MiG wasfaster and more heavily armed.

Typically of the Soviet aircraft industry(alas!), early RD-45s and RD-45Fs had a shortservice life (only some 100 hours, less than theoriginal Nene) because poor-quality indige­nous materials had to be used. Later, Sovietdesigners developed the RD-45FA which intro­duced new materials and structural improve­ments doubling the engine's service life.

Building on experience gained with theRD-500 and RD-45 (and benefiting from TslAMresearch into centrifugal compressors), theKlimov OKB developed more powerful and fuel­efficient centrifugal-flow turbojets. The 2,700kgp(5,952Ibst) VK-1 turbojet emerged in 1949; theVK initials stood for Vladimir Klimov, suggestingthat enough Soviet research had gone into theengine to qualify it as an indigenous design. Itwas a refined derivative of the RD-45 and astepping stone to the afterburning VK-1 F ratedat 3,380kgp (7,451Ibst). Structural and manu­facturing improvements produced the VK-1 Aversion with a 150 to 200 hour service life.

4 MiG-15

In due course, the VK-1 engine was fittedto the MiG-15bis, an upgraded version of theMiG-15. It also powered the IL-28 bomber andthe 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) 2,700 (5,952)Rpm 12,300 11,560Dry weight, kg (Ib) 703 to 726 884.5

(1,550 to 1,600) (1,950)'Diameter, m(It) 1.25 (4' 1") 1.273 (4' 2")Length, m(It) 2.45 (8' ~") 2.57 (8' 5")'Specific fuel consumption,

kg/kgp hr (Ib/lbst hr) 1,065 1,On

*without jetpipe; t at maximum thrust

Centrifugal-flow turbojets proved more reliablethan early axial-flow turbojets. As speedsincreased, however, centrifugal-flow power­plants proved too thirsty. Higher speedsrequired greater thrust and hence greater massflow. A centrifugal-flow engine offered lessthrust than an axial-flow engine having thesame frontal area. Also, the centrifugal-flow tur­bojet was limited by its single-stage compres­sor offering a pressure ratio of 4.2 to 4.4. Sinceno multi-stage compressors were developed,the centrifugal-flow turbojet reached its peak ofdevelopment with thrust ratings of 3,000 to4,000kgp (6,613 to 8,818Ibst) between the endof the Second World War and the early 1950s.

Jet airframe designEarly jet aircraft were designed along the samelines as their piston-engined forebears. As tur­bojets were improved, however, it becameclear that changes had to be made to a typicalairplane's aerodynamics and general arrange­ment.

It is well known that obtaining the correctcentre of gravity (CG) position is one of themajor challenges in aircraft design. For con­ventional designs the CG must be located at 25to 33% mean aerodynamic chord (MAC). Witha piston engine, this meant positioning theengine at the front of the aircraft, ahead of theCG and the wings. The fuel tanks were in theCG zone to minimise CG travel caused by fuelburnoff, and the crew behind the CG. Theweight of the engine and propeller was bal­anced by the weight of the rear fuselage andempennage.

If a turbojet were mounted in similar fashionin the aircraft's nose, the exhaust gases wouldhave to exit under the fuselage. Placingengines on or under the wings eliminated thisproblem, and this configuration was utilised bythe Heinkel He 280, the Messerschmitt Me 262and the Gloster Meteor. Soviet fighters thusconfigured 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 and1-215 designed by Semyon Mikhailovich Alek­seyev (I = istrebitel' - fighter).-

However, most of the early Soviet jet fighterswere developed hastily. The designers select­ed a configuration identical to that of piston­engined aircraft, with the engine up front andexhausting under the fuselage, which inevitablyresulted in a helicopter-style pod-and-boomfuselage. This configuration was called redahn­naya komponovka (lit. 'step arrangement') inthe USSR because of the similarity to the stepon a speedboat's planing bottom. Perhaps theultimate example of this 'quick fix' designapproach was the Yak-15, a straightforwardconversion of the Yak-3U fighter. It was basical­ly a standard Yak-3U airframe with the KlimovVK-105PF liquid-cooled Vee-12 engine sup­planted by an RD-10 (Jumo 004) turbojet in thenose, underslung so as to direct the exhaustgases under the fuselage.

This 'tadpole' configuration was not a Sovietinvention, having been employed on the Ger­man Messerschmitt P 1101 (which was com­pleted but never flown) and the projectedMesserschmitt P 1106, Blohm & Voss P 210and Heinkel P 1078. Yet many Soviet postwarjet fighters used it, including the Yak-15, Yak-17Feather, 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 toimprove the pilot's forward and downwardview. Since there was no propeller demandinglarge ground clearance, the landing gear couldbe shortened. A tricycle landing gear eliminat­ed the need to locate a tail wheel in the jetexhaust, as had been the case with the Yak-15.

Another option was to mount the engine overthe fuselage. Even though this freed up fuse­lage space for armament, equipment and fuel,this configuration was impractical because theengine nacelle created considerable drag andcomplicated pilot escape in an emergency.Only two aircraft actually utilised this config­uration - the prototype Fieseler Fi 103 (themanned version of the V-1 'buzz bomb') andthe production He162 Volksjager (People'sFighter).

The next logical step in jet fighter develop­ment was to move the relatively lightweight tur­bojet backwards, placing it in the fuselage aft ofthe cockpit. This resulted in an cigar-shapedfuselage with the nozzle located at the aftextremity, 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 andlateral inlets. Both types had advantages andshortcomings. A nose intake made it necessaryto increase forward and centre fuselage cross­section, since the airflow had to be routedaround the cockpit. Lateral intakes increasedfuselage width ahead of the wings. With theadvent of powerfUl but bulky radars the air­intake arrangement issue was largely settledbecause the radar would have to be placed inthe nose, making nose intakes impractical.

Swept wingsBy the end of the Second World War pilotsflying high-performance piston fighters (forinstance, the North American P-51 Mustang)would sometimes approach the speed ofsound in a dive. In this situation the controlsbecame steadily heavier as airspeed increased;the nose would try to drop, and sometimes thecontrols would reverse. It took a lot of effortfrom the pilot to recover from this dangerousmode known as Mach tuck.

With jet aircraft, level flight speeds increasedinto the sonic range. Mach tuck which pilots ofprop-driven aircraft had encountered brieflynow became routine. At times, uncontrollableaircraft dived into the ground, taking with themnot only the luckless pilots but the secretsof transonic flight. Test pilot Gheorgiy YaBakhchivandzhi was one of the first, losing hislife in the Bereznyak/lsayev BI-1 rocket-pow­ered interceptor on 27th March 1943 during ahigh-speed run. The message was clear: an in­depth study of transonic aerodynamics wasneeded.

Wind tunnel tests showed that a thin sym­metrical wing section and swept wings couldresolve the 'shock-wave crisis'. As early as1935, the German aerodynamicist Dr. AlfredBusemann came up with the swept-wing con­cept. He continued his research during the warand the Germans used wings with 30 to 38°leading-edge sweep on several fighters (theMe262 and Me163 Kamet). A spate of swept­wing aircraft, including the Ta 183 which bore apassing resemblance to the future MiG-15, wason the drawing boards or at the prototype con­struction stage by the end of the war.

The main peculiarity of the swept wing wasthat airflow was divided into two components;one flowed from the leading edge to the trailingedge and the other spanwise. The spanwisecomponent caused boundary layer movementfrom wing root to wingtip, resulting in tip stall; italso reduced the efficiency of the wing's controlsurfaces. To prevent this, many Soviet aircraftfeatured boundary layer fences on the wingupper surface; these generated vortices,reducing spanwise flow and preventing earlyairflow separation.

It is an open secret that scientists and engi­neers in different countries faced with the sameobjective often come up with similar solutions.In the USSR the swept wing idea was devisedby V Stroominsky of TsAGI (Tsentrahl'nwaero­i ghidrodinameecheskiy institoot - CentralAerodynamics & Hydrodynamics Institutenamed 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 aircraftstability and controllability analysis were for­mulated. TsAGI embarked on a major pro­gramme to study a wing swept 35°. This wasexactly the wing later recommended for theLa-160 (the first Soviet swept-wing aircraft) andthe Mikoyan/Gurevich 1-310 (the MiG-15 proto­type).

A full-scale mockup of the 1-310 covered withwool tufts in the TsAGI T-102 wind tunnel.Yefim Gordon archive

Initially swept wings were tested on glidingmodels dropped from a Tu-2 mother ship. How­ever, during 1945-48 Pavel VladimirovichTsybin designed the LL-1 , LL-2 and LL-3 gliders.As the designations imply, these were researchaircraft for studying transonic aerodynamics atabout 1,150km/h (621kts). The LL-1 hadstraight wings and the LL-2 had forward-sweptwings; the LL-3, which was never completed,was to have 30° sweepback. The gliders hadwater ballast and a solid rocket booster. Theexperiment was conducted in a dive with thebooster 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 developnew-generation aircraft. Two new designbureaux were established in the Podberez'yesettlement near the town of Doobna. One ofthem (OKB-2 headed by Hans Rossing, withthe Soviet engineer Aleksandr YakovlevichBereznyak as his deputy)'· continued work onthe DFS 346 rocket-powered Mach 2.5research aircraft, which was almost completeby the end of the war." The aircraft (referred toin Soviet documents as 346) was transported toTsAGI in 194q for full,scale aerodynamic testsin the T-1 01 wind tunnel.

The 346 was an all-metal, mid-wing mono­plane with 45° wing sweep, an unswept Hailand retractable skid landing gear. To reducedrag 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 oxidizercapacity was 1,900kg (4,188Ib), permitting 2minutes of engine operation. The aircraft couldaccelerate to approximately Mach 2.0 - in the­ory at least.

Flight tests began in 1948 at an airbase inTyoplyy Stan (now a residential district in thesouth-western part of Moscow) and later at thenew factory airfield in Lookhovitsy, some100km (62 miles) south-east of Moscow. Amodified B-29-5-BW operated by L11 (serialled256 Black) served as a mother ship;12 the 346was suspended on a pylon between thebomber's Nos 3 and 4 engines. Three proto­types - the 346-P glider (P for plahner) , the 346­1 with a mockup engine and the fully-equipped346-3 - participated in the programme, pilotedby Wolfgang Ziese and P A Kaz'min.

The 346-3 made its first powered flight on15th August 1951. However, the programmewas plagued by accidents. In its third poweredflight on 2nd September the aircraft exceeded900km/h (486kts) indicated airspeed (lAS) butthen became uncontrollable and Ziese wasordered to eject.

Concurrently, Matus Ruvimovich Bisnovatcontinued work on his B-5 transonic speedresearch aircraft, also with 45° wing sweep. TheB-5 was powered by a Dooshkin liquid-fuelrocket engine. Test flights began in 1948 with aPetlyakov Pe-8 bomber acting as the mothership; 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 infeaturing 35° swept wings with a thin airfoilalready validated in theory; hence the aircraftwas dubbed Strelka (Arrow). Initial stability andhandling trials were held from June to Septem­ber 1947. Wing fences were fitted in the courseof the flight test programme; these became astandard feature of Soviet designs - the higherthe wing sweep, the larger the number of wingfences. 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, straightwing (hence the TK suffix standing for tonkoyekrylo) and a more powerful RR Derwentengine." Despite the extra thrust, the La-174TKwas slower than the swept-wing La-160, prov­ing that swept wings were the way to go forhigh-speed aircraft.

Gradually, experience with swept wing wasaccumulated. This experience was of great helpin designing the MiG-15, La-15, and Yak-30fighters.

Ejection seatsWith the advent of jet aircraft capable of tran­sonic speeds, bailing out in the old-fashionedway became sheer suicide. New crew rescuemethods, such as ejection, were required.

The first attempts to facilitate bailing out wereundertaken in Germany in the late 1920s andearly 1930s, but these did not progress beyondthe ground test stage. Ejection systems wereused for the first time during the Second WorldWar in German high-speed piston-engined andjet aircraft. Two ejection systems were devel­oped in Germany: a cartridge system and oneusing compressed air. The former system wasused by Heinkel in the He162 fighter which hadits engine atop the fuselage. Ejection time at amaximum 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 (whichmight or might not function properly) was ashortcoming.

The compressed air ejection system wasused on the Heinkel He 280 jet fighter (whichnever entered production) and the He 219 two­seat piston-engined night fighter. This systemwas heavier and more complex and requiredair bottles, a fast-acting valve and piping. TheHe 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 designerswas the object of close scrutiny by the Allies.Many German documents and prototypeswere captured by the British, and German workwas carefully analysed in the USSR and theUnited States.

The first Soviet attempts to design an ejec­tion seat date back to 1940. In the course ofnew fighter development, designers lI'ya Flo­rent'yevich Florov and Aleksey AndreyevichBorovkov addressed the problem of pilot sur-

6 MiG-15

vival at speeds of 528 to 850km/h (285 to459kts) 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 unitbut with ramjet boosters incorporated into thetailbooms. It featured an escape system ofFlorovand Borovkov's own design which rotat­ed the seat and ejected it downwards pneu­matically. The war interrupted the developmentof this aircraft and hence of the first Soviet ejec­tion system.

It was not until the end of the war that workon crew escape systems resumed in the USSR.The Mikoyan OKB teamed with TsAGI, L11 andthe Aviation Medicine Institute to become aleader in ejection seat development. Trials wereperformed at L11, at first using a test rig with atrolley that moved along a vertical guide rail;the trolley was accelerated by an explosivecharge and then slowed by powerful brakes. L11engineers determined the size of the chargerequired to get the necessary G load. After testswith dummies and animals it was decided tocarry out the first manned test. Six strong menwere 'ejected' in the rig with the maximum G load.

Flight tests came next. The engineers pro­ceeded cautiously, using a dummy for the firstactual ejections. A converted Petlyakov Pe-2Buck dive bomber was used; its twin tails madeit ideal for ejection seat trials, reducing the dan­ger of the seat striking the vertical tail in theevent of a failed ejection. The seat was installedin the former gunner's compartment immedi­ately behind the pilot; initially, it was not stabi­lized and tumbled head over heels in theslipstream as it parted company with the air­craft. The ejection sequence and the seat's tra­jectory were recorded by a cine camera aboardthe Pe-2. Modifications were made to the seatafter the first ejections had been analysed, andby July 1947 manned tests could begin.

Gavriil Kondrashov, an experienced para­chutist with more than 700 parachute jumps tohis credit, was chosen. On 24th July 1947, hesuccessfully performed the first ejection in theUSSR.

The first ejection seat was of cartridge-fireddesign; the ejection gun and the seat pan wereattached to the seat's frame. The pilot sat on hisparachute which lay in the seat pan. There wasno provision for automatic parachute opening;the parachute's static line was attached to theseat, which meant the pilot had to push the seataway forcibly after ejection in order for the para­chute to open.

This was clearly a shortcoming, reducing thepilot's chances of survival if he was wounded.The minimum safe ejection altitude was 200 to300m (656 to 984ft). At speeds over 700km/h(378kts), the procedure often resulted ininjuries because the seat offered no protectionfor the pilot's face or limbs.

This first-generation Soviet ejection seatwas fitted to the MiG-15, MiG-15bis, MiG-17,and La-15. It was to save a lot of lives when theMiG-15 and MiG-15bis saw action in Korea.

AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to express his gratitude tothe following persons who have contributed tothe making of this book:

First of all, as usual, I would like to thank thetranslator, Dmitriy S Komissarov, without whosework and assistance the book would neverhave appeared.

Also, my thanks go to Nigel Eastaway, one ofthe leaders of the Russian Aviation ResearchTrust, who provided a lot of valuable informa­tion on Chinese licence-built MiGs, and HelmutWalther and Keith Dexter who supplied photoswhich would otherwise hardly be obtainable.

Yefim GordonMoscow

March 2001

Russian Language and TransliterationThe Russian language is phonetic - pronounced aswritten, or 'as seen'. Translating into English gives riseto many problems and the vast majority of these arisebecause English is not a straightforward language, withmany pitfalls of pronunciation!

Accordingly, Russian words must be translatedthrough into a phonetic form of English and this canlead to different ways of helping the reader pronouncewhat he sees. Every effort has been made to standard­ise this, but inevitably variations will occur. While read­ing from source to source this might seem confusingand/or inaccurate but it is the name as pronounced thatis the constancy, not the spelling of that pronunciation!

The 20th letter of the Russian (Cyrillic) alphabet looksvery much like a 'Y' but is pronounced as a 'U' as in theword'rule'.

Another example is the train of thought that Russianwords ending in 'y' are perhaps better spell out as 'yi' tounderline the pronunciation, but it is felt that most West­ern speakers would have problems getting theirtongues around this!

This is a good example of the sort of problem thatsome Western sources have suffered from in the past(and occasionally even today) when they make themental leap about what they see approximating to anEnglish 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 thedevelopment of second-generation jet fighters.On 11th March 1947, the Soviet government(Council of Ministers) approved the experimen­tal aircraft construction plan for the year. Soonafterwards, on 15th April, the Ministry of AircraftIndustry (MAP - Ministerstvo aviatseeonnoypromyshlennosti) issued directive No 21 0ordering the Mikoyan/Gurevich OKB to dev­elop a jet fighter with a pressurized cockpitand to build two prototypes. A G Broonov wasappointed chief project engineer for the newfighter, with A A Andreyev as the 'next in com­mand'.

The specific operational requirement (SOR)was quite tough. Maximum speed was to be1,000km/h (540kts) at sea level and 1,020km/h(551 kts) at 5,000m (16,404ft). The fighter wasrequired to climb to this altitude in 3.2 minutesand 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 armamentand avionics to cope with US and British war­planes of the era (since the Cold War wasalready brewing and the US and Great Britainwere already regarded as potential adver­saries). Initially, one 45mm (1.77 calibre) can­non and two 23mm (.90 calibre) cannons wereenvisaged, though the former was soon substi­tuted by a 37mm (1.45 calibre) weapon. Provi­sions for carrying two 100kg (220 Ib) bombs onthe regular drop tank hardpoints were alsodemanded.

Last but not least, the new fighter wasrequired to be easily maintainable. The SovietAir Force (WS - Voyenno-vozdooshnyye seely)knew all too well that in a future war, combat air­craft would almost certainly have to operatefrom improvised tactical airstrips with little or nomaintenance facilities. Finally, the aircraft wasto present no insurmountable difficulties for theaverage pilot.

Success hinged on fulfilling these often con­flicting requirements. The powerplant issuehad already been decided; the fighter was to bedesigned around the Rolls-Royce Nene whichhad entered licence production in the USSR.Development of the ejection system in 1946-47also went successfully. However, as per usual,rigid convention came into conflict with pio­neering concepts. Sometimes the convention-

alists prevailed, but, on the whole, progresstriumphed over orthodox solutions. Thus, theMikoyan/Gurevich OKB chose swept wings forits new fighter.

It so happened that the Mikoyan/GurevichOKB was not tasked with mass production dur­ing the Great Patriotic War (production of theMiG-3 interceptor ended in late 1941). Its effortsat the time were devoted to research and devel­opment work. This resulted in some advancedfighters, including the izdeliye A series (1-220/1-225) which exceeded 700km/h (387kts) inlevel flight. Though none of these aircraft wasto see production, they became steppingstones towards the early post-war jets.

Mikoyan engineers got their first swept-wingexperience with the Ootka experimental tail-firstaircraft' (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 experiencewith turbojet-powered fighters. The straight­wing, rocket-powered 1-270 (izdeliye Zh)3experimental interceptor became the first Sovi­et aircraft to reach 1,000km/h (540kts) lAS in1947. Still, combining all this (swept wings, jetpropulsion and high speed) in a single aircraftcalled for a lot of effort on the part of bothMikoyan and the numerous other research andproduction establishments involved.

The MiG-15's road to becoming a produc­tion aircraft was long and winding. The aircraftwhich was eventually to fly was preceded byseveral preliminary development. (PD) pro­jects. The first of these envisaged a twin­engined fighter which was promptly droppedwhen it became obvious that Soviet engineplants could not provide enough engines formass production.

In 1947, after A I Mikoyan had returned fromhis visit to England and 25 Nene-1 engines hadbeen delivered, the OKB started work on the1-320 (izdeliye FN) - the first aircraft to bear thisdesignation - as an insurance policy in casethe swept-wing fighter should fail. The 1-320'Mk l' was a straightforward modification of theMiG-9 (izdeliye FS) with the two side-by-sideRD-20 axial-flow turbojets replaced by a singleNene - hence the N in the manufacturer's des­ignation. However, work on the more promisingswept-wing design seemed to progress quitenicely and izdeliye FN was abandoned at theprototype construction stage 4

For a while, Mikoyan engineers also consid­ered a twin-boom arrangement reminiscent ofthe de Havilland Vampire. However, a layout

with a single fuselage, swept wings and con­ventional swept empennage seemed simplestand most aerodynamically efficient and waseventually selected for the new fighter desig­nated 1-310 in official documents. The aircraft'sin-house designation was 'izdeliye S', said tobe derived from strelovidnoye kry/o (sweptwings).

The wings proposed by TsAGI, featuring 35°sweep at quarter-chord and 2° anhedral, turnedout to have an extremely poor lift/drag ratio intake-off and landing mode, which meant theaircraft would not meet VVS field performancerequirements. To cope with the problem theOKB contemplated variable geometry (VG) fora while. This was in 1947, thirty years before the'swing wing' izdeliye 23-11 (the 'true' MiG-23SFlogger-A prototype) flew for the first time.'Though Mikoyan engineers had very probablystudied German VG research, the time for a'swing wing' aircraft had not yet come (VGwings were then considered too complex andrather unreliable), so the engineers selectedanother solution, reducing wing loading. Thismade for acceptable landing speeds even witha poor LID ratio.

It has to be said here that the Soviet aircraftindustry had a few quirks. The all-pervasivesecrecy wrapped around the industry by thenotorious KGB (Komitet gosoodahrstvennoybezopahsnosti - State Security Committee)sometimes proved detrimental. Soviet expertswere well-versed on American advanced devel­opment projects but knew almost nothingabout what their colleagues in other SovietOKBs were doing. For this reason, designersoften wasted time and state money, duplicatingeach other's efforts. This problem got worsewhen high-tech systems and avionics came onthe scene.

In developing the 1-310, the designers foundthat providing the required CG position wasquite a problem. With the engine in the aft fuse­lage, the CG was too far aft, impairing stabilityand handling. The problem was partly cured byslightly increasing wing area aft of the rear falsespar, resulting in a kinked trailing edge right (itsinnermost portion was unswept). The final solu­tion was to move the engine forward so that itwas located immediately aft of the main sparand use a long extension jetpipe. This createda bonus in the form of a fuselage made up oftwo sections (forward and rear); the entire aftfuselage could be easily detached, leaVing theengine completely exposed for maintenance orremoval.

MiG-15 7

A lot of problems were caused by theengine's inlet duct. It had a complex shapebecause of the numerous obstructions it had tobypass, including cockpit and fuel cells. Out­side air entered a subsonic intake with a centresplitter. Here, it separated into two flows pass­ing along narrow ducts on either side of thefront avionics bay, nosewheel well, cockpit andmain fuel cell; the two flows met at the engine'scompressor face.

Maximizing thrust and preventing the aftfuselage from being overheated by exhaustgases were two of the conflicting requirementsfacing Mikoyan engineers. The problem wassolved in the course of the first prototype'sflight tests. TslAM engineers proposed short­ening the aft fuselage and extension pipe,reducing thrust losses at full military power by7to 9%.

Another challenge with the 1-310 was how toaccommodate the main landing gear units inthe relatively thin wings (stowing them in thefuselage was out of the question - these wassimply no room). The problem boiled down tothe fact that the thin, high aspect ratio wingswere of three-spar stressed-skin aluminiumconstruction and the structure would be exces­sively weakened by the mainwheel wells. Thisprompted studies on how to develop a light, yetrigid structure. Eventually a stiff and lightweightone-piece stamped main spar was introduced,but not before the aircraft experienced lateralstability problems caused by insufficient wingtorsional stiffness (these will be described later).

1-310 wing static testing took place at theMoscow Aviation Institute. With the initial wingdesign, skin cracks appeared at 120% of themaximum design load, clearly indicating thatthe structure was way too heavy. The OKB'sstructural department considered it possible toreduce structural weight by 180kg (396Ib) butoverdid it - the wings failed at only 70% of themaximum load. Finally, in a compromisebetween high strength and low weight, thewings were lightened by 162kg (357Ib) versusthe original design; now the structure failed atexactly the maximum design load.

The engineers had to proceed by trial anderror because there was no establishedmethod of predicting structural strength char­acteristics of a swept wing at the time. Lav­ochkin OKB engineer I Sverdlov created thistechnique while the La-160, La-168, and La-174were 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 to15,000m (49,212ft) and higher, ordinary oxy­gen masks were not enough; the future MiG-15was going to need a cockpit pressurization andheating system. The limited experience theOKB had amassed with the wartime 1-212 and1-214 clearly was not enough. Therefore,Mikoyan joined forces with their competitor inthe jet fighter development programme, theLavochkin OKB, to develop a viable pressur­ized cockpit.

8 MiG-15

July 1947 saw the appearance ofthe MiG-9M(izdeliye FR), an experimental version of theFargo with a redesigned forward fuselage.Apart from having a totally new weaponsarrangement, the MiG-9M had a ventilation­type pressurized cockpit. Actually the first Sovi­et aircraft to fly with a pressurized cockpit wasthe straight-wing, single-engined Yak-25 exper­imental fighter which flew for the first time on31 st October 1947.' The ventilation-type cock­pit was pressurized with engine bleed air. Thissystem ensured normal pressure, temperatureand humidity conditions in the cockpit and wasperhaps closer to what the future MiG-15 wouldhave.

The Yak-25 also a pneumatic canopy jetti­soning system designed by Leonid L Selyakovwho went on to work at the Myasischev OKB,participating in the development of the M-4 and3M Bison and M-50 Bounder heavy bombersand, later still, became chief project engineer ofthe popular Tu-134 Crusty airliner. Just about allSoviet fighter canopies, including those of theLa-15 and MiG-15, were based on Selyakov'swork with the Yak-25.

Another problem facing designers of the1-310 was how to place the armament. As onthe MiG-9, the armament comprised one 37mmNudel'man N-37 cannon and two 23mmNudel'man/Sooranov NS-23KM cannons. Ini­tially, these were to be mounted in similar fash­ion to the MiG-9, with the big cannon mountedin the intake splitter and one 23mm cannonprotruding beyond the intake lower lip on eachside. However, armament trials on the MiG-9promptly showed that this arrangement was nogood - the engine often surged after ingestinggun blast gases when the cannons were fired.The problem was aggravated by the MiG-9'spowerplant, as axial-flow turbojets are extremelysensitive to gun blast gas ingestion.

This was not too critical on the MiG-15 withits centrifugal-flow turbojet; still, the engineerschose to relocate the armament. To facilitateaccess, engineer N I Volkov invented a simpleand ingenious solution: all three cannons andtheir ammunition boxes were neatly mountedon a single tray under the cockpit, the N-37 tostarboard and the two NS-23KMs to port. Thistray could be winched down quickly by meansof a hand crank and four pulleys for reloadingand maintenance, decreasing turnaround timedramatically.

The avionics suite included an OSP-48instrument landing system (ILS) for use ininstrument meteorological conditions. Theground part of the system included two rangebeacons, three marker beacons, communica­tions radios and an HF or VHF radio directionfinder to facilitate approach, descent to land­ing, and touchdown in bad weather. The part ofthe system installed on the fighter comprisedan 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-48Dyatel (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 (intruck-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 waspowered 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 WScommission. By 19th December the prototypehad been completed and trucked to L11's air­field in Ramenskoye south of Moscow.· ViktorNikolayevich Youganov, who had worked forMikoyan since 1946 and had flown the 1-270,was appointed project test pilot. He was anexcellent airman; in fact, he was often com­pared to the famous test pilot Valeriy PavlovichChkalov for his flying skills - and his devil-may­care attitude as well, as will become apparent.

To keep to the planned schedule, the S-1 'smaiden flight had to take place by the end ofDecember. However, the weather was poor andit was clearly better to alter the plan than risklosing the only aircraft available. The OKB lead­ers decided to postpone the first flight until thebeginning of 1948. But Youganov was short ofmoney (at the time, a Soviet test pilot makingthe first flight of a new aircraft was paid 10,000roubles - quite a lot of money) and insistedthat the first flight be performed before the yearwas out.

On 30th December 1947 the cloudbase wasat 2,000m (6,560ft), which meant the first flightcould not be performed under the rules then inforce. Still, Yuganov decided he would fly any­way, so he nonchalantly climbed into the cock­pit, had the aircraft towed to the holdingposition to save fuel, started the engine andtook off. Retracting the landing gear, he madetwo circuits of the field below the cloudbaseand landed.

Unfortunately, Artyom I Mikoyan was notthere to witness the first flight of the future MiG­15; nobody had expected it to fly in that kind ofweather. The General Designer" congratulatedYouganov on the phone.

Manufacturer's flight tests proceeded for thenext five months and were completed on 25thMay 1948. Meanwhile, work continued on thesecond prototype (S-2) which was 75% com­plete by the time the S-1 flew. The second pro­totype differed mainly in being powered by aNene-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-95aluminium alloy instead of Type 30KhGSAsteel, increased aileron area and a simplifiedcanopy frame for better all-round visibility. AnASP-1 N automatic gunsight (avtomateecheskiystrelkovyy preetsel) , was installed, along withan S-13 gun camera on the air intake upper lip.The main gear units were modified in order toincrease landing gear wheelbase, internal fuelvolume was increased and provision was made

The 1·310 (also known as the 5·1), the firstprototype MiG·15, during the course ofmanufacturer's flight tests in December 1947.Yefim Gordon archive

for 250 litre (55 Imperial gallon) slipper tanksimmediately outboard of the outer wing fences.(Some sources give the drop tank volume as260 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 productionversion. As a rule, some of the radio and navi­gation equipment was omitted; if radar wasenvisaged, it was not fitted at all or a tried andtested production radar from an earlier aircraftwas temporarily fitted instead of the plannedmodeL)

The S-2 was completed on 5th April and firstflew on 27th May 1948 with Sergey N Anokhinat the controls. It was intended for State accep­tance trials to be held by the Air Force ResearchInstitute (Nil WS - Naoochno-issledovatel'skiyinstitoot voyenno-vozdooshnykh see0. In thesummer of 1948, both prototypes were flown tothe Nil WS facility at Chkalovskoye airbaseeast of Moscow.'o Typically of the period, thedecision to launch production of the fighter wasmade even before trials were completed; usu­ally this approach paid off.

The State acceptance trials proceeded intwo stages (Stage A, 27th May to 25th August1948; Stage B, 4th November to 3rd December1948). In the course of the trials the 1-310received the service designation under which itwas to make its mark in history (and make theMikoyan OKB world famous) - the MiG-15.

The third prototype, S-3 (which was in effecta pre-production aircraft), was completed inMarch 1948. Like the S-2, it was also ear­marked for State acceptance trials and pow­ered by a Nene-2. This aircraft introducedhydraulically-powered airbrakes of almost tri­angular shape on the rear fuselage sides, with

an area of 0.48m' (5.16ft') each. Wing anhedralwas increased from _1° to _2°, minor changeswere 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 prototypeand provision was made for carrying bombs onwing hardpoints, giving the MiG-15 a sec­ondary attack role. An AFA-IM reconnaissancecamera (AFA = aerofotoapparaht - aerial cam­era) covered by a hinged door was installed inthe forward fuselage. The weapons tray wasbeefed up and the N-37 cannon was fitted witha flash suppressor, receiving the designationN-37D (dorabotannaya - revised). For techno­logical reasons the aircraft also used differentstructural materials, which resulted in a slightincrease in empty weight.

The S-3 took to the air on 17th July 1948 atthe hands of test pilot I T Ivaschchenko whohad joined the Mikoyan OKB in 1945. The man­ufacturer's flight test programme lasted until15th October; 48 flights were made byIvaschchenko and Sergey N Anokhin, in thecourse of which the aircraft attained a topspeed of Mach 0.934.

On 4th November, 1948 the third prototypewas transferred to the Nil WS facility at Novo­fyodorovka airfield (Saki, the Crimean Penin­sula) where it underwent so-called checkouttests" until 3rd December. Stage B of the Stateacceptance trials ended on the same day. Testpilots Yuriy A Antipov and Vasiliy G Ivanovmade 35 flights at Novofyodorovka. On 23rdDecember, Air Marshal K Vershinin, Comman­der-in-Chief of the WS, signed an order tointroduce the MiG-15 into the WS inventory.

Despite this order, Nil WS pilots were stillcharged with determining whether the MiG-15or the La-15 was better suited to the Air Force'srequirements. The La-15 was faster and morestable at speeds approaching Mach 1, but itsmain shortcoming, in the opinion ofthe air forcetest pilots, was its narrow-track undercarriagewhich made the aircraft difficult to control dur­ing crosswind landings, especially in the wet.While having a lighter structure, the La-15 ratedpoorly on ease of manufacturing and maintain­ability. Its wing manufacturing process (involv­ing machining large components from solidslabs of metal and mating them with complexjoints) contributed to the downfall ofthe aircraft,as its production was very labour-intensive.

MiG-15 9

The second prototype (5-2) with spinrecovery rockets under the wings.Mikoyan OKS

The same aircraft with drop tanks.Mikoyan OKS

Close-up of a slipper tank under thewing of the 5-2. Mikoyan OKS

10 MiG-15

...- .

Opposite page:

One of the first two prototypes whichhad no airbrakes on the aft fuselage.Mikoyan OKS

The third prototype (5-3) nearing completionin 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 thenNil WS had some experience with this kind oftrials, having conducted them with piston­engined aircraft. To be certain of safe recoveryit was decided to increase spin entry altitudefrom 5,000m (16,404ft) to 7,000m (22,965ft),and anti-spin rockets were fitted under thewings of both aircraft. Nil VVS test pilots Yuriy AAntipov flying the MiG-15 and A Kochetkov fly­ing the La-15 reported that the aircraft behavedstrangely at high angles of attack.

The tests demonstrated that both fighterspitched up during spin entry. This meant the air­craft was in danger of entering a flat spin; thiswas a peculiarity of the swept-wing configura­tion with high-set horizontal tail which the twofighters shared. To add a further safety margin,the spin entry altitude was increased to10,000m (32,808ft).

During one of the test flights in the La-15Kochetkov delayed spin recovery and had touse 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 singleturn. After turning through 180°, the fighterswitched from a conventional steep spin to aflat spin, then going back to a steep spin afterthe next half turn.

At an early stage of the inverted spin trials NilVVS test pilot Yakov Bogdanov could not recov­er and crashed in the S-2, losing his life. Hiscolleague S Brovtsev who specialized in swept­wing fighter spinning trials continued the pro­gramme, flying the MiG-15 and the La-15 inturn, and investigating both conventional andinverted spin modes.

During one of the flights the MiG-15 provedreluctant to recover from an inverted spin.As altitude decreased, Brovtsev made repeat­ed efforts to recover but to no avail. Finally, hehad an inspiration and applied spin-provokingcontrol inputs instead of typical anti-spininputs. That did the trick; the rotation stoppedwhen the aircraft was down to a dangerous600m (1,968ft). Brovtsev brought the fighterinto straight and level flight and landed. Usingflight data recorder readouts to reconstructthe pilot's actions, the engineers confirmedsome of the MiG-i5's handling peculiarities.Changes were made to the flight manual and aspin recovery procedure developed whichsaved 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-lineservice because of its production complexity.The MiG-15 was to have a far longer and moredistinguished career.

After the West got wind of the type's exis­tence the MiG-i5 was allocated the reportingname Falcon by the NATO's Air StandardsCo-ordinating Committee (ASCC). This waspromptly changed to Fagot because it was toolaudatory; 'knock 'em' was part of the idea withall those reporting names!

..,

*

MiG-15 11

Chapter Two

The Aluminium RabbitMiG·15 Version Briefing

MiG-15 (izdeliye S) production prototypeBearing the construction number (c/n) 101003,the first production MiG-15 was built by air­craft factory No 1 named after losif V Stalin inKuybyshev (now Samara) in southern Russia.'This was the only aircraft to have the manufac­turer's designation 'izdeliye S'. It took to the airon 30th December 1948 - exactly one year afterthe first flight of the 1-310 (S-1) - and becameone of the 'dogships' on which various improve­ments were tested. The production MiG-15differed in some respects from the S-3 (mainlyin local structural reinforcement); for instance,the airbrakes were skinned with EI-100N steelinstead of duralumin and the shiny airbrakepanels were plainly visible. Concurrently theNene II turbojet entered production at plantNo 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 inJune 1949 and attained initial operational capa­bility with the WS in the same year. (No oneseems to know what the V in the manufactur­er's designation stands for!)

Initial production MiG-15s were not yetequipped with an automatic engine control sys­tem, and the ailerons were still manually-con­trolled. The earliest production batches hadpush-button circuit breaker panels in the cock­pit; these looked nice and neat but wereextremely inconvenient, promptly earning thenickname bayahn (Russian accordion). Stan­dard circuit breakers were introduced later,after which early and late MiG-15s werereferred to by the pilots as the knopochnW andneknopochnW ('push-button' and 'non-push­button') variety respectively. The OSP-48 ILStook some time coming, and familiarising pilotswith it took even longer. The guns' rate of firewas inadequate, which meant a change ofarmament was needed.

There were other bugs to be eliminated asdevelopment proceeded. For example, the air­craft's never-exceed speed (VNE) as per manu­facturer's specifications was Mach 0.92 butinitially (based on test flight results) it wasrestricted to Mach 0.88. The reason for thisrestriction was the MiG-15's tendency to dropa wing, called val'ozhka in Russian, which hadfirst manifested itself on the third prototype(S-3). At 925km/h (500kts) indicated airspeedthe aircraft would start rolling; the stick forcerequired to counter this motion grew qUickly as

12 MiG-15

speed increased, reaching 18.5kg (40.78Ib) at960km/h (519kts), and the pilot was physicallyunable to keep the aircraft 'on a straight keel'.On one occasion it nearly caused two MiG-15sto 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 wascaused by torsional stiffness asymmetry inthe port and starboard wings and the latter byaerodynamic asymmetry - the wings hadslightly different airfoils. This structural asym­metry meant that the wings produced differentamounts of lift; this was not critical at lowspeeds, but as airspeed increased the differ­ence became appreciable.

The whole affair was a result of the learningcurve during initial production; on the produc­tion line it was quite difficult to make both wingsabsolutely identical due to variations in skinthickness, riveting, inaccurate manufacturingand so on. The Mikoyan OKB tried to eliminatethis deficiency by toughening manufacturingdiscipline at aircraft factories and by addingbendable trailing edge trim tabs (referred to asnozhee - 'knives' - in OKB parlance) whichwere adjusted indiVidually after each aircraft'sfirst flight. Still, the problem persisted until theMiG-15bis entered production and structuralmodifications were made as described later.

Soon after production commenced the firstproduction aircraft (c/n 101003) was modifiedin order to correct deficiencies noted duringState acceptance trials. It featured numerousdetail improvements which were introducedprogressively and became standard in laterMiG-15 versions.

The two Nudel'man/Sooranov NS-23KMcannons with a 550rpm rate of fire gave way toNudel'man/Rikhter NR-23 cannons of identicalcalibre which offered a much higher rate offire (850 rounds per minute) for virtually noincrease in weight. A breechblock acceleratorwas introduced, along with a bilateral belt feedmechanism which enabled the NR-23 to bemounted on either side of the fuselage. Thenew guns were located closer to the fuselagecentreline, requiring some changes to frames 3to 5a. An ASP-3N automatic gunsight replacedthe earlier ASP-i. Outwardly aircraft armed withNR-23 cannons could be recognized by anenlarged gun blast plate, part of which was onthe nose gear doors, and by two small teardropfairings around the spent case exit slots. The

fairings covered deflectors introduced to stopspent cases and belt links from striking the air­brakes when these were deployed.

The aircraft was carefully balanced, whichallowed the Mach 0.88 speed restriction to belifted. 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 the20th and final Kuybyshev-built batch of 'pure'MiG-15s had an improved BU-1 actuator in thestarboard wing serving both ailerons, makingizdeliye SV the first Mikoyan aircraft with pow­ered controls. Elevator aerodynamic balancewas increased from 18% to 22% and the slotbetween the elevator and the fin was narrowedto reduce drag.

The cockpit featured a new instrument paneland a DGMK-3 remote gyromagnetic compass(distantseeonnw gheeromagnitnw kompas)replacing the earlier PDK-45 compass. The air­brakes were actuated by a push-button controlsystem and the nose gear unit featured a newshimmy damper.

The PS-2 engine starting control panel wasinstalled on the aircraft at the fuselage breakpoint (frame 13); earlier, it had been located onthe power cart (which was inconvenient, ren­dering engine starting impossible unless theappropriate power cart was available). BANO­45 port and starboard navigation lights (bor­tovoy aeronavigatseeonnw ogon') were fittedinstead of the original BO-39 model.

Initial production MiG-15s were prone toengine flameouts above 8,000m (26,246ft)caused by insufficient fuel pressure. The firststep to fix the problem was the introduction offuel tank pressurization by engine bleed airfrom Kuybyshev-built Batch 6 onwards. Still,this was a temporary measure and the problemwas ultimately cured by adding a PNV-2 fueltransfer pump in the forward fuel cell; thisensured stable fuel pressure throughout theaircraft's speed and altitude range. The pumpwas tested on MiG-15 cln 106017 starting on22nd June 1949 and recommended for pro­duction. Also, a special tank was introduced toprevent engine flameout in inverted flight and atnegative G. The engine starting system wasmodified to allow relight at up to 5,000m(16,404ft), and a fire extinguishing system wasadded.

The MiG-15 (izdeliye SV) went through a two­stage test programme from 14th June 1949and 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 VVSfollowing an upgrade. Note the small teardropfairings on the forward fuselage portsidecharacteristic of the new NR-23 cannons; theinner skin of the flaps is perforated to saveweight. Mikoyan OKS

was favourable; stick forces were perceptiblydecreased but this made the control system asa whole less harmonious because the rudderpedals were still 'heavy'. This took some get­ting used to. (It should be noted at this pointthat pilots flying early MiG-15s with manualailerons ran into problems immediately aftertransitioning to the MiG-15bis with poweredailerons. It was easy to lose track of airspeed inthe heat of the battle and flick into a spinbecause there was no time to watch the ASIand aileron forces told you nothing.)

The chief complaint, however, concernedthe new armament; the gun mounts were insuf­ficiently rigid, resulting in high shell scatter andpoor accuracy. Hence the WS' Chief EngineerCol Gen I V Markov suspended the trials on10th August at Artyom I Mikoyan's request andthe aircraft was returned to the manufacturer formodifications. Yet when Stage 2 began on 19thOctober it capitalised on handling improve­ments; the armament problem had not beencorrected.

In the summer of 1950 the aircraft was test­ed with recalibrated landing gear shockabsorbers. Main gear oleo pressure wasreduced from 85kg/cm2 (1 ,214psi) to 60kg/cm2

(857psi) and stroke increased to 180mm (7in).The modified shock absorbers worked well butdid not enter production for some reason. TheMiG-15 rolled off the production lines with stan­dard main gear oleos, a reduced-pressurenose gear oleo (23kg/cm2 or 328.5psi insteadof 30kg/cm2 or 428.5psi) and low-pressuretyres (2.5kg/cm2 or 35.7psi instead of4.2kg/cm2 or 60.0psi).

This major effort with shock absorbers wasbrought about by complaints from the WS thatthe aircraft sometimes bounced uncontrollablyduring heavy landings. Hence A P Sooproon(brother of the famous test pilot Stepan PSooproon) was tasked with deliberately mak­ing all kinds of screwed-up landings withexcessive landing speed, premature flare-outetc 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 canopyremoved and a massive structure fitted imme­diately aft of the cockpit to protect the pilot incase the fighter rolled over.

Sooproon found that the MiG-15 forgaveeven a heavy three-point landing after a pre­mature flare-out but had a tendency to bouncewhen landing too fast. On his twenty-fifth try, hemade a particularly hard landing, greatlyexceeding all limits set by the flight manual.This time he 'succeeded' in bending the aircraftwhich nearly flipped over on its back, collaps­ing the nose and starboard main gear units.The message was clear: the problem wascaused by poor airmanship rather than anydeficiency of the aircraft. Still, this led the OKBto experiment with shock absorber pressuresas described above.

The MiG-15 (izde/iye SV) replaced the MiG-9on the production line at the Kuybyshev aircraftfactory. 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 theMoscow Defence District, for its persistentefforts to improve the quality of MiG-15s.

So great was the Soviet Air Force's demandfor the new fighter (partly because of the war inKorea) that eight more plants (!) joined in short­ly afterwards. They were factory No 21 inGor'kiy (nameo after Sergo Ordzhonikidze),factory No 31 in Tbilisi (named after the Bulgar­ian Communist Gheorgi Dimitrov), factoryNo 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 afterValeriy P Chkalov), factory No 292 in Saratovand factory No 381 in Moscow! At most facto­ries the initial production version was allocatedthe in-house product code 'izde/iye 50'.

Each of the factories which built the fighterhad its own system for the allocation of con­struction numbers (manufacturer's serial num­bers), and this is explained in detail on thefollowing page.

MiG-15 13

System 7 (factory N0292): 421 Red, cln 210421 no. of aircraft in batch (50 per batch?)04 batch number.

System 6 (factory No 126): 317 Red, cln 331733 batch number17 no. of aircraft in batch (20 per batch?)

The cln is sometimes stencilled on the port side of thefuselage nose.

System 4 no serial, cln 3810102381 Moscow aircraft factory No 38101 batch number02 number of aircraft in batch (10 per batch?)

The cln is sometimes stencilled on the port side of thefuselage nose.

(UTI-MiG-15): cln 11240Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1batch numbernumber of aircraft in batch

System 1109

925 Red, cln 109025Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1batch number(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, gunbarrel fairings andlor main gear doors.

System 5 546 Red, cln 5321054653 in-house product code (izdeliye 53 =MiG-15bis)21 Gor'kiy aircraft factory No 2105 batch number46 number of aircraft in batch (up to 100?)

The cln is usually stencilled on the fin and rudder andsometimes on the fuselage nose. Also, until the mid-50s,Gor'kiy-built Fagots had acharacteristic 'MiG-15 - 21'badge on the nose.

System 211240

System 3 768 Red, cln 071536807 batch number

(1 to 6- MiG-15, 6to 30- MiG-15bis)153 Novosibirsk aircraft factory No 15368 number of aircraft in batch (up to 100?)

The cln is stencilled on the ailerons and sometimes onthe port side of the fuselage nose.

System 10 (UTI-MiG-15): cln 021351002 batch number135 Khar'kov aircraft factory No 13510 number of aircraft in batch

System 831530981

System 910990907

981 Red, cln 31530981Tbilisi aircraft factory No 31in-house product code (izdeliye 53 =MiG-15bis)batch numbernumber of aircraft in batch (up to 100?)

cln 10990907in-house product code (izdeliye 10 =UTI-MiG-15)Ulan-Ude aircraft factory No 99batch numbernumber of aircraft in batch

•

System 11 (UTI-MiG-15, factory No 135): cln 0900909 batch number009 number of aircraft in batch

The cln is stencilled on the fin and rudder.

Top and centre: Early-production MiG-15s in thefinal assembly shop at the Kuybyshev aircraftfactory No 1 named after losif V Stalin, 1949.Yefim Gordon archive

A Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (c/n 115002) duringcheckout tests at Nil WS.Yefim Gordon archive

14 MiG-15

Workers align the RD-45F engine ofan early-production Fagot-A at the Kuybyshevaircraft factory, 1949. Yefim Gordon archive

Here, a Novosibirsk-built example is nearingcompletion. Yefim Gordon archive

The type was also manufactured under licencein China, Czechoslovakia and Poland (foreignproduction is described separately). Indeed,the MiG-15 family turned out to be so prolific (nofewer than 13,131 of all versions were built in theUSSR alone!) that, paraphrasing the title ofa science fiction novel by Harry Harrison, TheSteel Rat, one might be tempted to call it theAluminium Rabbit. (No disrespect intended.)

Early-production MiG-15s were still armedwith NS-23KM cannons, and few had the OSP­48 ILS. In the final batches of izdeliye SV, thepush-button circuit breakers were replaced byconventional switches. These late 'non-push­button' aircraft were assigned to Soviet unitsfighting in Korea where the MiG-15 was toprove its worth in combat.

Typically of Soviet military aircraft, testing atNil WS continued even after the type becameoperational as air force test pilots explored thefighter's potential. Fagots used by Nil WSincluded a Kuybyshev-built aircraft serialled719 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 positiveidentification, since they tied in with the air­craft's construction number (usually the lastone 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 systemof two-digit tactical codes which, as a rule, aresimply the aircraft's number in the unit operat­ing it, making positive identification impossible.(Three- or four-digit tactical codes are rare andare usually worn by development aircraft only,in which case they still tie in with the cln or fuse­lage number (manufacturer's line number). Onmilitary transport aircraft, however, three-digittactical codes are usually the last three of theformer civil registration; many Soviet/RussianAir Force transports were, and still are, quasi­civilian.) At the same time the star insignia onthe aft fuselage were deleted, remaining on thewings and vertical tail only.

The MiG-15s (izdeliye SV)'s trials pro­gramme included tests at speeds in excess ofMach 0.92 held at L11 in the early 1950s. Themain purpose of these tests with a Moscow­built MiG-15 (c/n 381 0203, no serial) was to findout how the aircraft behaved beyond the pre­scribed VNE. At 12,500 to 13,500m (41,010 to44,291ft), test pilot AM Tyuterev accelerated tomaximum speed in level flight, then entered ashallow dive with the engine running at12,300rpm, reaching the planned Mach num­ber, and pulled out of the dive with the engineat flight idle.

These tests showed that control forcesincreased considerably at speeds approachingVNE; still, the programme was duly completed.The high-speed flights also demonstrated thatat speeds above Mach 0.86 the intensity of thewing-drop problem was different for differentMiG-15s. Thus, the pilot had to be aware of thepeculiarities of each individual aircraft.

MiG-15 15

In service, some MiG-15s (izdeliye SV) wereretrofitted with improved avionics and equip­ment. The type also spawned a multitude ofversions described below, some of which wereone-off aircraft and were not developed further.

MiG-15 (izdeliye SA-1/SA-2)development aircraftIn order to verify the OSP-48 ILS the completesystem was retrofitted to the second Moscow­built MiG-15 (c/n 3810102, no serial). This air­craft was unusual in being powered by a VK-1engine as on the MiG-15bis (which see), beingdeveloped in parallel with the latter. Yet it wasstill 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 inthe aft fuselage and a whip aerial on the star­board side immediately aft of the cockpit. TheMRP-48 marker beacon receiver aerial was inthe aft fuselage and the RV-2 low-range radioaltimeter aerials flush with the lower fuselageskin. This necessitated a redesign of the aftintegral fuel tank which consisted of two halves(port and starboard) with an avionics bay inbetween. The AOF and marker beacon rec­eiver aerials were fitted flush with this bay'saccess hatch cover, while the AOF unit wasinstalled in place of the AFA-IM recce camera.

In addition, the RSI-6 HF radio was replacedby the RSIU-3 Klyon (Maple) VHF radio, anSRO-1 Bariy-M (Barium-M) identification friend­or-foe (IFF) transponder' was fitted and a BU-1hydraulic aileron actuator was installed in thestarboard wing leading edge. A new cockpit airconditioning system was introduced and thecanopy had a single layer of thick Perspexinstead of the standard two thin layers with agap in between. In order to cut empty weightthe aircraft was stripped of the SOPO danger­ous pressure differential warning indicator,VS-46 altitude indicator, ammunition counterand the armour plate attached to fuselageframe 5a.

Called izdeliye SA-1 by Mikoyan, the modi­fied MiG-15 underwent manufacturer's flighttests from 4th February to 10th March 1950.These were followed by preliminary Stateacceptance trials from 29th to 31 st March and6th 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 thelast Novosibirsk-built Fagot-As, withNS-23KM cannons. Yefim Gordon archive

Centre and below: SA-1, the second Moscow­built MiG-15 (c/n 3810102), a developmentaircraft powered by a VK-1 engine. This aircraftwas fitted with an OSP-48 ILS, an RSIU-3 radioand a Bariy-M IFF. Yefim Gordon archive

Bottom: A close-up of the NS-23KM cannons on616 Red. Note the thin and angular serial stylecharacteristic of Novosibirsk-built aircraft.Yefim Gordon archive

16 MiG-15

Top and above: Another Moscow-built MiG-15(c/n 3810203) powered by an RD-45F. LII testpilot Aleksandr M Tyuterev attained Mach 1.01in 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 slidingASP-3N gunsight. The installation was intendedto improve the gunsight's efficiency but faileddismally. Yefim Gordon archive

Yet, even though the OSP-48 system performedacceptably it was not recommended for pro­duction as fitted to the SA-1 (mainly because oflow component reliability) and developmentwork continued. A similarly converted secondaircraft designated izdeliye SA-2 was not sub­mitted for State acceptance trials.

MiG-15 (izdeliye SA-3) development aircraftAnother MiG-15 designated izdeliye SA-3 wasalso used to test the OSP-48 ILS and find thebest possible locations for the system's com­ponents, primarily the aerials. For example, theaerial of the RSI-6 radio doubled as the aerialfor the ARK-5 ADF. As on the SA-1, the aft fueltank was replaced by two smaller tanks tomake room for the ADF and MRP-48 markerbeacon receiver units, and the AFA-IM recon­naissance camera was deleted.

In 1950, sixteen production RD-45F-pow­ered MiG-15s were retrofitted with the OSP-48ILS in order to perform the system's service tri­als and operated by regular WS units withgood results. These aircraft have sometimesbeen misidentified as izdeliye SA-3. Soon thesystem became standard equipment for allMiG-15 versions.

MiG-15 (izdeliye SA-4) development aircraftThis version was likewise powered by theRD-45F and equipped with the OSP-48ILS. Theinstrument panel was revised yet again, featur­ing a generator failure warning light, a KI-11compass (kompas indooktseeonnw) and aMach meter reading up to Mach 0.95. TheDGMK-2 gyrocompass and the AGK-47B artifi­cial horizon were powered by separate PAG-1 Ftransformers. The aircraft also had automaticairbrake extension if the Mach 0.95 speed limitwas exceeded, and in-flight engine startingcapability was added.

The SA-4 completed manufacturer's flighttests in August 1950 and was transferred to NilVVS for further testing. Some of the improve­ments verified on the SA-4 were incorporated inproduction MiG-15s.

MiG-15 (izdeliye SO) development aircraftIn 1949 an early-production Kuybyshev-builtMiG-15 (619 Red, cln 106019) was fitted with anexperimental sliding mount for the standardASP-3N gunsight consisting of a telescopictube and an inverted U-shaped supportattached to the windshield frame. From its stan­dard position the sight could move 160mm(6.3in) towards the pilot so that he could usethe target lead angles offered by the sight moreefficiently. It was also possible to use the sightin the normal way.

Designated izdeliye SO (the 0 possiblystood for oroozhiye, weapons), the aircraftcommenced State acceptance trials on 16thJune 1949. However, Stage 1 which ended on6th August showed that the sliding gunsightwas 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 toMAP directive No M-40/3300 (14th October 1949);the sliding mount was revised and additionalarmour installed for better pilot protection. Thethickness of the bulletproof windscreen wasincreased from 64mm (2.5in) to 105mm (4.3in),and an armoured seat back and armouredheadrest - both 16mm (0.62in) thick - wereadded. In this form the aircraft resumed Stateacceptance trials during the following year, butthe sliding gunsight was rejected again and theSO programme was terminated in July 1950.

Two views of izdeliye SU (e/n 109035),a testbed for the V·1·25·Sh·3 experimentalelevating weapons system. "Mikoyan OKS

MiG-15 (izdeliye 5U)development aircraft/weapons testbedPursuant to MAP directive No 658 issued on14th September 1950, the Mikoyan OKB beganworking on movable cannon armament for theMiG-15. Usually a fighter pilot had to take aimby pointing the whole aircraft, which took con­siderable time. In a dogfight, this put him at adisadvantage: he had to provide target lead byaiming at a point ahead of the target on itsanticipated course. If the target was more agilethan his own aircraft, the pilot had no choicebut to break off the attack and start anew - andthe few seconds lost in so doing could provefatal. Conversely, on a fighter with movablearmament the pilot could bring his guns to bear

on the target much more quickly and moreaccurately - even when pointing the aircraftitself was impossible. Ideally, this gave him first­shot, first-kill capability.

Hence a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (izdeliyeSV) serialled 935 Red (c/n 109035) was con­verted to take the V-1-25-Sh-3 experimentalweapons system replacing the standard arma­ment. The system was developed by the OKBunder Boris Shpital'nyy, the man behind theShKAS machine gun and ShVAK cannon ofSecond World War vintage; the Sh in the des­ignation stood for Shpital'nyy and 25 was thenumber of the plant where his OKB was based.

The system comprised two 23mm Sh-3 gunswith 115 rpg in faired flexible mOl,lnts on the

18 MiG-15

- r

lower forward fuselage sides, giving the aircrafta jowly, bulldog-like appearance in a head-onview. The guns could elevate +11°/-7". Theaircraft 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 werereloaded by a purpose-built electropneumaticmechanism and elevation was controlled bytwo knobs, one on the stick and one on thethrottle. Gun and sight movement was syn­chronized via an electromechanical elevation­aiming synchro transmission.

The prototype was completed on 29thDecember 1950. Manufacturer's flight testsbegan on 2nd January 1951 and were com­pleted on 27th March. On 20th June, test pilotYuriy A Antipov ferried the prototype to Nil WSfor State acceptance trials which began tendays later and continued until 10th August. NilWS test pilots Trofimov, Makhalin, Ye I Dzyuba,Lookin, Kotlov, Toopitsyn and Filippov made 63flights in the SU, including several flights to testthe new gun installation. In the course of thetrials, large gun blast panels made of heat­resistant steel were riveted to the underside ofthe fuselage nose and nose gear doors whenit turned out that firing the guns damaged thealuminium skin.

The State commission's report said thatthe movable cannon armament enhanced theMiG-15's combat potential. For example, head­on attacks could be made without the dangerof collision and the pilot could bring his gunsto bear on the target for longer periods. TheV-1-25-Sh-3 system could be mastered by theaverage pilot in 20 to 25 flights. Still, izdeliye SUdid not enter production because the systemwas too complicated and the elevation anglewas too small. It is perhaps worth noting that in1953, Mikoyan dusted off the movable gunidea, developing the izdeliye SN prototype, aheaVily-modified MiG-17.

MiG-15 (izdeliye SSh) development aircraftIn 1950, two RD-45F-powered MiG-15s built inKuybyshev were fitted with a single 23mmShpital'nyy Sh-3 cannon replacing the portsideNS-23KMs. The conversion involved changesto the cannon mounts, access hatches and fair­ings, and the installation of a new ammunitionbox, new spent case and link chutes, and newbarrel mounting collars for the Sh-3. The stan­dard N-37 installation on the starboard sidewas retained. The aircraft was known asizdeliye SSh, the Sh probably referring to theShpital'nyy cannon.

The first aircraft was used to test the reliabil­ity of the new Sh-3 cannon between 13th Julyand 25th August 1950. The second aircraft wassubmitted for State acceptance trials on 1stJuly 1950. The trials resulted in some modifica­tions to the Sh-3 cannon which, in improvedform, was fitted to the MiG-15 (izdeliye SSh)described above.

5 Red (c/n 105015), the MiG-15bis prototypeconverted from a Fagot-A, during Stateacceptance 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 at2,700kgp (5,952Ibst) in early 1949 enabled theMikoyan OKB to radically upgrade the MiG-15and improve its performance. It also meant theend of the road for jet fighters powered by otherengines, to say nothing of the piston-enginedfighters which were still in plenty in the WSinventory, causing huge maintenance prob­lems. The idea of a single, 'standard' fighter(and 'standard' tactical bomber, the IL-28 whichwas also powered by the VK-1) seemed bothfeasible and attractive, and on 14th May 1949the Council of Ministers issued directiveNo 1889-699 ordering production of the La-15and Yak-23 to be terminated.

Built in 1949 and assigned the in-house des­ignation 'izdeliye SD' (the 0 probably standingfor dorabotannoye - revised), the new fighterincorporated the results of a year's productionand operational experience with early MiG-15s.The VK-1 had slightly larger dimensions thanthe RD-45F and an extension jetpipe of biggerdiameter, necessitating changes to the internal

contours of fuselage frames 21 to 28 and a 60­litre (13.2 Imperial gallon) reduction in thecapacity of the aft fuel tank. The tail cone abovethe engine nozzle was enlarged and the aft endof the fuselage adjacent to the nozzle wasredesigned, with a kinked edge in side viewinstead of a straight one. A GS-3000 starter­generator and a modified oil filler incorporatinga wire mesh filter were introduced.

A BU-1 reversible hydraulic actuator wasinstalled in the starboard wing as part of theaileron control circuit. Elevator area wasenlarged by increasing relative elevator chordto 21 % of the wing chord to improve aileron effi­ciency and elevator aerodynamic balance wasincreased to 22%; elevator and rudder leadingedges were reshaped to improve their aero­dynamic balance.

The airbrakes were enlarged to 0.5m'(5.37ft') and recontoured (the upper edge wasupswept instead of horizontal). Their hinge linewas inclined 22° 30' forward instead of verticalto alleviate the MiG-15's annoying tendency topitch up when the airbrakes were deployed,complicating gun aiming. A solenoid-operatedvalve controlled by a button on the control stickwas introduced in the airbrake control channelto improve control efficiency. A four-barrelESKR-46 signal flare launcher was installed onthe starboard side of the rear fuselage, with acontrol panel showing the colour (green, red,white and yellow) and number of used flares.

MiG-15 19

20 MiG-15

Pursuant to the abovementioned directivesthe prototype izdeJiye SO was to be submittedfor State acceptance trials on 1st July 1949.However, the aircraft was not completed untillate July due to the late delivery of a Kuyby­shev-built MiG-15 (c/n 105015, originally noserial, later serialled 5 Red) to Mikoyan for con­version. Manufacturer's flight tests began on22nd July and were successfully completed on9th September; four days later the prototypewas transferred to Nil WS.

As might be imagined, the new engineproved troublesome, being prone to surge atfull military power above 8,000m (26,246ft) andhigh-frequency vibration which reverberatedthrough the airframe and set your teeth onedge. Three engine changes were made in thecourse of the trials and modifications made tothe VK-1 's design; this alleviated the problembut did not cure it completely. The engine con­trol system also drew a lot of criticism becauseit did not ensure stable engine operation atflight idle and did not permit sharp accelerationand deceleration (which might be necessary incombat) without the risk of surge or a flameout.Vladimir Klimov was strongly urged to rectifythis fault, while Artyom Mikoyan was suggestedto incorporate self-contained engine starting soas to reduce dependence on ground supportequipment.

Trials showed an overall improvement in per­formance, with the exception of range whichwas 180km (97nm) shorter because of lessinternal fuel and a thirstier engine. Comparedto the basic Fagot, the VK-1-powered version'was 26km/h (14kts) faster, maximum speed atsea level being 1,076km/h versus 1,050km/h(581 kts versus 567kts). Rate of climb at sealevel increased from 42 m/sec (8,400ft/min) to46 m/sec (9,200ft/min) and service ceilingimproved 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 on235 Red. Yefim Gordon archive

Centre right, lower left and lower right: The loweredcannon tray of MiG-15bis '235 Red', showing thestaggered arrangement of the NR-23s, thestarboard-side N-37D cannon, the ammunitionboxes and the cocking mechanism air lines.Yefim Gordon archive

Bottom left: The muzzle of the N·37D cannon onMiG·15bis '235 Red'. Note the large blast panelfor the portside NR·23s.Yefim Gordon archive

Bottom right: The aft fuselage of a Gor'kiy-builtMiG-15bis (c/n 53210668), showing openairbrake (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), reaching880m (2,887ft) and making Mikoyan engineersconsider the addition of a brake parachute. Asusual, as an aircraft matures it tends to grow fat­ter; the new engine, equipment and armamentadded 238kg (524Ib) to the Fagot's normaltake-off weight which reached 5,044kg(11,120Ib).

On the whole, the results were deemed sat­isfactory and the fighter was recommended forproduction, with an order to submit a produc­tion-standard aircraft for checkout tests by 1stJuly 1950. The Kuybyshev factory switched tothe new version from Batch 21 onwards and theNovosibirsk factory in the middle of Batch 6;Gor'kiy, Tbilisi, Komsomol'sk-on-Amur andSaratov built the new model from the start.Soon the VVS began taking delivery of whatwas originally known as the 'VK-1-poweredMiG-15'. From 1951 onwards, however, thisversion became the MiG-15bis.

In Gor'kiy the MiG-15bis received the prod­uct code 'izdeJiye 53', while in Kuybyshev it wasreferred to, somewhat confusingly, as izdeJiye55 (see MiG-15bisR entry). In the Westthe sub­type was assigned a separate reporting name,Fagot-B, the original 'pure' MiG-15 becomingthe Fagot-A.

The slipper tanks of the original MiG-15which came in three sizes - 250, 300 and 600litre (55, 66 and 132 Imperial gallon) werereplaced by 400 litre (88 Imperial gallon) droptanks mounted in more conventional fashionon tandem pylons and braced on both sides atthe front to stop them from rocking duringmanoeuvres. Unlike the slipper tanks, the newtanks were interchangeable (port and star­board). Originally they were of simple cigarshape, but triangular tail surfaces were soonadded to facilitate separation from the aircraft.(However, the early-model slipper tanks contin­ued in use for a while after the MiG-15bisbecame operational.)

Like the original MiG-15 (izdeJiye SV), earlyproduction bises retained NS-23KM cannonsbut in July 1951 they were substituted by rapid­firing NR-23s, with appropriate changes tofuselage frames 3 to 5a to accommodate thenew cannons, once the shell scatter problemhad been fixed. Following trials on half a dozenaircraft, including 235 Red (c/n 122035), thenew armament was fitted in Kuybyshev fromBatch 28 onwards, in Novosibirsk from Batch15 onwards, in Gor'kiy and Saratov from Batch10 onwards and in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur fromBatch 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. TheMiG-15bis was a considerable improvementover the Fagot-A as a weapons system: the rateof fire was more than 50% higher, the weight offire was increased and firing accuracyimproved.

The wing drop problem experienced during

flight tests and operations of the basic MiG-15became even more serious on the MiG-15bisbecause of this version's higher speed. Onceagain, different aircraft were affected to a differ­ent degree; some bises could reach 960 to980km/h (519 to 529k1s) ·IAS while othersbecame completely uncontrollable at 850 to950km/h (459 to 513kts) lAS. Anyway, thisbehaviour led to accidents, and on 11th Sep­tember 1950 the WS C-in-C issued an orderlimiting the Fagot-B's true airspeed below2,500m (8,202ft) to 1,040km/h (562kts).

Even before this order the Mikoyan OKB andNil WS began a special programme to elimi­nate the tell-tale wing drop problem. For thefirst time ever the institute held a series of sta­bility and handling tests with a view to develop­ing specific recommendations for servicepilots. The tests involved three Gor'kiy-built air­craft serialled 45 Red, 46 Red and 47 Red (c/ns53210345, 53210346 and 53210347). Testflights began on 4th August 1950 and were ter­minated on 29th September, by which time theaircraft had logged 66hrs 20min in 100 flights.This first stage of the anti-val'ozhka programmeled to the development in the same year of aversion designated izdeJiye SYa, which isdescribed separately.

Apart from val'ozhka, the MiG-15 had a fewquirks discovered by Nil WS pilots. AboveMach 0.87 the aircraft displayed reverse rollreaction to rudder inputs (ie, it rolled rightinstead of left when left rudder was applied).Also, aileron efficiency was poor at speeds inexcess of Mach 0.86 and Mach tuck appeared;this was not dangerous but made flying a littlemore complicated. Based on these findings theMiG-15's flight manual was suitably amended.

In 1951 the OKB undertook an effort toimprove rearward vision for the MiG-15 pilot.The canopy received 1Omm (0.39 in) thick glaz­ing. The W-shaped internal upright at the rearof the sliding canopy was deleted and thetransverse canopy frame member adjacent to itwas replaced with steel strips. The new canopywas tested successfully in September 1951and recommended for production. Actually,MiG-15s with the new canopy began rolling offthe production lines in 1952.

Also in 1952, MiG-15bis pilots received thePPK-1 G-suit (protivoperegroozochnWkostyum) and appropriate modifications weremade to the aircraft's systems. Air for the G-suitwas bled from the engine compressor and fedthrough a filter. An automatic pressure controlunit adjusted the pressure differential in thechambers of the G-suit, depending on howmuch G the aircraft was pulling. The PPK-1operated with loads of 1.75 to 8 G, making iteasier 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 toimprove manoeuvrability. Airbrake area wasincreased from 0.5m' (5.37ft') to 0.8m' (8.6ft')with no change to the aft fuselage structure (bysimply incorporating a new, larger skin panel

MiG-15 21

i-

22 MiG-15

extended upwards, downwards and aft) andthe hydraulic actuators were beefed up. Thedeflection angle remained unchanged at 55°.

The modified airbrakes were tested on aGor'kiy-built MiG-15bis (c/n 53210668), start­ing on 20th March of the same year. Trialsshowed that the arrangement was more effec­tive, improving diving characteristics at highaltitude, and the new design entered produc­tion on 1st September. Special teams were dis­patched from Kuybyshev and Novosibirsk tothe Soviet units fighting in Korea in order toretrofit their aircraft with the new airbrakes onsite.

Other changes introduced in 1952 pursuantto the said directive included a new.retractableLFSV-45 landing light in the port wing rootahead of the mainwheel well replacing the ear­lier FS-155 landing/taxi light in the air intakesplitter and changes to the ejection seat thatallowed 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 SovietDefence Ministry awarded a contract to theState Optical Institute named after S Vavilov todevelop three models of periscopes (TS-23,TS-25 and TS-27); these were tested on theMiG-15bis's double-glazed canopy and thelater MiG-17's canopy with single glazing.

In June 1952 one MiG-15bis (235 Blue, c/n122035) was experimentally fitted with theTS-23 periscope and another with the TS-25.Tests showed that both models were unsuit­able for operational use: the TS-23 proved veryinconvenient with its inverted image and theTS-25 lacked electric defrosting essential forcombat at various altitudes and in different tem­perature conditions. To rectify this, the VavilovInstitute developed the TS-27A periscope witha powerful electric defrosting system whichproved successful and was widely used on theMiG-17 fighter.

The brand-new Sirena radar homing andwarning system (RHAWS) came next. Fifteenaircraft of the 133rd and 216th Fighter Divisionsfighting in Korea were equipped with it for ser­vice trials in October 1952. The results wereexcellent and before long all MiGs fighting inKorea had the Sirena RHAWS.

Fagot-Bs in the assembly shop at theNovosibirsk aircraft factory.Yefim Gordon archive

The aft fuselages of bises (c/ns 1115332,1115333,1115335 etc) on the Novosibirskproduction line; note empty jig where the rearend of No 1115334 should be.Yefim Gordon archive

421 Red (c/n 2104), a MiG-15bis built by theSaratov aircraft factory No 292.Yefim Gordon archive

Izdeliye SD-ET, a Novosibirsk-builtMiG-15bis (1141 Red cln 1115341) used totest the self-starter system developed for theFagot-B. Yefim Gordon archive

201 Blue, a MiG-15bis equipped with an RSI-6radio and a Bariy-M IFF, on test at L11. Note thatthe barrel fairing of the N-37D cannon has beenremoved. 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 thefactory's badge on the nose - a stylised aircraftsilhouette with the inscription 'MiG-15 - 21'.Like most Fagots, Gor'kiy-built MiG-15s usuallyhad 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-3Ngunsight was replaced by an improved ASP­3NM. The new model featured an electromag­netic damper increasing aiming accuracy andreducing aiming time during sharp manoeu­vres. Likewise, the new sight made its servicedebut in Korea.

The MiG-15bis was the most numerous ver­sion of the Fagot. It served with the WS, the airforces of Warsaw Pact countries and ThirdWorld countries, earning a reputation as a reli­able and effective weapons system. Like theMiG-15, the bis was built under licence abroad;some licence-built aircraft had minor localmodifications.

1

MiG-15bis (izdeliye SYa)The next stage of the effort to cure the wingdrop problem began in September 1950 whenthree bises (c/ns 122040, 122067 and53210434) were handed over to Nil WS. Thetwo Kuybyshev-built aircraft had a stiffenedwing structure, a 'knife' (bendable trim tab)40mm (1.57in) wide on the wing trailing edgeand a similar tab 30mm (1 .18in) wide on thestarboard aileron, while the Gor'kiy-built exam­ple was used for comparison and featured onlythe 'knives' to represent a field modification.

Test flights made from 26th September to 9thOctober gave disappointing results. On the'field-modified' MiG-15bis c/n 53210434, wingdrop 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 TAScould only be reached with full stick deflectionto keep the wings level, which of course wastotally unacceptable; as per the said order therequired stick travel was not to exceed a third.

The two aircraft with stiffened wings faredbetter, showing an improvement of 30 to 60km/h(16 to 32kts) in speed at which wing drop waseasily countered as compared to unmodifiedbises. Still, they could not reach 1,065km/h(575kts) lAS at 700m - conditions at which,according to Kuybyshev engineers, wing dropwas not felt at all! All three aircraft showed nosigns of val'ozhka up to Mach 0.92 in straightand level flight above 3,000 to 4,000m (9,842 to

MiG-15 23

Izdeliye SD-UPB, the prototype MiG-15bisS escortfighter (c/n 53210114) with 600 litre (132Imperial gallon) drop tanks. Yefim Gordon archive

633 Blue, a Saratov-built MiG-15bis. In Saratovthe serial was written 'back to front' in relationto the cln, since the last digit of the batchnumber always came first. Yefim Gordon archive

-.'/E~,-~\ ..._=="""

The manufacturers' fair - a line-up of bisesproduced by different factories on comparativetrials 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) fromKomsomol'sk-on-Amur, Novosibirsk-built '1776Red' (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/ns122067 and 53210434) were steady up to Mach0.92 in straight and level flight at 9,000 to10,000m (29,527 to 32,808ft).

A fourth MiG-15bis (c/n 122058) was modi­fied with an even stiffer wing structure whichincurred a 47kg (1 03.6Ib) weight penalty com­pared to 30kg (66Ib) for the previous two air­craft. The new wings were designed byVladimir P Yatsenko, a designer best known forthe 1-28 fighter of 1938. Hence the three Fagot­Bs with reinforced wings came to be known asizdeliye SYa, the letter Ya referring to thedesigner (izdeliye S s krylom Yatsenko - withYatsenko wings). MiG-15bis c/n 122058 wastested during 11 th to 28th November 1950 withgood results and the reinforced wings enteredproduction.

But even though the wing drop problem wascured, poor roll control and reverse roll reactionto rudder inputs at high speed remained.Hence the same aircraft was used to investi­gate lateral stability and aileron efficiency athigh speeds during 7th-20th December; therewas a pause in the tests between 8th Decem­ber and 16th December when the starboardwing was shipped to TsAGI for measuring tor­sional stiffness.

TsAGI specialists noted that the wing dropproblem might be due in part to poor manu­facturing discipline - eg, careless aligning andbalancing during final assembly. Hence, inaddition to the customary 'knives', late MiG­15bis batches featured adjustable wing/fuse­lage joints that allowed port and starboard wingincidence 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 atshortening the MiG-15's landing roll. The UA-11anti-skid unit was tested. So were three modelsof brake 'chutes: two single-canopy models ­TP-1453-50 (tormoznoy parashoot) and TR-20with an area of 7.2m2 (77ft2

) and 20Am2 (219ft2)respectively - and twin TP-1453-50 'chutes with

a total area of 14Am2 (154ft2). None of the

'chutes was judged to be satisfactory.A fourth parachute, the 15m2 (161ft2) PT­

2165-51, was also tested at Nil WS between4th September and 20th September 1951 .Thismodel worked well and was recommended forproduction. The parachute was housed in aspecial bay under the jetpipe; the dual baydoors and the parachute release lock wereactuated pneumatically.

A small batch of bises equipped with PT­2165-51 brake 'chutes and UA-11 anti-skid unitswas built by the Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1in 1952 and delivered to the WS in 1952. Theseaircraft were sometimes referred to as izdeliyeSD-P, the P standing for [s tormoznym]parashootom - with brake parachute.

MiG-15bisS Fagot-B(izdeliye SO-UPS) escort fighterThe advent in the late 1940s of the first Sovietjet tactical bombers, the IL-28 and Tu-14, creat­ed a need for an escort fighter capable ofreaching 900km/h (486kts), with a range of atleast 2,500km (1,351nm). The La-11 escortfighter - the ultimate Lavochkin prop-driven air­craft - had the range but was nowhere near fastenough (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 upin 1950.

The Mikoyan OKB took delivery of the 14thGor'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 carryingproduction drop tanks or bombs on BD2­48MiG pylons.·

Because of the greater endurance oxygensystem capacity was increased from 6 litres(1.32 Imperial gallons) to 8 litres (1.76 Imperialgallons). This aircraft and subsequent MiG-15swere fitted with expander-tube wheel brakes

and more durable tyres to cope with the highergross weight (6,010kg/13,249Ib).

Designated izdeliye SD-UPB (s oovelichen­nymi podvesnymi bahkami - with enlargeddrop tanks), the aircraft was tested by the OKBfrom 10th June to 21 st July 1950. Manufac­turer's tests showed the aircraft was prone torocking fore and aft during taxying and thetake-off/landing run; to remedy this, nose gearshock absorber pressure and nosewheel tyrepressure was reduced to 23 bars (328psi) and2.5 bars (35.7psi) respectively.

On 8th August the aircraft was delivered toNil WS for State acceptance trials. Test flightsbegan on 14th August but were suspended fivedays later after nine flights (including four withdrop tanks) because the pilots complained thatthe landing gear was too stiff. The OKB autho­rised operations with nose gear oleo and tyrepressure increased to 30 bars (428psi) and 4.2bars (60psi) respectively; however, the rockingproblem reappeared and the pressure had tobe reduced again to 26 to 27 bars (371 to385psi) and 3.5 bars (50psi) respectivelybefore 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 loadswith full drop tanks were limited to 3.76 atspeeds above 450km/h (243kts) lAS; otherwise,the aircraft was no different in performance andhandling from the standard MiG-15bis.

Even though the specified range target wasmet, the aircraft was rejected by the WS. Thereason was that speed with drop tanks waslimited to 650km/h (351 kts) , which was notgood enough for escorting IL-28 and Tu-14jet bombers; the required speed was at least700km/h (378kts). Conversely, the piston­engined Tu-4 was unable to keep up with thefighter; at its minimum speed in stable flightwith drop tanks (350km/h or 189kts), theSD-UPB was 30 to 67km/h (16 to 36kts) fasterthan the bomber in economical cruise mode.

MiG-15 25

The cockpit became extremely cold anduncomfortable in prolonged cruise at high alti­tude. Finally, the fighter lacked ILS and IFFequipment.

There was an incident with the new tanksduring the trials. The venting system apparentlymalfunctioned, creating a partial vacuum insidethe tanks as fuel was used up. When the aircraftdescended from 10,000m (32,808ft) to 1,500m(4,921ft) in 4.5 minutes with the engine at lowrpm, the quickly rising external air pressurecrushed the noses of the drop tanks completely.

This led Mikoyan to develop new 600 litreslipper tanks with a blended shape for theSO-UPS. As compared to the standard slippertank, the new tank was 100mm (3.93in) nar­rower at the top but of 30mm (1.18in) greaterdiameter; the forward portion was reinforcedand 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). Thenew tanks were carried on 04-50 shackles.

The SO-UPS completed initial flight testswith the redesigned 600 litre tanks in November1950. In January 1951 the aircraft was turnedover to Nil WS for checkout tests and passedthem satisfactorily. The test report said that theMiG-15bis could be flown with the 600 litre droptanks at up to 820km/h (443kts) or Mach 0.85,which was acceptable. However, violentmanoeuvring was out of the question; G loadswith full drop tanks were again limited to 3.76.

On 11th April 1951 the Council of Ministersissued directive No 1169-586, ordering the air­craft into service as the MiG-15bisS; the Sdenoted soprovozhdeniye (escort). (The air­craft has been referred to as 'MiG-15Sbis' insome publications but this is incorrect, sincethe aircraft was a development of the basicMiG-15bis and there was no such version as'MiG-15S'.) Council of Ministers directiveN03099-1454 (23rd August 1951) and MAPdirective No 849 (1 st September) ordered theproduction of 100 Fagot-Bs to this standard in

26 MiG-15

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); endurancewas 3hrs 52min. In comparison, the basicFagot-B without external tanks had a range ofonly 1,330km (718nm) and an endurance of2hrs 6min at the same altitude. Total fuel capac­ity of the MiG-15bisS was 2,612 litres (574.64Imperial gallons); take-off weight increased to6,106kg (13,461Ib).

MiG-15bisR (izdeliye SR; izdeliye 55)photo reconnaissance aircraftEarly MiG-15s carried an AFA-IM recce camerawith rather limited capabilities which wasremoved in 1950 to make room for new equip­ment. Later, however, plans evolved to create aphoto reconnaissance (PHOTINT) version ofthe MiG-15bis. Over the years, the Soviet AirForce had had no specialised tactical PHOTI NTaircraft; this role was traditionally filled by in­service fighters, attack aircraft and lightbombers fitted with cameras and extra fueltanks to extend range. This tried and testedapproach was applied to the MiG-15bis as well.

On 25th April 1950 the Council of Ministersissued directive No 1706-663, followed by MAPdirective No 316 three days later. Soth docu­ments ordered the Mikoyan OKS to develop ashort-range tactical reconnaissance version ofthe MiG-15bis equipped with an AFA-SA/40camera and submit it for State acceptancetrials in July.

The prototype, assigned the manufacturer'sdesignation 'izdeliye SR' - ie, izdeliye S,[samolyot-] razvedchik, reconnaissance air­craft' - was converted from a production ILS­equipped MiG-15bis (the 20th Gor'kiy-builtFagot-B, c/n 53210120, no serial). The AFA­SA/40 camera with a 40mm focal length wasmounted on the weapons tray between frames8a and 9 and 'fired' from a control panel in the

cockpit. The inboard NS-23KM cannon had tobe deleted, since the new camera was bulkierthan the original AFA-IM. The camera installa­tion incurred virtually no weight penalty.

State acceptance trials began later thanplanned, on 15th August 1950. The delay wasdue to the OKS making several changes aimedat improving working conditions for the pilot. Acanopy with single glazing was fitted instead ofthe standard double-glazed canopy which wasprone to misting and icing, and a GF-1103chemical filter was introduced in the cockpitpressurization system to stop kerosene fumes.Also, hydraulic pressure was reduced from 140bars (2,000psi) to 125 bars (1 ,785psi) to extendthe service life of hydraulic system compo­nents.

The trials were completed on 16th Septem­ber, and the result was a thumbs-down. Thereasons were the camera installation's insuffi­cient coverage width (mainly due to the lack ofa tilting camera mount for two-strip photo­graphy), the impossibility to perform recon­naissance below 2,400m (7,874ft) or tacticalreconnaissance below 1,600m (5,249ft) becausethe AFA-SA/21 wide-angle camera could not befitted, and inconvenience of operation.

The upgraded cockpit was also deemedunsatisfactory because the canopy misting/icing problem persisted and the chemical filterwas inefficient. The cockpit was excessively hotduring climb to 5,000m (16,404ft) but becametoo cold for comfort after 30 or 40 minutes at1O,OOOm (32,808ft). One feature the military didlike was the heating system for the pilot's feet.

On the other hand, the aircraft's perfor­mance and armament were considered to beadequate. For instance, combat radius with10% fuel reserves on a typical mission involvingcruise at 10,000m (32,808ft) and 10 minutes ofair-to-air combat was 366km (198nm) in high­speed reconnaissance mode and 414km(223nm) in maximum-range mode on internalfuel 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 werereplaced by 04-50 racks, enabling 600 litre(132 Imperial gallon) drop tanks to be carried.

View from the cockpit of the MiG-15bisRreconnaissance 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 Imperialgallons) drop tanks at L11 in 1954.Yefim Gordon archive

These two shots illustrate the different serialstyles worn by Kuybyshev·built Fagots. The styleused on 182 Red (c/n 121082) was rarely used;most aircraft had the serial painted on in themanner shown on 588 Red (c/n 125088). Notethat 182 Red has the RV·2 radio altimeter aeriallocated under the belly. Yefim Gordon archive

MiG-15 27

Oxygen system capacity was increased to 8litres (1.76 Imperial gallons) and an SRO-1Bariy-M IFF transponder fitted at the same time.

Development of the aerial camera continuedduring 1951. After ground rig tests the camerawas reinstalled and the aircraft was ferried toNil WS for renewed tests which ended on 10thJuly 1951.

In early August the Council of Ministers stat­ed that the Soviet Air Force was ill-equipped forreconnaissance duties. It also stated that theMinistry of Defence and MAP had underesti­mated the importance of state-of-the-art tacti­cal and long-range jet recce aircraft withoutwhich tactical aviation would be blind and thestrategic bomber a~m unable to hit its targetsaccurately. Hence on 3rd August the .SR wasincluded int9 the WS inventory pursuant todirective 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 theGor'kiy aircraft factory aimost simultaneouslywith the basic Fagot-B, rElceiving a separate in­house product code, 'izdeliye 55'; the first pro­duction aircraft had the cln 55210101. Allproduction MiG-15bisRs had NR-23 cannons.The MiG-15bisR usually flew with 600 litre slip­per tanks but other types of drop tanks couldbe used as well. The aircraft remained in ser­vice for a long time until replaced by PHOTINTaircraft based on later-generation combat jets.

MiG-15bis (izdeliye SD-ET)development aircraftAs noted earlier, the lack of self-containedengine starting had been a standing complaintever since the MiG-15 first flew. On 16th Febru­ary 1952 the Council of Ministers issued direc­tive No 3169rs concerning the introduction ofthis 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 samemodel as on the IL-28).

Tests held during 5th-10th March, 1952showed that the 12SAM-25 battery enabled atleast ten sorties lasting 30 to 40 minutes withself-contained engine starting. With the 12A-30battery, engine starting was slow, but the oldbattery could still be used until the 12SAM-25entered production. As a 'belt-and-braces poli­cy', provisions for engine starting in the usualway (from a ground power source) wereretained. The modification did not requiremajor changes to the electric system andadded only 7kg (15.43Ib) to the aircraft'sempty weight.

The aircraft was also used to test a series ofimprovements - eg, an ART-8V engine acceler­ation control unit (avtomaht regooleerovaniyatopliva - automatic fuel [flow) control device)instead of the earlier ART-1 V, which allowed thepilot to move the throttle sharply at high altitudein order to put on a burst of speed. A PN-2FAKfuel flow limiter was added to prevent engineoverspeeding and a DK-6K minimum fuel pres-

28 MiG-15

sure limiter to provide steady engine operationat low rpm.

The back-plates of the NR-23 cannons werereinforced. Nose gear oleo pressure and tyrepressure were reduced. Hydraulic pressurewas reduced from 140kg/cm2 (2,000psi) to130kg/cm2 (1 ,857psi) to improve hydraulic sys­tem operation. A Mach meter was installed thatautomatically initiated airbrake deployment at apreset speed. The drop tank jettisoning patternwas changed, enabling the pilot to set the tanksfor self-destruction (!) after jettisoning. A GF­1103 chemical filter was introduced in the airconditioning system to clean the air supplied tothe cockpit.

The aircraft, which was assigned the comp­any designation 'izdeliye SD-ET', passed itsState acceptance trials successfully and thego-ahead was given to many features tested onthis MiG-15bis.

MiG-15bisP (izdeliye SP-1)experimental interceptorDuring the late 1940s and early 1950s, the airforces of NATO nations re-equipped with jetbombers capable of nuclear strikes against theUSSR from European and Asian bases. Thehigh speed of these aircraft made visual inter­ception almost impossible in anything but theclearest weather, so the Soviet Union was facedwith the task of equipping its interceptors withradar.

The first Soviet airborne radars - the Gneys(Gneiss) series developed during the SecondWorld War - enabled the fighter pilot to detectthe presence of the target but could not beused for gun-aiming. This meant the pilot couldnot open fire until he was within visual range ofthe target. (And here we are, back where westarted.) The objective was to develop an air­craft radar which allowed interception in instru­ment meteorological conditions without undulycompromising the fighter's performance.

The officials were quick to react. On 17thDecember 1948, even before the would-beenemy bombers entered service, MAP issueddirective No 939 ordering the development ofan airborne radar for interceptors. Consideringthe complexity of the task, the research estab­lishments and OKBs with the greatest expertisewere entrusted with radar development. All fourSoviet fighter OKBs joined in the program.

The Mikoyan team chose the Toriy (Thorium)radar developed by NII-178 under chief projectengineer A B Slepooshkin, the Soviet radartechnology pioneer. It was a single-antennacentimetre-waveband unit specially designedfor the MiG-15. Mikoyan engineers favouredthe Toriy because, having just one antenna, itdid not require radical changes to the MiG-15'sstructure and aerodynamics. However, it hadno automatic target tracking mode, which wasa major shortcoming. Tracking had to be per­formed manually by the pilot - or by a radarintercept officer (RIO) if a two-seat version wasdeveloped, so the Mikoyan OKB explored bothsingle-seat and two-seat concepts.

The single-seat aircraft was to be based onthe 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 liesoutside the scope of this book. Both wereequipped with the Toriy radar.

The original SP-1, however, was convertedfrom a very early Kuybyshev-built Fagot-A (c/n102005, no serial), not from a bis. The forwardfuselage up to frame 9 was redesigned toaccommodate the radar set and dish. Theradar dish was located in a large bullet-shapedfairing on top of the air intake which, despite itsbulk, reduced intake cross-section only slightlybut protruded perceptibly above the nose con­tour. The radome increased the aircraft's over­all length by 120mm (4.72in). The S-13 guncamera was moved from its usual location ontop to the starboard side of the air intake.

The nose gear unit was moved forward80mm (3.15in) and reinforced to absorb theweight of the radar. This required the lower por­tion of the intake splitter to be widened toaccommodate the wheel well, which wasclosed by a single door opening to port insteadof the usual twin doors. A special dielectricmaterial had to be developed for the radome.The canopy was modified to accommodate theradar display and PKI-1 collimator gunsight,featuring a new windscreen with the 64mmthick bulletproof windshield farther forwardthan usual.

The standard RD-45F engine was replacedby a VK-1 which necessitated changes to the aftfuselage structure a la MiG-15bis. EnlargedMiG-15bis-style airbrakes were fitted. Thewings and tail unit were similar to those of theproduction MiG-15, except for wing anhedralincreased to 30 and increased elevator and rud­der aerodynamic balance. A B-7 hydraulicactuator was introduced in the aileron controlcircuit.

To make up for the weight penalty incurredby the radar the two portside NR-23 cannonswere deleted, leaving the SP-1 with a single37mm N-37D cannon with 45 rounds (somesources state 60 rounds). This was located asclose to the fuselage centreline as possible(closer than on the standard aircraft) in order tomaintain balance; hence the nose gear unit hadto be redesigned with half-fork on the port sideinstead of the usual fork. The cannon was fixedand accessed via simple hinged cowls, theusual weapons tray being dispensed with.

A 6kW GS-6000 DC generator supplantedthe standard GSK-1500, and a separate SGS­7,5/3 AC generator powered the radar. Otherequipment included an MRP-48 marker beaconreceiver, an ARK-5 ADF and an RSIU-3 UHFradio.

The aircraft was completed in April 1949 andtest-flown by Mikoyan test pilots A N Cher­noboorov and Gheorgiy A Sedov from 23rdApril 1949 to 20th January 1950. The testslagged behind schedule because of problems

----_...__ ..•-----------------------~----------------------

The SP-1 was Mikoyan's first attempt tocreate an all-weather interceptor.Both Mikoyan OKB

The aircraft's nose is dominated by the bulbousradome of the Toriy-A radar. Yefim Gordon archive

with the new VK-1 engine and late delivery ofthe radar (for which Slepooshkin was twice rep­rimanded). This was followed by State accep­tance trials which lasted from 31 st January to20th May 1950.

Tests showed that the wing drop problemaffected the SP-1 as well; the aircraft becameuncontrollable at 940 to 950km/h (508 to513kts). Hence the inboard boundary layerfences on both wings were reinforced, increas­ing wing torsional stiffness and alleviating theproblem. Besides, the radar was rather unreli­able, shutting down of its own accord if enginerpm dropped below 7,600 to 8,000 and 'actingup' when the cannon was fired.

From 23rd to 29th August, 1950 the SP-1went through further tests, after which MAPissued directive No 999 on 28th Decemberordering the construction of a small batch ofthese aircraft for service trials. Work on conver­sion blueprints began in 1951. During the sameyear five new-build Fagot-Bs were converted bythe Kuybyshev factory to SP-1 standard; theseaircraft have sometimes been called MiG­15bisP. As a point of interest, five Lisunov Li-2Cab transports (licence-built Douglas C-47s)were converted into radar trainers equippedwith the Toriy radar by their manufacturer, theTashkent aircraft factory No 84.

One of the five production SP-1 s was turnedover to Nil WS on 25th November 1951 forcheckout tests. Test pilots Stepan P Sooproon,Yuriy A Antipov, A Blagoveschchenskiy, Ye IDzyuba, Piboolenko, Kalachov and Vasiliy G

Ivanov made successful intercepts, with IL-28and Tu-4 bombers acting as practice targets.

The Toriy radar could be mastered only byhighly experienced pilots because they wererequired to fly the aircraft and track the targetsimultaneously. This was too difficult for theaverage pilot, so the Mikoyan OKB switched toa twin-antenna Izumrood (Emerald) radar sys­tem developed by Viktor V Tikhomeerov, NII-17Director since June 1950, leaving work on a sin­gle-antenna system for a future time when reli­able automatic target tracking equipmentwould be available. (Developrnent of the Izum­rood radar had been intiated by MAP directiveNo 933 on 23rd November 1949.)

Meanwhile, A B Slepooshkin continued refin­ing his radar. An improved Toriy-A prototypewas built, which later evolved into the Korshoon(Kite, a bird of prey) airborne radar. Both wereflight-tested on the 1-320 and SP-2 (the latterwas a follow-on to the SP-1 , a similarly convert­ed MiG-17F). Neither model entered produc­tion and went into service because Sovietelectronic components were, putting it mildly,less than state-of-the-art and the radars workedunsatisfactorily.

After Stalin's death and normalization in thecountry, advanced technologies began devel­oping rapidly, enabling the USSR to competewith the West in the race for technologicalsuperiority. This led to quick development offire control radars using reliable electronics,allowing operational radars to be installed onSoviet interceptors by the late 1950s.

MiG-1Sbis (izdeliye SP-S)experimental interceptorIn the early 1950s the Mikoyan OKB continuedthe development of radar-equipped intercep­tors. Two types of radars (referred to as 'radiosights' in Soviet terminology of the time) werethen under development in the USSR: the so­called autonomous, or single-antenna, radarsand twin-antenna radars integrated with ordi­nary optical gunsights. Unlike the former typewhich had its own computer, the twin-antennaradar fed target data to the computing gunsightwhich displayed the target as a blip, the size ofwhich depended on target range.

NII-17 started designing the RP-1 Izumrood­1 radar (RP = rahdiopreetsel - radio sight) in1948. This project was considered to be ofminor importance, mainly as an insurance pol­icy in case the Toriy autonomous radar turnedout to be a lemon (which it did). The lzumroodprovided target search, autotracking andattack in the fighter's forward hemisphere (inconjunction with the ASP-3N optical sight) andidentified the target in conjunction with the IFFsystem. The main advantage of the new radarwas that it could be installed quite easily in asingle-seat aircraft, since pilot workload wassignificantly lower than with the Toriy.

Designing the lzumrood took three years ofhard work. It was a centimetre-waveband(S-band) radar with a 50 to 60kW transmitter,two aerials and two modes of operation: searchand aiming (tracking). In search mode theradar had a 12km (6.48nm) range9 and a field

MiG-15 29

of view of ±60° in azimuth and +26/-160 inelevation, scanning through the entire field ofview in 1.33 sec. Tracking mode was switchedon automatically when the target was in a yo for­ward cone and at approximately 2km (1.08nm)range. At this range, autotracking accuracywas 10 and 150m (492ft).

The radar featured a cathode-ray tube (CRT)with a high retention (viewing) time enablingthe pilot to observe multiple targets simultane­ously; it also showed artificial horizon markersfor attitude reference. The CRT was originallyviewed through the ASP-3N sight by meansof mirrors, though on production aircraftequipped with the RP-1 it was a separate unit.

Interception was performed as follows.Assisted by ground control, the interceptorpilot entered the area where the intruder wassupposed to be and switched on the radar,scanning the forward hemisphere in searchmode. When the target was acquired the ASP­3N showed it as a blip of varying shape - 'T' ifthe target was above the fighter's flight level,'inverted T' if it was below the fighter's flightlevel or '+' if it was on the same level. The pilot

The SP-5 interceptor prototype duringmanufacturer's tests. Mikoyan OKS

The same aircraft during State acceptance trials.Note the test equipment fairing under the centrefuselage. Yefim Gordon archive

30 MiG-15

was to make sure he was on the same level withthe target and close in on it so that the blipcrossed the CRT's centreline, entering theradar's autotracking zone. Then the gunsightshowed the target as a blip with wings(==0==). known in pilot slang as the ptitsa(bird), the wingspan depending on the target'srange. When the range was right the computergave the OK to fire. The radar not only indicat­ed target range and position relative to thefighter but also target motion, enabling the pilotto make an attack manoeuvre and cut acrossthe target's path.

The Mikoyan OKS decided to try the Izum­rood-1 radar for its all-weather interceptor. Themain challenge in fitting the RP-1 was in findingthe best locations for the two antennas in theforward fuselage. At length, the engineersincorporated the search antenna into the airintake upper lip and the tracking antenna intothe air intake splitter. This arrangement with itscharacteristic twin radomes ('fat lip' and smallbullet-shaped intake centrebody) becamestandard for all Mikoyan aircraft equipped withthe Izumrood radar.

To implement this upgrade, a productionMiG-15bis was converted to take the Izumrood­1 radar. The changes to the airframe were lessextensive than in the case of the SP-1 ; the for­ward fuselage was redesigned up to frame 9.Interestingly, the search antenna radome builtinto the air intake upper lip had a downturned

lower edge; this was to change on later aircraftequipped with the Izumrood radar."

The modified nose housed 15 radar equip­ment modules, including an MA-1500 trans­former for the radar. The canopy windscreenwas redesigned in a similar manner to the SP-1to accommodate the radar display but had twoadditional frame members on top.

The armament was reduced to two NR-23cannons (left and right) with 120 and 90 roundsrespectively; the starboard cannon protrudedwhile the port one was buried. The cannonsmore or less balanced each other and did nothave 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 asimilar manner to the SP-1, the S-13 gun cam­era was relocated to the starboard side of theintake; an identical camera was arranged in aprominent thimble fairing atop the windscreento photograph a pilot's eye view of the targetthrough the sight reticle. The aircraft was fittedwith an OSP-48 ILS and an RSI-6 HF radio set;provision was made for the Sariy-M IFFtransponder.

Known in-house as izdeliye SP-5 (and like­wise referred to by some sources as MiG­15bisP), the interceptor prototype with theIzumrood 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

*

Malyugin took place from 22nd August to 9thSeptember 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 NilWS for State acceptance trials at the hands ofAir Force test pilots N Zakharov and V Levko,with good results. For instance, from 30thAugust to 7th September 1951 the SP-5 suc­cessfully passed cannon firing trials at theKooshalino test range near Moscow, destroy­ing unseen towed targets in instrument meteo­rological conditions (IMC). The radar's efficiencyin IMC was judged to equal that of the standardASP-3N gunsight in visual meteorological con­ditions (VMC) and six or seven times greaterthan that of the Toriy radar.

Given the lack of other comparable equip­ment for night/all-weather targeting, the Statecommission recommended the Izumrood-1radar for production. Still, the RP-1 was not fit­ted to production MiG-15s, entering service in1952 on the more capable MiG-17P/PF Fresco­BID fighters. It was subsequently developedinto the RP-2, RP-3 and RP-5 Izumrood-2radars; the latter model was fitted to lateMiG-17PFs, as well as to the MiG-17PFU andMiG-19PM interceptors armed with RS-2US(K-5) semi-active radar homing (SARH) mis­siles. Thus, the SP-5 may well be regarded asan avionics testbed.

MiG-15bis (izdeliye SL-5) engine testbedIn June and July 1951 the Mikoyan OKB con­verted a production MiG-15bis aircraft to takethe new Klimov VK-5 centrifugal-flow enginerated at 3,000kg (6,613Ib). To this end the mainengine bearers were changed, the fuselagetail cone was modified and a new extension jet­pipe installed. The manufacturer's designationwas izdeliye SL-5, the L obviously standingfor [/etayuschchaya] laboratoriya - in thisinstance, engine testbed.

The converted aircraft was delivered to L11 on20th July 1951 for flight tests which lasted from15th August to 31 st October 1951. The ideawas not pursued further because axial-flowengines were clearly superior to centrifugal­flow engines.

MiG-15bis (izdeliye SYe, LL)aerodynamics research aircraftIn order to eliminate the MiG-15's reverse rollreaction to rudder inputs at high speeds L11engineers I M Pashkovskiy and D I Mazoorskiyproposed offloading the ailerons and increas­ing rudder area. Following TsAGI recommen­dations, a Mikoyan OKB team under V PYatsenko designed new wingtips with a modi­fied airfoil and an angular trailing edge. Theailerons were also modified so that their spanand area was increased but overall wing spanremained unchanged. Also, the height andarea of the vertical tail were increased toimprove controllability. The redesign was initi­ated by MAP directive No 939 issued on 2ndDecember 1950.

Blueprints for the changes were issued inDecember 1950. Since the MiG-15's mid-sethorizontal tail required the fin and rudder to bebuilt in two sections to simplify manufacturing,the engineers chose not to design an all-newvertical tail but simply fitted a new upper fin andrudder section to the existing lower fin. The newassembly was taller and the upper fin sectionhad increased and constant chord (unlike thetapered standard fin). This resulted in a kinkedleading edge and made the aircraft look ratherincongruous with its outsize tail.

The aircraft received the manufacturer's des­ignation 'izdeliye SYe', the letter Ye probablystanding for yedinitsa (lit. 'single unit' but moreappropriately translated as 'one-off'). It wasalso known as LL (Ietayuschchaya laboratoriya)- in this instance, aerodynamics research air­craft - and has also been referred to in somesources as MiG-15LL, though this designationis doubtful. Three Fagot-Bs - two flying proto­types, including 510 Red (c/n 125010), and a

static test airframe - were built in this form inKuybyshev in March 1951; the static test air­frame was delivered to TsAGI on 23rd March.

The aircraft were tested at L11 in June andJuly 1951 by Anatoliy M Tyuterev. Tests revealedthat the structural changes <;lid not resolve thereverse roll reaction problem and the programwas abandoned.

MiG-15bis avionics testbedwith SRO-3 Grad gun ranging radarIn mid-1952 the Mikoyan OKB converted a pro­duction MiG-15bis into a testbed for the SRD-3Grad (Hail; pronounced grahd) gun rangingradar, a reverse-engineered copy of theAN/APG-30 fitted to the North American F-86Sabre, an example of which had been capturedin Korea (see Chapter 4). No separate desig­nation has been quoted. Little is known of thisaircraft except that the forward fuselage wasredesigned up to frame 4; the radome was builtinto the intake upper lip, causing the S-13 guncamera to be relocated to the starboard side ofthe intake. The SRD-3 was later tested on amodified MiG-17 designated izdeliye SG.

MiG-15M target droneWhen the MiG-15 was phased out by the WS,a number of Fagots with some airframe lifeleft on them were converted into target droneswith remote control equipment replacing theejection seat. Conversion took place at theAir Force's aircraft overhaul plant in L'vov. Des­ignated MiG-15M (mishen' - target), theywere used until the early 1990s along with theSoviet Air Force's principal target aircraft, theLa-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 ofa Polish jet-powered agricultural biplane (PZLM-15 Belfegor) used on a small scale in theSoviet Union. Several MiG-15Ms were operat­ed by GLiTs (the State Flight Test Centre, ex-NilWS) in Akhtoobinsk.

MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-21)development aircraftOn 15th December 1951 the Council of Minis­ters issued directive No 5119-2226, followed byMAP directive No 1264 eleven days later. Thesedocuments ordered the Mikoyan OKB toexpand the MiG-15's tactical envelope byenabling it to carry external stores for useagainst both ground and aerial targets (I). Thefirst of these was to be a ground attack versionarmed with two heavy unguided rockets.

A gliding scale model of the izdeliye SYeaerodynamics research aircraft was used toverify the changes before the real thing wasbuilt. Note landing skid.Yefim Gordon archive

MiG-15 31

Above: 510 Red (c/n 125010), one of the two izdeliye 5Ye research aircraft. Both Yefim Gordon archive

a;;;rr::::: i.•~·===-­t

32 MiG-15

To meet this objective the Mikoyan OKBfitted a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15bis serialled407 Red (c/n 134007) with 03-40 shackles onsmall pylons located about halfway betweenthe 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 recordtest launches.

The aircraft featured a special AP-21 sightbased on the standard ASP-3NM. Accuratesighting range was 400 to 800m (1,312 to2,624ft) for the rockets and 180 to 800m (590 to2,624ft) for the standard cannons. However, thesight did not enable simultaneous. cannon fireand rocket launch, which meant one of twosighting modes (cannons or rockets) had to beselected before commencing an attack. Themaximum payload comprised two rockets andtwo 300 litre (66 Imperial gallon) slipper tanks;the latter had to be jettisoned before the rock­ets were fired.

Designated izdeliye SO-21 (ie, izdeliye SOarmed with 21-cm rockets), 407 Red wasturned over to Nil WS on 31 st May 1952. Theaircraft passed its State acceptance trials withflying colours and was recommended for pro­duction. However, the AS-21 weapons systemwas never actually used by the MiG-15bis forsome reason; instead, it was fitted to MiG-17soperated by fighter-bomber units of the WS.Thus the SO-21 can be regarded as a weaponstestbed.

MiG-15bis (izdeliye SO-57)development aircraftIn June 1952 a MiG-15bis serialled 803 Redwas fitted with two experimental rocket pods,each with twelve ORO-57 launcher tubes" for57mm (2.24in) ARS-57 Skvorets (Starling; pro­nounced skvorets) folding-fin aircraft rockets.The pods were carried on 04-50 shackles at thestandard drop tank attachment points. The air­craft received the designation 'izdeliye SO-57'(ie, izdeliye SO armed with 57mm rockets). Theprogramme was undertaken under contractwith OKB-16, a weapons design bureau. TheARS-57 FFAR (also designated S-5) was widelyused on later Soviet tactical aircraft.

MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-5)development aircraftIn November 1952 another MiG-15bis was con­verted at plant No 21 in Gor'kiy. The aircraft had03-40 shackles for carrying two FFAR pods,each with eight ORO-57 launcher tubes forARS-57 FFARs. Firing was electrically con­trolled; AKS-2 gun cameras were fitted aft of thepods to record test launches. Designatedizdeliye SO-5, the aircraft was tested but did notenter production.

Left: 407 Red (c/n 134007), the 50-21 weaponstestbed with AR5·212 (5-21) rockets.Mikoyan OKB

MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-10)development aircraftAversion of the MiG-15bis with the designationizdeliye SO-10 was developed with the inten­tion that it would be used in combatting enemybomber formations by dropping two 100kg(220Ib) PROSAB-100 anti-aircraft bombs (pro­tivosamolyotnaya aviabomba). The bombswere carried on 04-50 shackles. In otherrespects, the aircraft did not differ from the pro­duction Fagot-B. The aircraft commenced itsState acceptance trials at Nil WS on 29th Feb­ruary 1952.

It has to be said that the idea was nothingnew, having been pioneered on the PetlyakovVI-100 high-altitude fighter (the immediate pre­decessor of the Pe-2 dive bomber) back in1939; however, it was Germany that used theconcept operationally against Allied nightbombers during the Second World War.

MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-25)development aircraftAnother MiG-15bis armed with two 250kg(551 Ib) PROSAB-250 bombs commencedState acceptance trials in late March 1952; thisaircraft was designated izdeliye SO-25. Testsshowed that the thin shell of the anti-aircraftbombs was deformed by the shackles in flight.Modifications were made to the shackles tocure the problem and this rather unorthodoxweapons system was recommended for ser­vice use.

i •

/t--r

The SO-57 weapons testbed (803 Red) was usedto test ARS-57 Skvorets FFARs. Mikoyan OKS

539 Red (c/n 135039) was used to test the Gradaerial minelaying system. The minelaying podswere converted from standard slipper tanks.Yefim Gordon archive

MiG-15bis (izdeliye SO-??)'aerial minelayer' development aircraftThe Yakovlev design bureau (OKB-115) tried aslightly different approach to killing offbombers in large numbers, developing theGrad (hail; pronounced grahd) system for theMiG-15. The system consisted of two pods con­verted from standard 260 litre (57.2 Imperialgallon) MiG-15 slipper tanks. Each pod incor­porated seven cassettes and contained 56parachute-retarded mines dropped in packs ofeight through two sets of ventral clamshelldoors.

The port and starboard pods 'fired' simulta­neously. Two drop modes were possible - thefour rearmost packs followed by the remainingthree or all seven packs at once. In both casesthe cassettes were discharged in reverse order(7 through 1). A warning system was activatedif any pack of mines got stuck in the pod (andcould come unstuck on landing, blowing thefighter to bits).

Two late-production Kuybyshev-built bises ­511 Red (c/n 135011) and 539 Red (c/n135039) were used to test the Grad system.

The latter aircraft (possibly both) had a smallfairing aft of the nose gear housing cine cam­eras which recorded mine separation. AfterStage 1 of the State acceptance trials in 1952both aircraft were returned to OK8-115 for cor­rection of deficiencies (the .mines struck thepods and wings when dropped, causing dam­age, and in several cases the parachutes of theindividual mines got entangled with eachother). The problems were cured by introduc­ing a pneumatic mine ejection system; com­pressed air was supplied by a cylindrical bottlein the pod's nosecone.

Renewed manufacturer's tests conductedby Fyodor L Abramov showed that the systemworked excellently and was easy to use. Still, inAugust 1953 MAP issued a directive terminat­ing further development of the Grad system.

MiG-15bis (Fagot-B)attack and fighter-bomber versionsAfter the Second World War, the Soviet AirForce attack units re-equipped first withIlyushin IL-10 Beast piston-engined attack air­craft (a development of the IL-2M-3 Bark ofGreat Patriotic War fame) and then theimproved IL-10M. These aircraft had adequateperformance to meet the requirements forclose air support (CAS) aircraft in the earlypostwar years. The advent of jet fighters, how­ever, necessitated the development of fasterand more survivable CAS aircraft.

The heaVily armed and armoured 'flyingtank' attack aircraft concept found readyacceptance in the USSR. A number of strikeaircraft prototypes were built, including thepiston-engined IL-20 of 1948 which was obso­lete by the time it appeared, the twinjet IL-40Brawny of 1953 and the turboprop Tu-91Bychok (Goby fish)/Boot shipboard attack air­craft of 1956 which was at least ten years aheadof its time. However, these aircraft fell victim tothe Soviet leader Nikita Sergeyevich Khrusch­chov's predilection towards intercontinentalballistic missiles and his lack offaith in mannedstrike aircraft which killed off many promisingdesigns.

Thus, by the early 1950s the WS was leftwith virtually no operational battlefield supportaircraft. This gap was filled by re-equippingattack units (and fighter-bomber units from1957 onwards) with Fagot-Bs transferred fromfighter units. To this end the MiG-15bis wasretrofitted with two 803-56 pylons abouthalfway between the main gear units and thedrop tank attachment points. Possibleweapons options were two ORO-57K rocketpods with S-5M or S-5K FFARs, two S-1-0F"HVARs on ORO-212K launchers, and up to fourbombs of 50 to 250kg (110 to 551 Ib) calibre(including two on the standard drop tankattachment points). The cannon armamentremained unchanged. All weapons were aimedusing the standard ASP-3N gunsight.

The prototype (24 Blue, ex-2811 Red, cln2815311) was converted at plant No 21 in Gor'kiyin 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 whichlasted from 4th March to 30th June 1959; theMiG-15bis was flown by test pilots V S Seryoginand V G Plyushkin who made a total of 114flights 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 andtwo 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 to805m (2,641 ft). True airspeed with externalstores was limited to 805km/h (435kts).

Maximum G load was 7 without drop tanks(regardless of other stores), 4.5 with full droptanks and 6 with empty drop tanks (regardlessof other stores). With four 250kg bombs or two250kg bombs and two S-1 HVARs, landing wasimpossible and two of the stores had to be jet­tisoned before landing. Maximum fuel in theevent of a landing with external stores was lim­ited to 500 litres (110 Imperial gallons).

Generally the results were satisfactory andthe 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-7BFitter-As and MiG-17s - likewise transferredfrom fighter units.

34 MiG-15

As a fighter-bomber, the MiG-15bis washandicapped by its modest bomb load of onlytwo 100kg (220Ib) bombs and the lack of ade­quate navigation and weapons-aiming equip­ment. Another disadvantage was the Fagot'svulnerability to ground fire due to poor armourprotection consisting only of the bullet-proofwindshield, an armour plate installed in front ofthe cockpit and the armoured headrest (thearmoured seat back was fitted to late-produc­tion aircraft only). On the plus side, the MiG­15bis was well armed with two 23mm cannonsand one 37mm cannon. In addition, it couldcarry 57mm FFAR pods and powerfUl 190mm(7.48in) and 212mm HVARs.

MiG-15bis (ISh)experimental fighter/attack aircraftIn an attempt to enhance the combat potentialof the MiG-15bis, the Air Force's AircraftOperations and Repair Research Institute (NilERAT WS - Naoochno-iss/edovatel'skiy insti­toot eksplooatahtsii i remonta aviatseeonnoytekhnikl) developed a specialised attack ver­sion in 1958-64. The aircraft was designatedMiG-15bis (ISh), the suffix standing for istrebi­tel'-shtoormovik (fighter/attack aircraft).

The MiG-15bis (ISh) differed from the basicFagot-B in having reinforced wing spars andhuge weapons pylons extending far beyondthe wing leading edge about halfway between

the main gear units and the drop tank attach­ment points. These were fitted with tripleweapons racks located in line, permitting thecarriage of three 50 to 100kg (110 to 2201b)bombs, FFAR pods or heavy unguided rocketsunder each wing. In order to fire the rocketsall six weapons racks could be inclineddownwards 15°; it was also possible to firerockets with zero deflection from the two for­ward racks.

The MiG-15bis (ISh) was tested at Nil WSand the 4th TsBPiPLS (Tsentr boyevoy podgo­tovki i peeroochivamiya Iyotnovo sostahva ­Combat and Conversion Training Centre) inLipetsk, but did not enter service for three rea­sons. Firstly, Soviet military doctri~e called fora dedicated fighter-bomber and this require­ment was filled by aircraft developed by theSukhoi OKB in the 1960s. Secondly, the MiG-15was getting long in the tooth and was duefor retirement by the time the trials were com­pleted. Finally, conversion to MiG-15bis (ISh)standard was much more complicated andexpensive than the Mikoyan OKB's option.

An experimental batch of twelve aircraft wasbuilt; some sources, though, quote a muchlower figure (three flying prototypes and a stat­ic test airframe). One of them, a Novosibirsk­built aircraft coded 27 Red (ex-2168 Red, c/n2115368), survives at the Russian Air ForceMuseum in Monino, east of Moscow.

24 Blue (ex-2811 Red, c/n 2815311), a MiG-15bisconverted into the 'production' fighter-bomberprototype at the Gor'kiy aircraft factory in early1958. The aircraft carries two 400 litre droptanks and two S-l heavy unguided rockets onextra pylons. Yefim Gordon archive

l

MiG-15bis captive long-rangeescort fighter (Project Burlaki)When the Tu-4 Bull long-range heavy bomberentered service with the WS in 1948, the prob­lem of fighter escort arose. The USSR hadnever had operational escort fighters; thosethat 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, heavyescort fighter) and the Tairov Ta-1 (OKO-6) - didnot progress beyond the prototype stage. Thereason, apart from development problems andthe wartime shortage of engines, was that theescort fighter role could be filled quite nicely byproduction tactical fighters of the time.

In 1948, however, the situation was different.Since the potential adversary had jet fighterscapable of flying nearly twice as fast as the TU-4,the bomber's prospects of reaching its targetsseemed doubtful. This was clearly demonstrat­ed by USAF experience in the Korean War,where the B-29 (from which the Tu-4 wascopied) sustained heavy losses from NorthKoreari MiG-15 fighters.

In the USSR, the Tu-83 long-range escortfighter based on the Tu-82 experimental twinjettactical bomber of 1949 was conceived butabandoned at the PO stage. There were noescort fighter modifications of Soviet intercep­tors. The production Fagot was clearly unsuit­ed for this role; even with 600 litre (132 Imperialgallon) drop tanks, the MiG-15bisS had a rangeof only 2,520km (1 ,362nm). This was adequatefor escorting IL-28 tactical bombers with arange of 2,400km (1 ,297nm) but not enough toescort the Tu-4 with its 5,400km (2,919nm)range.

One way to crack the range problem was forthe bombers to carry captive or 'parasite' fight-

ers with them. In 1931-39, a Soviet design teamunder Vladimir Sergeyevich Vakhmistrov devel­oped seven fighter/bomber combinationscalled zveno (flight, as a tactical unit), consist­ing ofTupolev 1-4, Polikarpov 1-15 and 1-16, andGrigorovich I-Z fighters carried in various com­binations by Tupolev TB-1 and TB-3 bombers.The ultimate Z-7 combination (TB-3 plus two1-16s fitted out as dive-bombers) even saw lim­ited operational use in the early stages of theGreat Patriotic War.

In the United States, experiments were car­ried out after the Second World War with B-29scarrying the minuscule McDonnell XF-85 Gob­lin parasite fighter in the bomb bay or towingRepublic F-84 Thunderjet fighters. There werealso the FICON (fighter conveyor) and 'Tom­Tom' programmes involving modified ConvairB-36Peacemaker bombers and F-84s. Createdto develop an escort capability, the FICON pro­gramme was used for long-range reconnais­sance rather than escort duties, RF-84KThunderflash PHOTINT aircraft being carried inthe bay of the B-36 in service.

A similar programme was conducted in theUSSR. In 1950, responding to a Long RangeAviation (Dahl'nyaya aviahtsiya - long-rangeaviation)" headquarters proposal, the YakovlevOKB began investigating ways of increasingthe range and endurance of escort fighterswithout resorting to drop tanks. The argumentwas that a fighter weighed down by drop tanksbecomes slow and sluggish, which spoils itschances in a dogfight with enemy fighters.

The solution was a system enabling theTu-4 to tow MiG-15bis fighters, with automaticcoupling and uncoupling. In theory, it offeredtwo advantages: the bomber would still be ableto carry a full payload and the fighter wouldbe 'travelling light', its performance unaffectedby extra fuel. The system was code-named

27 Red (ex-2168 Red, c/n 2115368), the solesurviving MiG-15bis (ISh) fighter·bomber, at theRussian Air Force Museum in Monino. This viewshows 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 bymeans of ropes; the analogy with the towedfighter concept was obvious.

The Yakovlev/OKB-30 system utilised adrogue deployed by the Tu-4, the towing cablerunning through an external conduit on the rearfuselage portside to a winch in the fuselageoperated by the tail gunner. A pneumatically­operated telescopic probe with a barbed tipwas installed atop the fighter's nose on thefuselage centreline; it was promptly dubbed'harpoon' and the appellation found its way intoofficial documents as well. The modus operan­di was as follows. The bomber paid out 80 to100m (262 to 328ft) of cable, the fighter closedin on the drogue and 'fired' the 'harpoon' intoit; then the pilot shut down his engine and thefighter was towed by the Tu-4 like a glider. Ifenemy fighters attacked, the fighter pilot start­ed his engine, broke contact with the bomberand engaged the enemy, subsequently hook­ing up to the bomber again for the journeyhome.

(Incidentally, the Lockheed company testeda similar system in mid-1947 on a modifiedP-80A-1-LO (44-84995I'PN-995'). Much hasbeen said about the apparent Soviet custom ofcopying Western designs. However, this wasvery probably one of the many cases whenengineers working on the same problem indifferent parts of the world arrive at the samesolution independently.)

MiG-15 35

Initially the system was tested on the firstprototype straight-winged Yak-25 'Mk l' (15 Yel­low) and a modified lend-lease North AmericanB-25J Mitchell bomber with a 150m (492ft)cable. Stage 1 lasted from 1st June 1949 to30th September 1950; nine successful con­tacts were made, with Sergey N Anokhin flyingthe bomber and Valentin Chapov flying theYak-25.

Stage 2 involved 'the real thing'. The 51stTu-4 manufactured by the Kazan' aircraft facto­ry No 22 (46 Black, c/n 221001) was equippedwith a BLI-50E winch and drogue holder,and a Gor'kiy-built MiG-15bis (408 Red, c/n53210408) was fitted with a 'harpoon' identicalto that of the Yak-25. The 'harpoon' was 945mm(3ft 1.2in) long in the collapsed position and1,372mm (4.5ft) long when fully extended. TheS-13 gun camera was deleted to make room for

. the 'harpoon', and a second 12A-30 DC batteryand an extra 4 litre (0.88 Imperial gallon) air bot­tle were provided for actuating it. The bomberwas converted by OKB-30 (the design bureauof the MMZ No 30 aircraft factory at Moscow­Khodynka), using Yakovlev drawings, and thefighter by Yakovlev's experimental shop (MMZNo 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 safecontact could be made day and night withoutany trouble. The MiG-15's engine could easily

36 MiG-15

be restarted at upto 6,000m (19,685ft). Contactwas so smooth that the bomber's crew hardlyfelt anything at all, and the bomber's speed wasreduced by only 10 to 12km/h (5.4 to 6.48kts) ifengine rpm remained constant. S N Anokhinreported that the MiG-15bis handled well whenunder tow and the procedure could be mas­tered by the average pilot in two or three flights.

From 28th July to 24th August 1951 theBurlaki system passed its State acceptance tri­als - again with good results. According to theNil WS report, connection and disconnectionwas possible in level flight at 300 to 360km/h(162 to 194kts) lAS and 200 to 9,OOOm (656 to29,527ft), during turns with 15 to 20° bank andclimb/descent at up to 10m/sec (1 ,968ft/min).In clear weather the 'air train' could brieflycruise at its service ceiling of 9,650m (31 ,660ft).The bomber/fighter combination's top speedwas 392km/h (211.89kts) at sea level and490km/h (264.86kts) at 9,000 m; maximumrange at 6,000m was 3,920km (2,119nm).

Yet the trials also revealed that the Burlakisystem had serious shortcomings. The MiG-15'scockpit heating and pressurization system didnot work with the engine shut down, and sittingfor long hours in a cockpit which became bit­terly cold at 7,000 to 10,OOOm (22,965 to32,808ft), wearing an oxygen mask, was a soretrial for the pilot. The drag generated by thetowed fighter slowed the TU-4, and a slowbomber in the formation would inevitably slowdown the entire formation, which was unac­ceptable. Worse, the fighter had little hope of

reaching its home base if it became separatedfrom the bombers during a dogfight withenemy fighters.

The trials report contained many sugges­tions - eg, providing a secure telephone linkallowing the fighter pilot and the bomber crewto communicate while maintaining radio silenceand adapting the system for the new and fasterbombers then under development (the twinjetTu-16 and the four-turboprop Tu-95). The mainproposal, however, concerned changing theideology of the system completely and usingthe probe and drogue for flight refuelling ratherthan towing. This led to the next phase of devel­opment work described below.

Despite the system's shortcol")1ings, theCouncil of Ministers issued a directive on 30thOctober 1951, ordering the conversion of fivemore Tu-4s and five more Fagot-Bs to Burlakistandard for service trials. The bombers (c/ns1840848, 2805003, 2805005, 2805110 and2805203) were converted by plant No 18 inKuybyshev where they had been built in 1951­52, while the fighters were built as such inNovosibirsk. They were serialled 2170 Red,2175 Red, 2176 Red, 2190 Red and 2204 Red(c/ns 2115370, 2115375, 2115376, 2115390and 2215304 respectively).

The trials were held in the 50th VA (voz­dooshnaya armiya - Air Army, == air force) atZyabrovka airbase in the Belorussian DefenceDistrict between 9th July and 8th September1952. The bombers were flown by five crews ofthe 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 theBurlaki system, during State acceptance trials.The lower photo shows the 'harpoon' inretracted position as used for towing.Yefim Gordon archive

Below right: MiG-15bis '408 Red' with 400 litredrop tanks as seen by the tail gunner of the Tu-4which tows it. Yefim Gordon archive

Top pair left: MiG-15bis '408 Red' about to engage the towing drogue of aBurlaki-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 tomake 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 anadaptation of the Burlaki system. Here, MiG-15bis '2204 Red' (c/n 2215304)is shown during the system's ground tests. Note how the fuel transferdrogue and hose slide along the towing cable, making contact with thetowing drogue. Yefim Gordon archive

MiG-15 37

Berlinskiy GvTBAP/3rd AE, while the fighterswere 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'sreliability and 'user-friendliness', fighter/bomberrendezvous techniques and formation flyingtechniques. The trials involved 142 hook-ups(including 17 at night) and went without inci­dent. The manoeuvring envelope was slightlynarrower than during Nil WS trials, with bankangles up to 15° and rates of climb/descent upto 7 m/sec (1 ,378ft/min). The longest towedflight lasted 2hrs 30 min, inCluding 2hrs 27 minwith the engine shut down.

Before making contact the fighters zeroed inon the bombers by means of their ARK-5 ADFwhich zeroed in on the bomber's 1RSB-70radio transmitter used as a short-range naviga­tion (SHORAN) system. During landing

.approach the fighters stayed connected rightdown to 300m (984ft). After extending the land­ing gear and lowering the flaps 20° the fighterpilot waited for the signal from the bomber crewor the tower to break contact; having receivedthe go-ahead, he disengaged the 'harpoon' at2 to 3km (1.08 to 1.62nm) from the runwaythreshold and landed.

The system was ultimately put to the test intwo sessions of mock combat on 5th August1952. A flight of fighter-towing Tu-4s was'attacked' by four MiG-15s representing the'bad guys'. The attackers were gUided to theirtarget by a ground controlled intercept (GCI)station using target information from an airdefence radar.

On the first occasion, the towed fighters lost;paraphrasing the system's 'strongman' name,

38 MiG-15

the Burlaki turned out to be strong in the armbut weak in the head. The bombers' flightleader spotted the 'enemy' fighters at 12 to15km (6.48 to 8.1 nm) range as they were mak­ing their first attack and gave the command tostart the engines, disengage and repel theattackers. However, as the towed fighters didso the attackers managed to make a second'firing pass'. If this had been for real, thebombers would have been shot down - proba­bly taking their captive protectors with them!

The second try was more successful; twopairs of MiGs took turns patrolling (flying topcover) and resting (ie, being towed). This timeone pair of escort fighters was ready to repel anincoming attack; yet again the 'enemy' fighterswere discovered a little too late and the protec­tive pair just couldn't cope with them. However,the 'bad guys' did not manage to repeat theattack before they found themselves counter­attacked. The conclusion was that incomingenemy fighters needed to be spotted at least 4minutes before they got within firing range sothat the towed escort fighters could get ready.This could be done by fitting the bomber with asearch radar, enabling the crew to spot enemyfighters at 60 to 80km (32 to 43nm) range.

Technology quickly made the Burlaki systemobsolete and it never entered service. Firstly,the Tu-4 was replaced by the Tu-16 jet bombercapable of cruising at 1,000km/h (540kts),equalling the speed of many fighters. Its heavydefensive armament and electronic counter­measures (ECM) equipment gave it a goodchance of reaching its target. Secondly, exper­iments began with flight refuelling systems forfighters; some of them are described below.

MiG-15bis flight refuelling system testbedsThe first Soviet experiments with flight re­fuelling date back to the 1930s when gravitytransfer of fuel from a higher to a lower aircraftwas tried with T8-1 and TB-3 bombers; thismethod was not adopted for service. Interest inflight refuelling systems was revived by thedesire to increase the Tu-4's range and by thedebut of jet aircraft with thirsty engines.

Tactical aircraft were also viewed as candi­dates for flight refuelling. This could enhancetheir combat potential in many ways, such asextending on-station loiter time; escortingheavy bombers; delivering tactical strikes(including nuclear strikes) at ranges exceedingthe aircraft's unrefuelled combat radil,ls; extend­ing the range of interceptors; and increasingthe chances of coming back safely from a long­range mission by means of refuelling on theway home.

Flight refuelling studies in the USSR beganin earnest in 1948. A team headed by V SVakhmistrov developed the so-called 'systemof crossing ropes' based on a system devel­oped by the British company Flight RefuellingLtd. But this proved cumbersome, unreliableand difficult to maintain. Once again, fuel wastransferred by gravity; this meant the tankerhad to stay directly above the receiver in for­mation flight, which was most inconvenient.

The next step was a wing-to-wing refuellingsystem developed by a team headed by L11 testpilots Igor' Shelest and Viktor Vasyanin. Thetanker deployed a hose stabilised by a smallparachute 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 fuelfrom the Tu-4 tug/tanker. Yefim Gordon archive

Left: The entire pre-production batch of aBurlaki-equipped MiG-15bis fighters duringservice trials. Yefim Gordon archive

the end engaged a receptacle under the receiv­er aircraft's wingtip. The receiver increasedspeed so that the hose formed a loop and rotat­ed the receptacle, opening a valve, whereuponfuel transfer under pressure could begin.

Tests of a mock-up installation began in thesummer of 1949, initially with on a pair of Tu-2bombers, later with a Tu-2 as the 'tanker' and aYak-15 coded 47 Yellow as the 'receiver'. TheShelestNasyatin (or wing-to-wing) system didnot find application for fighters, as the brand­new MiG-15 was then considered to have anadequate combat radius. However, the systemwas adopted by the strategic bomber arm ofthe WS for the Tu-4 and later for the Tu-16.

However, the wing-to-wing system had someserious shortcomings, including a fairly com­plicated engagement procedure and a low fueltransfer rate. Despite the stabilising parachute,the hose thrashed around like mad in thetanker's wingtip vortex and could get caught inthe receiver aircraft's aileron - with disastrousresults. Hence, as mentioned earlier, the WSconsidered using a probe-and-drogue systembased on the Bur/aki towed fighter concept.

Initially OKB-30, OKB-134 and the YakovlevOKB modified the existing Bur/aki system byadding new elements. The fighter's 'harpoon'incorporated a valve and plumbing to the fuelsystem. The bomber was equipped with threekerosene tanks, a pump and a neutral gaspressurization system to reduce the risk of fireand explosion if hit. After the fighter made con­tact with the tanker's towing drogue, a hose ter­minating in a smaller drogue was paid outalong the towing cable and the fighter acceler­ated, locking the two drogues together. (Theoriginal drogue was modified so as to allow fuelto 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 automaticallydisengaged and the hose rewound.

Two of the aircraft used for service trials ofthe Burlaki system - Tu-4 '41 Red' (c/n 1840848)and MiG-15bis '2204 Red' (c/n 2215304) - wereconverted for flight refuelling trials which wereheld at L11 between 24th September 1954 and2nd March 1955. The tanker was piloted by AYefimov, with A I Vershinin as the refuelling sys­tem operator; the fighter was flown by S NAnokhi"n and F I Boortsev. The programmeinvolved ten flights on the MiG-15bis, includingfive 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 componentsfroze up and became inflexible.

Generally the 'wet Bur/aki' system was con­sidered excessively complex, and as early

MiG·15bis '342 Blue', one of the 'pure' hose·and·drogue refuelling system testbeds. Mikoyan OKS

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 entireVakhmistrov team) later became the Zvezda(Star) company best known for the K-36 ejec­tion seat fitted to almost all current Russiancombat aircraft.

Once again a late-production Kuybyshev­built Tu-4 - this time not one of the Bur/aki test­beds (c/n 2805204) - was converted for thetanker role at plant No 18. The arrangement pro­posed by OKB-918 differed from the OKB-301Yakovlev system in two important respects.Firstly, it was much simpler, with only onedrogue and hose Gust like the system devel­oped by Flight Refuelling Ltd which is in world­wide use today). Secondly, the aircraft was atwo-point tanker. Two hose drum units (HDUs)were installed in the forward bomb bay, with thehoses running inside the wings and exitingfrom specially-modified wingtips. The refuellingoperator sat in the tail gunner's station; the tailguns were replaced by a cine camera unit torecord the refuelling sequence.

Three Fagot-Bs serialled 17 Red, 342 Blue(c/n 123042 or 133042) and 618 Red were fittedwith fixed telescopic refuelling probes offset toport on the intake upper lip; the conversionwork was done by the Novosibirsk factory inMay 1952. Test flights began in 1953, with aconsiderable delay because of late equipmentdeliveries for the tanker conversion; S NAnokhin and V N Pronyakin flew the fighters. Atfirst, Mikoyan engineers were apprehensiveabout having the probe near the intake, fearingthe drogue would generate excessive turbu­lence at the air intake lip and provoke a com­pressor stall. These fears were possibly causedby knowing that in the USA, an F-84 fittedexperimentally with the probe-and-drogue re­fuelling system had the probe mounted on thestarboard wing, well clear of the air intake.However, trials showed these fears wereunfounded.

Several versions of the hose had to be triedbefore the system was satisfactory. The originalhose incorporating a reinforcing wire spiralproved not durable enough. A 'soft' hose withno reinforcing wire, on the other hand, flexedexcessively and fighter pilots found that just alittle turbulence made 'hitting the tanker' very

difficult. Another problem was the considerableamount of fuel remaining in the hose after thetransfer pumps were shut down; immediatelyafter breaking contact with the tanker the fight­er was liberally doused with fuel, some of whicheven entered the cockpit. Still, the system wassimple, reliable and offered a high fuel transferrate.

The combination ofTu-4 tanker and two MiG­15bis receivers was presented twice for Stateacceptance trials but failed both times becauseof problems with the supporting rollers insidethe wings which caused hose oscillation andfailure of the fighters' refuelling probes due tothe whiplash effect of the hose. Also, unlike theUSAF, the WS had no need to fly its fightersover long distances. However, once again theprobe-and-drogue refuelling system was usedsuccessfUlly on strategic aircraft - the Myasis­chchev 3MN/3MS Bison-B and 3MD Bison-Cheavy bombers, most members of the Tu-951Tu-142 Bear family, the Tu-126 Moss airbornewarning and control system (AWACS), theTu-22KD/RD/PD/UD B/inder and Tu-22M2Backfire-B supersonic long-range bombersand their versions etc.

Experiments continued with the MiG-19fighter, using both the wing-to-wing and theprobe-and-drogue systems (these develop­ment aircraft will be described later), but in the1960s, development work was put on hold. Itwas not until the early 1980s that Soviet tacticalaircraft received flight refuelling capability atlast. Four decades earlier, it seemed that thesolution lay just a few years ahead.

MiG-15bis aerodynamics researchaircraftlflight control system testbedsIn 1952 two Fagot-Bs were modified' to testflight spoilers assisting the ailerons for roll con­trol; the spoilers were 1m (3ft 3.37in) long onone aircraft and 0.22m (8.66in) long on theother one.

MiG-15bis aerodynamics research aircraftAn early-production Luybyshev-built MiG-15bisserialled 172 Blue (c/n 121072) was convertedfor aerodynamics research by L11. The aircrafthad a non-standard rounded fin tip andredesigned upswept wingtips with a modifiedairfoil. Unfortunately, nothing is known aboutthe time frame and the results of these tests.

,

MiG-15 39

UTI-MiG-15 Midget advanced trainer(1-312, izdeliye ST-1 and ST-2)The need for a trainer version of the MiG-15became obvious even as the S-1 and S-2 pro­totypes were going through their State accep­tance trials. Hence on 6th April 1949, theCouncil of Ministers issued directive No 1391­497 tasking the Mikoyan OKB with designingsuch an aircraft, followed on 13th April by MAPdirective No 266 to the same effect. The trainerwas to have maximum commonality with thestandard RO-45F-powered MiG-15, differingmainly in seating and control arrangement, andhave no appreciable deterioration in perfor­mance.

The aircraft received the preliminary servicedesignation 1-312 and the manufacturer's des­ignation izdeliye ST (ie, izdeliye S, treneerov­ochnyy [variahnt] - trainer version). Work onthe trainer proceeded fast; Artyom I Mikoyan

40 MiG-15

signed the general arrangement drawings on27th February 1949. Somewhat surprisingly,the first prototype, ST-1, was built not at Mikoy­an's experimental shop (MMZ No 155) but atthe Kuybyshev aircraft factory by converting abrand-new Fagot-A (c/n 104015). Prototypeconstruction proceeded rapidly, and the unse­rialled aircraft was rolled out in late May 1949.

The ST-1 differed from the MiG-15 in havingtandem seating, with the student pilot up frontand the instructor in the rear cockpit. The one­piece canopy with multiple frames originallyenvisaged was replaced by a two-piece canopy,the forward portion of the canopy hinging opento starboard and the rear portion sliding aft.Both parts of the canopy could be jettisonedmanually or pyrotechnically in an emergency;the cockpits were equipped with identical ejec­tion seats of the type fitted to the standardMiG-15. The new canopy necessitated changes

Left: 172 Blue (c/n 121072), a MiG-15bisconverted 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), thefirst prototype of the UTI-MiG-15 trainer, duringmanufacturer's flight tests. Originally the aircraftwas designated 1-312. Mikoyan OKB

to the detachable rear fuselage. Changes werealso made to the rudder and elevator aero­dynamic balances, and stabilizer incidencewas 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 couldoverride the trainee during landing gear, flap orairbrake operation. The trainee's cockpit fea­tured a blind-flying hood for instrument flightrules (IFR) training. An SPU-2M intercom(samolyotnoye peregovornoye oostroystvo)was also provided.

The fuel system was also modified, featuringa 95 litre (20.9 Imperial gallon) fuel cell underthe 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 locatedunder the engine jetpipe between frames 21and 24 was identical to that of the single-seater.Total internal fuel capacity was 1,123 litres (247Imperial 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 cannonwith 80 rounds on the starboard side and oneportside 12.7mm (.50 calibre) Berezin UBK-Emachine gun'· with 120 rounds (some sourcessay 150 rounds) mounted on a commonweapons pallet, just like on the single-seater.

In all other structural details the ST-1 wasidentical to the production MiG-15 (izdeliyeSV). An ASP-3N gunsight (some sources sayASP-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 reconnaissancecamera and an S-13 gun camera.

The ST-1 underwent initial flight tests from22nd June to 18th August 1949 (some sourcessay 23rd May to 20th August) at the hands ofMikoyan test pilots I T Ivaschchenko, Konstan­tin Konstantinovich Kokkinaki and A N Cher­noboorov. Between 27th August and 25thSeptember of the same year the aircraft passedStage 1 of its State acceptance trials at Nil WSand was returned for modifications.

In October 1949 the prototype was deliveredto the fighter regiment at Kubinka airbasenear Moscow for evaluation which lasted until1st April 1950. After that the ST-1 returned tothe OKB's experimental shop for maintenanceand elimination of defects discovered in thecourse of the trials. From 3rd to 15th May, 1950the aircraft was further tested at the OKB; twodays 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 underthe service designation UTI-MiG-15 (UTI =oochebno-trenirovochnw istrebitel' - trainingfighter)."

In the West the trainer was code-named,rather unkindly, Midget. Until the 1970s, NATOhad a habit of allocating reporting names in the'Miscellaneous' category to trainer versions ofSoviet fighters. Later this gave way to a morelogical approach - the code name of the single­seat version in the fighter category followed bya suffix letter.

Apparently, however, Mikoyan - or the WS­were not quite happy, and soon afterwards theprototype underwent a series of modifications.These were relatively minor but numerousenough to warrant a new manufacturer's des­ignation, ST-2 (ie, izdeliye ST, version 2). Unlikethe initial-production UTI-MiG-15, the upgrad­ed prototype had an OSP-48 ILS (with appro­priate changes to the trainee's instrumentpanel) and a KI-11 compass. The NR-23 can­non was deleted and the ammunition capacityof the USK-E machine gun was increased to150 rounds, which necessitated a reduction ofthe No 1 fuel cell's capacity to 76 litres (16.72Imperial gallons); total internal fuel capacitywas 1,104 litres (242.88 Imperial gallons).Other changes included an ASP-3N gunsight, anew oil filler and a chemical filter in the cockpitpressurization/air conditioning system.

After completing manufacturer's flight testsAugust 1950 the ST-2 passed its State accep­tance trials and was recommended for pro­duction, becoming the standard-setter forlate-production Kuybyshev-built UTI-MiG-15sfrom c/n 10444 onwards. The trainer's designand systems were continuously updated; thiswas partly because the MiG-15bis, MiG-17 andMiG-19 had no trainer versions of their own. Forexample, the Afanas'yev A-12,7 machine gun

---...... --*

was included into the Soviet Armed Forcesinventory in September 1953 and replaced theUSK-E on the Midget shortly afterwards.

In March 1952 a production UTI-MiG-15 wasmodified to test several equipment updates.These included an RSIU-3 UHF radio replacingthe RSI-6K VHF radio, an improved ASP-3NMgunsight, an SPU-2R intercom and a 3kWGSN-3000 DC generator replacing the earlier1.5kW GSK-1500. An SRO-1 Sariy-M IFFtransponder was added and the landing lightwas relocated from the air intake splitter to theport wing. Most of these changes were incor­porated on late-production Midgets.

A custom-built UTI-MiG-15 was delivered tothe Cosmonauts' Detachment at Chkalovskayaairbase near Moscow for zero-G training aspart of the training programme for mannedspace flight. The aircraft had a reinforced air­frame to withstand the considerable stress andstrain experienced when the aircraft followed aspecial parabolic trajectory to create weight­lessness. Later it was supplanted in the 'VomitComet' role by three specially-modified Tu­104AK Camel airliners (46 Red, c/n 8350705;47 Red, c/n 8350704; and 48 Red, c/n86601301). There are persistent rumours thatthe zero-G Midget now resides at the RussianAir Force Museum in Monino with the tacticalcode 03 Red; the c/n has been quoted as22013, indicating Khar'kov production.

(

The UTI-MiG-15 was produced in large num­bers at several plants, staying in service withthe WS well into the 1970s until finally replacedby the MiG-21 U/US/UM Mongol-A/B. Even afterthat, it soldiered on in the weather reconnais­sance role at Air Force flying schools and incombat units. It was also operated for a longtime by DOSAAF, an organization that preparedSoviet youth for service with the armed forces.'·The UTI-MiG-15 is still in service in third-worldcountries.

UTI-MiG-15P interceptor trainer(izdeliye ST-7 and ST-8)After the RP-1 Izumrood radar successfullypassed its trials, the Council of Ministers issueddirective No 2460-933 on 24th May 1952, order­ing the Mikoyan OKS to equip two UTI-MiG-15trainers with this radar in order to help Sovietpilots master IFR intercept techniques. Thiswas followed by MAP directive No 624 to thesame effect on 2nd June.

Originally the Kuybyshev factory was to buildboth prototypes pursuant to MAP directiveN0836 (18th July 1952), and the OKS turnedover a set of project documents to the plant inSeptember. However, the aircraft were neverbuilt there because factory No 1 was terminat­ing UTI-MiG-15 production and gearing up tobuild the Tu-16 Badger bomber. Hence the Min­istry of Defence Industry (MOP - Ministerstvo

MiG-15 41

oboronnoy promyshlennostl) requested on26th March and 24th June,1953 that the Mikoy­an OKB convert the two aircraft in house. TheOKB reacted quickly. A new set of project doc­uments for the conversion was completed inJune and the two radar trainers designatedizde/iye ST-7 were rolled out in August.

The ST-7 had a modified forward fuselagesimilar to that of the MiG-15bisP (izdeliye SP-5),but the lower edge of the search antennaradome was now almost horizontal - in fact,even slightly upturned. The canopy had a non­standard sharply-raked extended windshieldproviding 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) wherethe NR-23 cannon used to be.

The first prototype was damaged beyond. repair in the course of the manufacturer's flighttests on 15th September 1953, apparentlyexperiencing problems with spin recovery. Thisconclusion can be drawn from the fact thatTsAGI conducted a special wind tunnel pro­gramme to determine the ST-Ts spinning char­acteristics in connection with the accidentinvestigation panel's findings. The second pro­totype was submitted for State acceptance tri­als during April and May 1954 and foundunsatisfactory. The reason was that in themeantime the WS had changed its require­ments, requesting that a second radar displayand sight be installed in the rear cockpit.

On 9th August 1954 the Council of Ministersissued directive No 1651-747, followed by MAPdirective No 523 on 23rd August. These taskedthe OKB with developing a version of the UTI­MiG-15 incorporating the improved RP-3 Izum­rood-3 radar, ASP-3NM sight and otherchanges specified by the military. DesignatediZdeliye ST-8, a UTI-MiG-15 was suitably con­verted in 1955. Apart from the radar, it differedfrom the production Midget in many subtleways. The No 1 fuel cell was removed and thenose gear unit was beefed up to absorb theweight of the radar. Comms radio, ILS and IFF

equipment modules were repositioned, a 6kWGSR-6000 generator replaced the standardGSN-3000, and an A-12,7 machine gun was fit­ted. The cockpit pressurization/air conditioningsystem incorporated changes based on theproduction MiG-17.

The ST-8 was effectively a testbed for theRP-3 radar which was fitted to some MiG-17Pinterceptors and later evolved into the RP-5radar.

UTI-MiG-15 drone director aircraftAs remote-controlled target drone conversionsof obsolescent fighters and bombers weredeveloped and tested, the need for a dronedirector aircraft arose. Hence two Kuybyshev­built UTI-MiG-15s were converted into directoraircraft for Yak-25MSh drones.'· The first aircraftcoded 16 Red (c/n 106216) was converted byplant No 918, while the other Midget whose tac­tical code is unknown (c/n 106220) was modi­fied by L11 personnel.

The radio control equipment evolved fromthe land-based MRV-2M transmitter wasinstalled on the weapons tray and the transmit­ting whip aerials were located on the horizontaltail. The drone operator sat in the front cockpit;part of the standard flight instruments and thegunsight were replaced by a DK-16RS con­troller (DK = dahtchik komahnd).

Three Yak-25MSh drones were tested suc­cessfully from 7th to 22nd December 1959 and11 th January to 2nd February 1960. The Yak­25MSh had higher performance than the dronesthen in service and the UTI-MiG-15 director air­craft allowed it to be landed successfully whenthe mission was completed (unless, of course,the drone was actually to be destroyed).

UTI-MiG-15 (izdeliye ST-10)ejection seat testbedExperience with first-generation ejection seatsshowed that pilots were often injured in high­speed ejections because the seat offered noprotection from the slipstream. Besides, theseats were not stabilized and tumbled head

over heels after separation from the aircraft,increasing the risk of injury. The engineersexamined several means of increasing thechances 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 ejectionseats were the cheapest and simplest solutionto the problem. In particular, the second-gener­ation seat was to be fired together with the for­ward-opening canopy which would protect thepilot from the slipstream.

As a first step, a ground rig was built to testthe seats, ejecting dummies at speeds up tol,OOOkm/h (540kts). This installation verifiedthe seat's stabilization system ens.uring safeejection at high speed. Another ground rig wasused to study the effects of G loads on human .pilots during ejection. The efficiency of thecanopy doubling as a protective visor was test­ed on a Tu-2 bomber converted into an ejectiontestbed.

In 1954 the first production Kuybyshev-builtUTI-MiG-15 serialled 101' Blue'" (c/n 10101) wasconverted by L11 for conducting ejection seattests with both dummies and pilots. The aircraftwas designated izdeliye ST-1 O. The aircraft wasflown in two configurations with the experimen­tal ejection seat fired from the front and rearcockpits; it is hard to say which came first.

In the former configuration 101' Blue was anearly-standard Midget with the prototype seatinstalled in the forward cockpit. The hinged for­ward canopy was replaced by a metal fairingwith a large opening through which the seatwas ejected. This was an attempt to kill twobirds with one stone (to avoid jettisoning thecanopy and facilitate installation and removalof the ejection seat while reducing turbulencearound the forward cockpit). High-speed cinecameras were installed in small teardrop fair­ings on the wing upper surface near thewingtips to record the ejection sequence. Theaircraft had phototheodolite calibration mark­ings on the forward and rear fuselage andupper and lower fin.

42 MiG-15

The trainee's (left) and instructor's instrumentpanels of the UTI-MiG-15. Yefim Gordon archive

Photographs on the opposite page:

Two production UTI-MiG·15s operated by aNaval 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 convertedfrom the first production Kuybyshev-builtUTI-MiG·15 (101' Blue, c/n 10101).Yefim Gordon archive

MiG-15 43

44 MiG-15

In its other configuration the aircraft had thesliding rear canopy replaced by a large shallowmetal fairing extending almost all the way to thefin.

Initially the ST-10 fired a standard MiG-15ejection seat suitably modified for the experi­ment, with a non-standard canopy over the rearcockpit (ie, inside the abovementioned fairing).During rotation two clamps on the seat head­rest engaged two lugs on the canopy, causingit to rotate up and forward. The front end of thecanopy slid aft along guide rails until it lockedinto position on the seat pan, disengaging itselffrom the guide rails in so doing; the canopynow offered protection for the pilot. The seatcomplete with canopy weighed 225k.g (4961b)and was ejected by a telescopic ejection gun atan initial speed of 18.5 to 19.0 m/sec (60.7 to62.3ft/sec).

Tests began in the second half of the 1950s.Several stabilizing systems were tried, includ­ing stabilizing parachutes on telescopic boomsextending aft of the seat. The programme wasconducted by test pilot Edward V Yelyan andtest parachutist V Golovin. As a result, an ejec­tion mount with a sliding canopy for pilot pro­tection from the airflow was recommended forall Soviet fighters capable of exceeding1,000km/h (540kts).

The designation ST-1 0 has also been quotedfor two other UTI-MiG-15s converted into ejec­tion seat testbeds. The second aircraft serialled102' Blue (c/n 10102) had the prototype seat inthe rear cockpit. The sliding rear canopy wasreplaced by a large shallow metal fairingextending almost all the way to the fin.

As part of the MiG-21 development pro­gramme, the third UTI-MiG-15 (401' Blue) wasconverted into a testbed for its parachute-sta­bilised SK ejection seat (seeden'ye katapool'­teerooyemoye - ejection seat, as simple asthat). The forward canopy section completewith fixed windshield was replaced by a one­piece forward-hinged canopy developed forthe MiG-21 F Fishbed-A (or perhaps, more pre­cisely, its immediate precursor - the experi-

The ST·10 ejection seat testbed was convertedfrom the first production Kuybyshev-builtUTI·MiG·15 (101' Blue, c/n 10101). Note thecalibration markings on the fuselage and fin.Yefim Gordon archive

Another UTI·MiG-15 (401' Blue, c/n 10401)converted into an ejection seat testbed by1I1 firing an 'experimental seat from the rearcockpit. Note how the canopy acts as a shieldprotecting 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 rearcockpit of the UTI·MiG·15stk with low Perspexsidewalls instead of the sliding canopy.Yefim Gordon archive

mental swept-wing Ye-2 Faceplate). This wasrather lower than the rest of the Midget'scanopy, resulting in a pronounced stepbetween it and the sliding rear canopy. 102Y

Blue and 401 Y Blue had similar phototheodolitecalibration markings.

Curiously, the MiG-21 F's bulletproof wind­screen was not part of the hinged canopy,being attached to the airframe under thecanopy, and was left behind after ejection. On401 Y Blue it obviously played no part in the ejec­tion sequence and was very probably fitted inlieu of a windshield. With the forward canopygone, the turbulent airflow around the forwardfuselage might otherwise have excessivelycomplicated flying for the man who stayedbehind to land the aircraft!

401 Y Blue also had a different configurationwith a standard forward canopy (includingwindshield) and a non-standard rear canopyresembling that of the Sukhoi Suo? Fitter-A; itwas longer than the Midget's and a new fairinghad to be installed between it and the fuselage.The rear canopy likewise acted as a protectivevisor and the seat was fired by a long telescop­ic ejection gun. Curiously, the canopy sportedsomething like a large blade aerial, though thismay have been a sort of stabilising surface. It isnot known which configuration came first.

'UTI-MiG·15stk' Midget ejection trainerWS pilots flying the MiG-15 were apprehensiveabout its first-generation ejection seat, fearingserious injuries in the event of an ejection at lowaltitude or on landing when most accidentshappen. To overcome this psychologicalobstacle and restore the pilots' confidence inthe aircraft the WS decided that some of theUTI-MIG-15s were to be used as ejection train­ers. Referred to by the Soviet MoD's dailynewspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) as'UTI-MiG-15stk' (s treneerovochnoy katapool'­toy - with training catapult; the designation isunofficial), these aircraft toured fighter regi­ments flying the Fagot, Air Force test pilotsdemonstrated the ejection sequence to servicepilots and then challenged volunteers to try it.The back seat had a reduced powder charge(probably to avoid an almighty kick in the buttwhich might scare the ejectee to death!), butstill permitted safe ejection, of course.

Outw'ardly the 'UTI-MiG-15stk' differed fromthe standard Midget in having the sliding rearcanopy replaced by low Perspex sidewalls sothat 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 cinefilm showing an experimental ejection seatbeing fired from Lll's ST·10 testbed (101 Y Blue,cln 10101). Yefim Gordon archive

Bottom: A trainee is catapulted from the rearcockpit of a Midget ejection trainer unofficiallyknown as UTI·MiG·15stk. Yefim Gordon archive

-

MiG-15 45

*

..

46 MiG-15

Above left and right: Two views of 32 Red, a MiG­15bis converted to a MiG-15M (M-15) targetdrone. The ventral pannier with guidanceequipment, the probe aerials on the stabilizersand the fairings on the aft fuselage are clearlyvisible. Yefim Gordon archive

Left and below: This MiG-15M coded '30 Red' hasdrop tanks to increase range and endurance.Yefim Gordon archive

Chapter Three

Foreign Production

CHINESE·BUILT MiG·15s

In March 1950, the Chinese government decid­ed that China should build modern jet aircraftand turned to 'Big Brother' - the USSR - forhelp. Assistance was promptly provided; inOctober 1951 (when Soviet and Chinese pilotshad already been flying Soviet-built MiG-15s inthe Korean war for a year), 847 Soviet special­ists of varying rank were dispatched to China.They were to assist in organizing China'snascent aircraft industry - including MiG-15bisproduction under licence at the Shenyang air­craft factory (now the Shenyang Aircraft Indus­try Complex, SAIC).

However, when everything was ready theChinese made a logical decision to build themore modern MiG-17 which started coming offthe production line at Shenyang in mid-1956.Thus, contrary to reports by some Westernsources, the MiG-15bis was never built inChina. Yet, during the Korean War, 534 battle­damaged Fagot-As and -Bs were repaired atShenyang. Interestingly, MiG-15s overhauledat Shenyang incorporated some equipmentitems from the MiG-17.

Despite not being built locally, the MiG-15biswas allocated the local designation Jianjiji-2(fighter aircraft, type 2), often shortened to Jian­2or J-2. Fagot-Bs were still operational in Chinain the early 1970s. Some aircraft were laterresold (for instance, to Albania and Cambodia)under the export designation F-2 (F for Fighter).

Shenyang JJ-2 (FT-2)Midget advanced trainerIn contrast, the UTI-MiG-15 trainer was pro­duced in China under the designation JianjijiJiaolianji-2 (fighter trainer aircraft-2), oftenshortened to Jianjiao-2 or JJ-2. The RD-45Ftur­bojet powering it was built under licence inHarbin as the Wopen-5 (turbojet engine Model5), often shortened to WP-5 (or TJ-5 for export).Besides being supplied to China's People'sLiberation Army Air Force, the trainer wasexported to Albania, Bangladesh, North Korea,Pakistan, Sudan, Tanzania and North Vietnamunder the export designation FT-2 (FT for Fight­er Trainer).

67973 Red, a Shenyang JJ-2 (Chinese-builtUTI-MiG-15), on display at the Chinese ArmyMuseum in Peking. Keith Dexter

CZECH·BUILT MiG·15s

5-102 (MiG-15) Fagot·A tactical fighterIn 1950 the Soviet and Czech governmentsagreed to launch MiG-15 production inCzechoslovakia. The licence agreement wassigned in Moscow on 17th April 1951 and deliv­eries of manUfacturing documents began in thefollowing month, coincidentally with the prepa­rations for delivery of Soviet-built MiG-15s tothe Czech Air Force (CzAF).

At first, MiG-15 production was assigned tothe Rudy Letov plant at Letnany. On 6th May1951 the Czechs took delivery of a Kuybyshev­built Fagot-A (c/n 119070) as a pattern aircraft.Soon after, a further ten fighters were deliveredas completely-knocked-down (CKD) kits for theassembly of a pre-production batch; the first ofthese, bearing the cln 225101, made its maid­en flight at Prague-Kbely on 6th November1951.'

After 160 aircraft had been completed byRudy Letov, production was transferred to thenewly-commissioned Aero-Vodochody plant atVodochody (pronounced 'Vodokhody') 20kmnorth of Prague in July 1953. Piloted by factorytest pilot Antonfn Bartos, the first MiG-15 built atAero-Vodochody (c/n 220503) flew on 28thApril 1953, when the factory - including the run­way - was still incomplete. Five more aircraft(c/ns 220505 through 220509) were completedon the same day but flown at a later date. In all,Czech production of the Fagot-A totalled 821aircraft in twelve batches (like in the USSR, air­craft production in Czechoslovakia was usually

organized in batches containing more or lessequal quantities of aircraft).

Until the mid-50s the CzAF had a habit ofallocating its own designations to foreign­designed andlor -built aircraft in Czech service.For example, the Messerschmitt Bf 109G wasmanufactured locally as the S-99 (a refinedindigenous version was known as S-199); theIL-28 Beagle bomber and its trainer version,IL-28U Mascot, were built under licence byAero as the B-228 and CB-228 respectively. Inkeeping 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 designationwas dropped in September 1956 and from thenon the aircraft was referred to strictly as MiG-15,even though some locally-designed versionsdid have suffix letters unique to them.

The RD-45F turbojet was also built underlicence 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 formotor). No fewer than 5,094 engines weredelivered between 1952 and 1962; the reasonwas that, apart from the MiG-15, the enginealso powered the 1L-28.

MiG-155B strike aircraftUnder a reorganization and re-equipment pro­gramme in 1958 CzAF units flying the Fagot-Aconverted to the MiG-19S Farmer-C. The MiG-15was relegated to the strike role and suitablyconverted by the overhaul plant at Prague-Kbely.

MiG-15 47

48 MiG-15

An air-to-air study of 3668, an 5-103 (MiG-15bis)built by Aero-Vodochody. Letectvi+Kosmonautika

Czech Air Force technicians performingmaintenance on several 5-1035 (MiG-15bises).Yefim Gordon archive

A very new and shiny 5-103 with slipper tankson the factory apron at Aero-Vodochody.Yefim Gordon archive

A Czech Air Force 5-103 with the flaps downand the airbrakes open. (MiG-15bises).Yefim Gordon archive

Designated MiG-15SB (stfhacf-bombar-dovacf [letoun] - fighter-bomber), the aircrafthad six wing hardpoints instead of the usualtwo. The inboard and outboard ones were usedto carry indigenous 130mm (5.12in) LR-130HVARs on launch rails (attached directly to thewing or via 03-40 pylons) or boxy ten-roundSR-55 FFAR pods for 55mm (2.16in) LR-55FFARs. Alternatively, the 03-40 pylons could beused to carry four 50kg (110 Ib) AO-50-100M,FAB-50 or OFAB-50 HE bombs, P-50 or CCP-50practice bombs, four 1OOkg (220 Ib) FAB-1 00 orOFAB-100M bombs or two 250kg (551Ib) FAB­250M-46 HE bombs or RBK-250 cluster bombswith eight AO-1 0 bomblets each.2

The standard centre hardpoints were usuallyoccupied by 400 litre (88 Imperial gallon) droptanks but could also be used to carry OFAB­100M bombs or experimental FFAR pods ofCzech design looking like slipper tanks. Thesepods housing LR-55 rockets probably did notprogress beyond the trials stage. An additionalPBP-1 P sight was installed in the cockpit foraiming 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 wasunique among the Fagot's many versions inhaving provisions for jet-assisted take-off(JATO). Two SRP-1 JATO bottles could be fittedto the aft fuselage sides for high gross weighttake-offs (SRP = startovacf raketa pomocnii ­auxiliary take-off rocket). A brake parachutewas provided to shorten the landing run. Start­ing in 1964, they were gradually supplanted bySukhoi Su-7BMK Fitter-A fighter-bombers but itwas not until 1983 that the MiG-15SB was finallyretired.

MiG-1ST target tugSeveral Fagot-As were converted for target tow­ing duties. The MiG-15 was to work with theL-03 airplane-type target of all-wooden con­struction towed on a 2,000m (6,561ft) cable at750kmjh (405kts). After a series of tests withquarter-scale and half-scale models towed bycars, Avia C-2 (Arado Ar 96B) primary trainers,Avia B-33 (licence-built IL-10) attack aircraftand finally MiG-15s it became clear that a 45-hpwinch would be needed to fly with the realthing. The MiG-15's electric system could notprovide enough power; an independent powersource was required.

Czech engineers devised an elegant solu­tion. The standard weapons tray was replacedby a modified one with a winch and cable cut­ter. The winch was powered via reduction gearby a40-blade ram air turbine housed in a largishfairing immediately aft of the nose gear unit, thecable exiting from a smaller fairing further aft.

After completing its trials programme theL-03 target entered production in 1957. Theaircraft 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. TheL-03 was placed on a dolly and hooked up tothe aircraft with the towing cable at minimumextension (200 m/656ft). Then the MiG-15Ttook off, lifting the target off the dolly, and paidout the cable to its full 2,000m length. The L-03was equipped with a landing skid so that itcould be recovered and re-used, unless it wasshot to pieces. The MiG-15T landed at 280km/h(151 kts); as soon as the target touched down alock in its nose released the cable and a brakeparachute was deployed, bringing the target toa halt in 500m (1 ,640ft). The target could alsobe released in the air if necessary.

5-103 (MiG-15bis) Fagot-B tactical fighterThe MiG-15bis originally had the Czech desig­nation S-103' and the later version with morecomprehensive avionics was built underlicence at Aero-Vodochody. The first aircraft(c/n 143051) first flew on 4th January 1954, andten batches totalling 620 aircraft had been builtwhen production ended in July 1957. The VK-1turbojet was also produced by Zavody JanaSvermy (Motorlet) under the designation M-06,albeit on a much smaller scale; 1,028 engineswere delivered between 1954 and 1957.

A curious feature of some Czech bises (S­103s) was the hooks near the cannons' caseejector chutes. These were used to attachspent case collectors which looked every bitlike shopping baskets! Apart from serving thedomestic market, licence-built Fagot-Bs wereexported to East Germany, Egypt and Syria.

MiG-15bis with PPZ-1 ILSSeveral CzAF Fagot-Bs, including 3058 (c/n143058) and 8806, were fitted experimentallywith the indigenous PPZ-1 ILS (pfesne pfista­vacf zaffzenf - accurate landing equipment).Outwardly these aircraft could be recognizedby the bullet-shaped dielectric fairing of the ILSantenna, usually painted dark blue, projectingfrom the intake splitter where the landing lightused to be on early-production MiG-15s. Thesewere not really avionics testbeds, as the aircraftare known to have been used operationally.

S-103 '3911' (c/n 423911) in an unknown Germanmuseum. Helmut Walther

These views of the MiG-15bisSB show the extrapylons inboard and outboard of the drop tanksfor carrying unguided rockets.U§tectvi+Kosmonautika

MiG-15 49

MiG-15bisSB strike aircraftThis was a fighter-bomber conversion of theFagot-B similar to the MiG-15SB, except for thelack of JATO bottles and brake parachute. Nor­mal TOW was 5,634kg (12,420 Ib) and MTOW6,241 kg (13,758Ib). Conversion began in 1968.

MiG-15bisSB weapons testbedUnder a contract with North Vietnam Aero­Vodochody developed a version of the MiG­15SB/MiG-15bisSB armed with R-3S (AA-1Atoll) air-to-air missiles. The AAMs were carriedon pylons borrowed from the MiG-21 FFishbed­A installed at the usual drop tank positions; theN-37D cannon was replaced by an infraredsearch and track (IRST) unit. A single CzAFMiG-15bisSB serialled 3950 (c/n 713950) wasconverted to test the new armament but theidea was not pursued further; it is not known ifthe tests were successful.

MiG-15bisR photo reconnaissance aircraftThe CzAF operated two PHOTINT versions ofthe Fagot-B under the Soviet designation MiG­15bisR. One was identical to the Soviet aircraftof the same name with one AFA-IM or AFP-

50 MiG-15

21 KT vertical camera installed on the gunmount in place of the inboard NR-23 cannon.This aircraft was also referred to in somesources as MiG-15bisR-F1, MiG-15bisF (foto­pruzkumna verze - PHOTINT version) or, in airforce slang, simply as 'fotobis'.

The other version, MiG-15bisR-F3, differedfrom its Soviet counterpart in having two verti­cal cameras on the gun mount and two obliquecameras mounted one behind the other in thecentre fuselage beneath the main fuel tank,resulting in a slight decrease in internal fuelcapacity. Each of these two cameras had itsown protective doors (the forward camera wasclosed by one door opening to starboard andthe rear camera by double doors). The inboardNR-23 cannon was likewise removed. Depend­ing on the mission, the aircraft could be config­ured with AFA-IM, AFA-21, AFP-21 KT, AFA-39and AFA-40 day cameras or NFP-02 nightcameras.

MiG-15bisT target tugThis was a target tug conversion of the Fagot-Bsimilar to the MiG-15T. One aircraft serialled3906 (c/n 623906) has been identified to date.

MiG-15/MiG-15bis target droneAs in the USSR, time-expired Czech Fagotswere converted into remote-controlled targetdrones similar to the Soviet MiG-15M.

MiG-15V target droneOne Czech source mentions that MiG-15s wereconverted into towed target drones designatedMiG-15V (= vlecny terc - towed target).

CS-102 (UTI-MiG-15)Midget advanced trainerLicence production of the UTI-MiG-15 trainer atAero-Vodochody began in July 1954, initiallyunder the designation CS-102 (cvicny stfhacf[Ietoun] - training fighter). The first aircraft (c/n142600) was flown on 28th July. The trainer wasby far the most numerous version; no fewerthan 2,013 were built and the last aircraft off theline (c/n 022727) was delivered on 5th January1961. Most Czech-built UTI-MiG-15s wereexported; customers included most of thecountries operating the MiG-15, MiG-17 andMiG-19. In fact, Czechoslovakia became thebiggest 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 moremodern trainers, they were turned over toDOSAAF. Crews recognized that these aircraftshowed a higher level of workmanship thantheir Soviet counterparts due to the higher skilland ingrained working discipline of workersand engineers and the high level of Europeantechnology. In contrast, many Soviet plants hadto make do with pre-war equipment well intothe 1970s!

Czech-built Midgets were also used in theUSSR for cosmonaut training. It was in a suchan aircraft coded 18 Red (callsign '625') thatYuriy Alekseyevich Gagarin, the first man inspace, and instructor pilot V S Seryogin werekilled in an accident on 27th March 1968.

Above: OK·10 (c/n 612744), the second CS·102used as an ejection seat testbed by VZLU.Letectvi+Kosmonautika

Top left: An array of armament laid out in front ofa MiG·15bisSB. Lerectvi+Kosmonautika

The removed camera tray of a MiG·15bisRreconnaissance aircraft. The aircraft was alsoknown simply as fotobis. Letectvi+Kosmonautika

Caught by the camera seconds before becomingairborne, this Aero CS-102 '2601' (c/n 142601)was probably the second UTI-MiG-15 to bebuilt in the Czechoslovakian factory.Uitectvi+Kosmonautika

An unmarked CS-102 (c/n 142614) destinedfor the Soviet Air Force at the factory airfieldin Vodochody. The Soviet Union was a majorcustomer for Czech-built Midgets.Letectvi+Kosmonautika

A brand-new CS-102 (UTI-MiG-15) on the factoryapron. Yefim Gordon archive

UTI-MiG-15 with PPZ-1 ILSSeveral CzAF UTI-MiG-15s, including 2726 (c/n0227267), were fitted with the PPZ-1 ILS with itsdistinctive bullet-shaped dielectric fairing onthe intake splitter.

UTI-MiG-15P radar trainerTo fill a Czech MoD order, two late-productionUTI-MiG-15s - 2626 (c/n 722626) and 2826 (c/n7228267) - were converted into radar trainersdesignated UTI-MiG-15P' in 1959 for trainingMiG-17PF pilots. The conversion was under­taken by the military overhaul plant in CeskeBudejovice. The first aircraft received the tem­porary registration OK-10 during manufactur­er's flight tests.

Outwardly the Czech UTI-MiG-15P differedfrom its purpose-built Soviet namesake(izdeliye ST-7) in having a slightly thicker for­ward fuselage housing a different radar (RP-5Izumrood-2, not RP-1), no S-13 gun cameraand a standard windshield (because the radardisplay was located in the rear cockpit ratherthan up front). Thanks to an intensive weight­saving effort the converted aircraft was only143.61 kg (316.6Ib) heavier than the standardUTI-MiG-15, with virtually no deterioration inperformance. Range and endurance weredecreased slightly due to less internal fuel (theforward fuel tank's capacity had to be reducedby 7.7% to provide room for the radar set).

The Czech UTI-MiG-15P passed its testssuccessfully but did not enter production. Thiswas considered uneconomical, since both theMiG-17PF and the MiG-19P equipped with theRP-5 radar were supplied by the USSR and notbuilt urider licence in Czechoslovakia; besides,the MiG-17PF was by then considered a stop­gap until more capable interceptors becameavailable. One of the two converted trainers,2626, now survives at the Czech aerospacemuseum (VM VHU, Vojenske muzeum Vojen­skeho historickeho ustavu - Military Museum ofthe Military Historical Society) at Prague-Kbelyairport.

UTi-MiG-15 ejection seat testbedsIn the early 1970s three Czech-built UTI-MiG­15s were converted into ejection seat testbedsby 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. Onlythe first aircraft, 2528 (c/n 722528), wore mili­tary markings. It also had photo calibrationmarkings in the form of stripes and crosses onthe forward fuselage and fin and no less than45 mission markings on the fin to mark suc­cessful ejections. This aircraft was destroyed ina crash on 30th April 1971.

The other two examples wore two-or threedigit civil registrations indicating test status.The second aircraft, OK-10 (c/n 612744), washardly luckier than the first one, being dam­aged beyond economical repair and relegatedto ground tests. The third testbed, OK-Ota (c/n822210), was used to test the indigenous VS­1BRI zero-zero ejection seat developed for theAero L-39 Albatros advanced trainer (VS =

vystfelovaci sedacka - ejection seat) and thelater VS-2 model. It served on until supplantedin this role by a MiG-21 US (OK-004, ex-CzAF0241).

POLlSH·BUILT MiG·15s

Lim-1 Fagot-A (produkt C) tactical fighter.In the early 1950s, coincidentally with thebeginning of the Korean War and the resultingincrease in international tension, Poland begana major upgrade of its air force and heavyindustry. The Yak-17 Feather and Yak-23 Florafirst-generation jet fighters gave way to theMiG-15 which was delivered to the Polish AirForce (PWL - Polskie Wojsko Lotnicze) in mid­1951. Hence the Polish authorities decided thetime was ripe for Poland to build its own com­bat jets. Licence production was the obviouschoice under the circumstances. Since theMiG-15 was much more advanced and had thepotential to remain the backbone of the fighterforce in the foreseeable future, the originalplans to build the Yak-23 were abandoned andmanufacturing rights for the MiG-15 obtained.

Manufacturing documents were supplied inmid-May 1951, and the Polish aircraft industry

MiG-15 51

association WSK PZL (Wytw6rnia sprzf!tukomunikacyjnego - Panstwowe zaklady lot­nicze, Transport equipment manufacturer ­State aircraft factories) began gearing up forproduction. 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-45Fengine. Production of the MiG-15 benefittednot just the aviation industry but the entireheavy industry in Poland, nurturing a highly­skilled cadre of workers and engineers.

As in Czechoslovakia's case, several CKDkits were shipped to WSK Mielec as a 'starterset', along with a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (c/n113074) as a pattern aircraft. On 17th July1952, Maj Eugeniusz Pniewski successfullytest-flew the first MiG-15 assembled in Poland(c/n 1A 01-001).5 Five more aircraft (up to cln 1A01-006) were completed before the year's end,and production from locally-manufacturedcomponents began in January 1953, startingwith batch 2. Twelve batches totalling 227 air-

52 MiG-15

craft had been built when production ended onto 1st September 1954.

Again, as in Czechoslovakia's case, the air­craft was produced under a separate designa­tion. The Polish-built MiG-15 was designatedLim-1 (licencyjny mysliwiec -licence-built fight­er), while the RO-45F was produced as theLis-1 (licencyjny silnik - licence-built engine).(A different presentation, liM and liS, wouldhave been more logical perhaps -Auth.) SomePolish documents also referred to the aircraftas 'produkt C'. This code was derived from theMikoyan OKB designation 'izdeliye S' and wasthus a case of misunderstanding, since theCyrillic letter S is identical to the Roman C!

Lim-2 Fagot-B (product CD) tactical fighterThe MiG-15bis joined the PWL inventory in late1953. Concurrently with the first deliveries ofSoviet-built Fagot-Bs it was decided to launchproduction of the type at WSK Mielec as theLim-2; accordingly, the VK-1A engine would bebuilt by WSK Rzesz6w as the Lis-2. Like the

These views of one of the two UTI-MiG-15Psshow the radar installation clearly. Note thatthe 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-15biswas supplied as a pattern aircraft for licenceproduction; the cln has been quoted in aPolish 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 'produktCO' (a corruption of the OKB designation'izdeliye SO'). Originally Lim-2s were poweredby Soviet-supplied VK-1 engines; the first air­craft to receive a locally-manufactured Lis-2turbojet was 602 Red, the second aircraft ofbatch 6 (c/n 1B 006-02) completed on 24thFebruary 1955.

The 500th and final Lim-2 (1914 Red, cln 1B019-14) rolled off the production line on 23rdNovember 1956. After that, WSK Mielecswitched to the MiG-17F which was built inPoland as the Lim-5.

Lim-1,5 tactical fighterLater, many Lim-1 s were upgraded to Lim-2standard as regards avionics. The conversiontook place at the Polish Air Force's overhaulplants. The upgraded aircraft were known unof­ficiallyas Lim-1,5! (One can only guess whatcode name the ASCC guys would have allo­cated to this 'one-and-a-half' aircraft - Fagot­A+, perhaps.) Outwardly such aircraft could berecognized by the blade aerial of the Bariy-MIFF atop the fuselage.

Lim-2R photo reconnaissance aircraftSome Lim-2s were built as PHOTINT aircraftdesignated Lim-2R (rozpoznawczy - recon­naissance, used attributively). They featured anAFA-21 camera installed in a bulged ventralfairing aft of the portside 23mm cannons.

Lim-1/Lim-2 target tugA number of Lim-1 sand Lim-2s were adaptedfor target towing duties. The modifications werenowhere near as serious as with the CzechMiG-15T/MiG-15bisT. Quite simply, the inboardNR-23 cannon was substituted by a lock fortowing sleeve-type targets which protrudeddownwards aft of the nose gear unit.

Lim-2 smugacz demonstration aircraftFor airshow performances, Lim-2s often carriedsmoke generating pods with electrically-ignitedsolid charges under the wings. However, theseworked inadequately; the smoke trail waseither too thin and broken or too dense andsmudgy, preventing the spectators from follow­ing the aerobatic manoeuvres.

In order to resolve this problem, engineerZenon Klimkowski developed a version of theMiG-15bis known as 'Lim-2 smugacz' (smoker,pronounced 'smoogahch'). The aft integral fueltank was deleted to make room for two pres­surized bottles containing pure engine oil (forgenerating white smoke) or ditto with red dyeadded (Poland's national colours are red andwhite -Auth.). The contents of the bottles weresprayed into the engine jetpipe; maximum con­tinuous operation on one and two bottles wastwo minutes and five minutes respectively. Theinstallation was tested successfully on Lim-2'1127 White' (c/n 1B 011-27) at the Polish AirForce's Technical Institute (ITWL - InstytutTechniczny Wojsk Lotniczych). Several Lim-2swere modified to this standard.

Production of the Lim-1 and Lim-2 gave thePolish aircraft industry valuable experience inbuilding state-of-the-art jets. The Lim-1 andLim-2 were not exported.

SBLim-1 Midget advanced trainerThe UTI-MiG-15 was not manufactured inPoland, being delivered to the PWL from theUSSR and Czechoslovakia. However, to meetan urgent need for trainers in the late 1950s,some Lim-1 s were rebuilt at military overhaulplants 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. Forexample, some aircraft were armed with twoportside NR-23 cannons instead of the singleUBK-E or A-12,7 machine gun while othersappear to have only one cannon.

•

SBLim-2 Midget advanced trainerIn the mid-70s, Poland's stock of Lis-1 enginesran out. Hence, starting in 1975, Lim-2s weresimilarly converted into SBLim-2 trainers pow­ered by Lis-2 engines and having enlarged air­brakes. Some original UTI-MiG-15s were alsoconverted to this standard by replacing theengine and aft fuselage. The SBLim-2 had justone 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-styleairbrakes but retain their original Lim-1 con­struction numbers commencing 1A. Aircraftconfirmed as converted in this fashion include2004 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 andengine 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 toSBLim-1A and SBLim-2A.

The SBLim-1A was equipped with a singleAFA-21 A camera on the gun tray, while theSBLim-2A also had an AFA-39 camera in aprominent ventral fairing amidships (immedi­ately ahead of the fuselage break point). Thecamera installation necessitated a reduction of

the internal fuel capacity, so the SBLim:2Aalways 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. Someaircraft featured a rear view mirror on the for­ward canopy frame. The aircraft was armedwith two NR-23 cannons.

SBLim-2M advanced trainerIn the late 1970s, after years of operational use,some SBLim-2As were reconverted for thetraining role with the camera pack removedand full dual controls reinstated. Such aircraftwere redesignated SBLim-2M (modyfikowany­modified). The two 23mm guns were retained.

SBLim-1 ejection seat testbedsTwo SBLim-1 s were used by the Polish Instituteof Aeronautics (instytut Lotnictwa) in Warsawfor ejection seat trials. One aircraft serialled1018 Red (c/n 1A 10-018) was a virtually stan­dard Midget with the sliding rear canopy por­tion removed for easy installation and removalof the ejection seat. The other aircraft, 002 Red(c/n 1A 05-002), was extensively modifiedunder the PZL 1-22 Iryda (Iridium) advancedtrainer/light attack aircraft development pro­gramme. It carried an 1-22 forward fuselagemockup over the fuselage on a lattice-likestructure; the mockup featured a cockpit with afUlly functional ejection seat. This aircraft is nowpreserved in Warsaw.

10 Red (c/n 1A 11-010). a fairly late-productionLim-1, at a Polish airbase. WAF

MiG-15 53

Chapter Four

The MiG·15 in Actionor 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 newfighter. Western thinking was focused on thevast Red Army with its thousands of tanks andStalin's fanatical soldiers, rather than the Sovi­et air arm. However, Western observers weresoon proven wrong.

As noted earlier, the MiG-15 attained IOCwith the WS in 1949. The 324th SveerskayaIAD2/29th GvlAP commanded by Lt Col A VPashkevich, Hero of the Soviet Union (HSU),

54 MiG-15

and based at Kubinka AB near Moscow was thefirst unit to master the new fighter. The 324th,then commanded by the famous Col Ivan Niki­tovich Kozhedoob (triple HSU), the top-scoringGreat Patriotic War ace with 62 'kills' to his credit,was something of a 'showcase division'. Thiswas because Kubinka was the nearest fighterbase to Moscow and was thus regularlyinspected by various top officials. The base stillhosts the Russian Air Force's new equipmentdisplay centre named after I N Kozhedoob.

The first ten or fifteen aircraft for the 29thGvlAP arrived on 22nd February 1949; these

were Batch 1, 2 and 3 aircraft delivered by railfrom Kuybyshev. The fighters were promptlyassembled and service trials began, in parallelwith preparations for the traditional May Dayparade.

Very soon the USSR demonstrated its capa­bilities to the West as far as military aviationwasconcerned, including its impressive rate ofmodern fighter production. 45 productionMiG-15s flew over Moscow on 1st May 1949.On 17th July in the same year, 52 of the new jetswere seen at Moscow-Tushino. On 7th Novem­ber 1949 (the October Revolution anniversary),no fewer than 90 flew over Red Square, and onMay Day 1950, 139 MiG-15s took part in theshow.

The introduction of the MiG-15 into the WSinventory was a true technical revolution. Thefirst Soviet jets - the Yak-15, Yak-17 and MiG-9- had an extremely limited production run (afew hundred units each) and could not be usedto re-equip the VVS. The backbone of the fight­er force was made up by piston-engined air­craft - the ultimate versions of the Yak-3 andYak-9, the La-7, the postwar La-9 and La-11 anda few Bell P-63 Kingcobras (operated mainly bythe PVO). The Fagot was a huge step ahead incomparison with any of these types.

Pilot conservatism has become an oldadage but, understandably enough, pilots andtech staff who were used to flying and handlingprop-driven aircraft were initially wary of theMiG-15. To begin with operations were limitedto 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 tobe used to the full.

Urgent measures were taken to remedy thissituation. The Mikoyan OKB speeded up devel­opment of the UTI-MiG-15 trainer, and a largegroup of qualified flying instructors (OFls) withintimate knowledge of piloting techniques andinstrument flight rules (IFR) operations in thetype was trained. Additionally, Nil WS test

Top: 302 Blue, a MiG·15bis of unknown origin.Initially Soviet Air Force Fagots often had the airintake lip and/or fin cap painted in squadroncolours as shown here. Yefim Gordon archive

Centre and bottom: Production bises with 300 litre(66 Imperial gallon) slipper tanks.Yefim Gordon archive

pilots visited front-line fighter units to sharetheir considerable experience with servicepilots. Special blind/night landing courses forofficers were established. Everybody, fromsergeant technician to regiment commander,undertook their training. This crash programmeevoked memories of 1941 when similarly fever­ish conversion training had taken place in theface of the German aggression.

Well-trained commanders were placed incharge of conversion training in MiG-15 units,building up pilot trust in the new aircraft by per­sonal example; this approach undoubtedlysaved many lives. Combat manoeuvres andspin recovery techniques were gradually mas­tered as the WS built up the numbers on theFagot.

Some time later, VVS flight inspection groupswere created in different regions of the USSR.Their main objective was to train pilots andmonitor operations in different regions, check­ing uniformity of procedures and tactics. Thesegroups were headed by very experienced mili­tary test pilots. For example, the Far Eastinspection group was headed by Maj Gen PStefanovsky. Hero of the Soviet Union, who hadbeen first to master aerobatics in the first Sovietproduction jet fighter, the Yak-15.

The MiG-15 became fully operational in aremarkably short time. By mid-1950, some WSunits flying the type were combat ready; by1952, all MiG-15 units were deemed combatready. The aircraft soon earned a good reputa­tion for rugged simplicity, reliability and ease ofmaintenance, 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 asthe 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 ledby Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev who was to gainfame in the Korean War. The team's five Fagot­

Bs - 490 Red, 502 Red, 568 Red, 573 Red and588 Red - had the upper surfaces paintedbright red, giving rise to the unofficial name

A MiG·15bis takes off in the midst of a snow­covered landscape somewhere in the USSR. Thetactical code is probably blue, which means theaircraft belongs to a PVO unit.Yefim Gordon archive

Armourers cleaning an N-37D cannon removedfrom a WS MiG·15bis. Note the black walkwayon the wing. Yefim Gordon archive

The MiG·15 was also actively operated by theNaval air arm. Here, a Midget and two Fagot-Bssit on an unpaved parking area while the crewspore over tactics. Yefim Gordon archive

One of the few surviving Fagot-Bs at MAPO·MiG's Lookhovitsy plant (LMZ) which now buildsthe MiG-29 Fulcrum. Note the almost completeInteravia 1·1 L light aircraft in the backg'round,another LMZ product. Yefim Gordon

MiG-15 55

Krasnaya pyatyorka (the Red Five), and smokegenerators fitted under the wings. This teamlater flew the MiG-17 Fresco-A, MiG-19SFarmer-C and MiG-21 PF Fishbed-D in a similarcolour scheme. Later, however, this flamboyantpaint job was dropped (and apparently thewhole idea as well); it was not until 1990 thatdisplay teams with eyecatching colour schemesstarted making a comeback in the Soviet AirForce.

In the early 1950s, several MiG-15 units werepermanently deployed outside the USSR - forexample, in Poland and East Germany, servingwith the 4th VA and the 16th VA respectively,until replaced by later types. In Poland theMiG-15 and UTI-MiG-15 was operated, eg, bythe 229th IAD/42nd Tannenbergskiy GvlAp3 atZagan 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-15swere 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 atKluczewo AB, Poland, taxies in past a line ofMiG·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 besidetheir 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 ORAPflying MiG·15bisRs, Falkenberg by the 6thGvIAD/31 st Nikopol'skiy GvIAp, JOterbog-AltesLager by the 833rd lAp, Kothen by the 126thIAD/73rd GvIAp, Merseburg by the 6th GvIAD/85th GvIAp, Neuruppin and Templin by the234th IAD/787th lAp, PeenemOnde by the 16thGv1AD/33rd lAp, Zerbst by the 126th lAD/35thlAP. The 125th ADIB/2Oth GvAPIB was consec­utively based at Neu-Welzow, Damgarten andParchim, while the 105th ADIB/559th APIBmoved from Falkenberg to GroBenhain,Altenburg and finally Finsterwalde.'

MiG-15 operations in Germany were not alto­gether without incident. Two 20th GvAPIB

Fagots collided in mid-air and crashed nearParchim AB in 1958. A UTI-MiG-15 of the sameunit was lost in a crash between Templin andBrandenburg on 12th January 1976. AnotherMidget (this time a 787th lAP aircraft) crashednear Bad Freienwalde in the summer of 1981.Yet another UTI-MiG-15, a 559th APIB aircraftbuilt in Ulan-Ude (72 Red, c/n 10994003), wasdamaged 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 rangeof tactics when used as a strike aircraft in com­parison with the dedicated attack aircraft usedhitherto. These included bombing in level flightat 300 to 500m (984 to 1,640ft), bomb.ing in a10 to 20° or 50 to 60° dive, firing cannons andFFARs in a 5 to 15° or 20 to 30° dive, nightbomb/FFAR/cannon fire attacks against illumi­nated targets in a 15 to 30° dive.

New tactics pioneered on the MiG-15biswere toss bombing in a 45° or 110° climb, abomb/cannon fire attack in a 30 to 40° or 50 to60° dive after making a yo-yo manoeuvre or ahalf loop, and ditto after making a loop over thetarget. The toss bombing manoeuvre wasdevised with a view to using tactical nuclearbombs which had just become available toSoviet fighter-bomber units.

Knowing the Fagot-B's vulnerability to groundfire, the pilots tried to complete their attack asquickly as possible by firing all weapons in asingle pass. If the first attack failed, a secondpass was made after one or two U-turns or a270° 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 distributedbetween aircraft; some aircraft did the actual'mud-moving' while others reconnoitered anddesignated the targets, still others took out theair defences and a fourth group flew top coverin case enemy fighters showed up. The Fagotswere also to assist regular tactical fighter unitsin fending off massive enemy air raids.

As a fighter-bomber, the MiG-15bis was ofcrucial importance to the VVS. Even though itwas never used operationally in this role, ithelped to train a highly skilled cadre and per­fect techniques which were used with greatsuccess in the 1960s to 1980s when dedicatedfighter-bombers and attack aircraft such as theSu-17M and Su-25 entered service (and sawaction in the Afghan war).

Trial by fireWhatever doubts the West may have had con­cerning the MiG-15 were dispelled soonenough when the aircraft first saw action. Earli­er in this book, it has been called the Alumini­um Rabbit. Note that this is an allusion purelyto numbers, not to timidity of character; theMiG-15 is a fighting plane if there ever was one!Indeed, it was this aircraft that brought theMikoyan OKS world fame as a fighter maker.

Contrary to popular belief, the MiG-15received its baptism of fire in China, not inKorea - flown by Soviet pilots. When differ­ences between Mao Tse-tung's CommunistParty and Chiang Kai-shek's nationalist Kuom­intang Party escalated into an outright militaryconflict, the Nationalists were soon confined toTaiwan and the adjoining islands. From therethe Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF) couldstill launch air raids against the mainland withwhich Mao's People's Liberation Army AirForce (PLAAF) could not cope. Mao turned toMoscow for help, and a treaty on (among otherthings) military cooperation was signed on 13thFebruary 1950.

In the spring of 1950 the 29th GvIAp, then fly­ing Novosibirsk-built Batch 3 Fagot-As, wasdetached to China from Kubinka AB and sec­onded to the 106th lAD PVO under Lt Gen P FBatitskiy. Its mission was to protect Shanghaifrom ROCAF raids and keep Taiwanese shipsfrom going up the Yangtse River. Besides beinga major industrial centre, Shanghai was a base

from where the Chinese People's LiberationArmy prepared to launch an invasion of theChowshang 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 forappearance's sake and the pilots wore Chineseuniforms, 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, theunit's deputy CO, damaged a Taiwanese Lock­heed P-38 Lightning reconnaissance aircraftwhich crashed on the Chowshang Islands. Onthe night of 12th May, a flight of MiGs intercept­ed three Consolidated B-24 Liberator bombersand Capt I I Shinkarenko destroyed one ofthem at close range.

There was also a red-on-red incident8 on 9thAugust 1950 when a PLAAF Tu-2 bomber flyingfrom Nanking to Shanghai entered the area

protected by the 29th GvlAP without clearanceor warning. Two fighters scrambled to interceptand promptly shot it down, mistaking it foran ROCAF North American B-25 Mitchell; theChinese military acknowledged their fault.

No MiG-15s were lost to, enemy fire. How­ever, on 29th March one MiG-15 crashed atHsuichow AB during a training flight; the pilot,Lt P V Prosteryakov, was killed. The cause ofthe accident was never found.

At a later stage of the conflict, when Taiwansigned a defensive pact with the USA in March1955, the Chinese MiGs occasionally had todeal with USAF aircraft. For example, on 10thMay 1955 eight F-86s based in South Koreaoverflew Antung on a reconnaissance mission.They were immediately pounced upon byPLAAF Fagot-Bs; in the ensuing dogfight one ofthe Sabres was shot down and two more weredamaged.

The best-known conflict in which the MiG-15participated 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 inKuybyshev on 24th May 1950 during a factory test flight with M VYermolenko at the controls. A burst hydraulic line prevented the landinggear from extending normally. Yefim Gordon archive

Above left: Another new MiG-15bis - this time an aircraft built inKomsomol'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 theengine quit. Yefim Gordon archive

Above right: A 39th GvlAP MiG-15bis based at Vasil'kov in a sorry state aftermaking 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 extendthe landing gear while landing in this Tbilisi-built MiG-15bis(c/n 31530504). The fuel tanks were ruptured in the resulting belly landingand the aircraft was completely destroyed by fire. Yetim Gordon archive

MiG-15 57

and, inevitably, the accounts vary widely,depending on what side the author was on!

In the Cold War years, Soviet involvement inpost-Second World War conflicts, includingKorea, was something the man in the street wasnot supposed to know about, and combatreports etc were highly classified. Conversely,Korean War stories and 'kill' statistics werewidely publicised in the West in order to winpublic support for 'GI Joe saving the free worldfrom the Reds' (which inevitably affected theportrayal of victories and losses). Hence, untilthe 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: 'imperialistaggressors') - which were somewhat one­sided, to say the least. Air Power as a DecisiveForce in Korea by James T Stewart, publishedin the USSR in 1959, was perhaps the mostobjective source available to Soviet readers onAmerican and, to a certain extent, Soviet oper­ations in Korea. The following is an attempt todescribe those events as seen by the Sovietside, including actual participants - Sovietfighter pilots who flew MiG-15s in Korea.

Before speaking of MiG-15 operations in theKorean War, a brief account has to be made

Left: 29th GvlAP Fagot-As lined up at Dachang inthe summer of 1950. The aircraft are painted inChinese markings for appearance's sake; notethe red/white striped rudder.Yefim Gordon archive

Below left and right: Preparing for another sortie atDachang. Yefim Gordon archive

Bottom: 29th Gv1AP/2nd Sqn technicians in frontof one of the unit's fighters.Yefim Gordon archive

of the developments prior to the type'sappearance on the Korean theatre of opera­tions. When Soviet and US occupation troopswithdrew from Korea in 1948, they effectivelyleft behind two different nations - the pro-Com­munist North Korea (Korean People's Democ­ratic Republic) led by Kim II Sung and thepro-Western South Korea (Republic of Korea)led by Li Sun Man. This turned Korea into a timebomb ready to explode.

When the Communists came to power inChina in 1949 and the Soviet Union success­fully tested its first atomic bomb in the sameyear, the Soviet leaders felt confident it wouldbe easy to take control of the entire Koreanpeninsula and face the world with a fait accom­pli. Thus, massive arms deliveries to NorthKorea began in the spring of 1950; given theNorth Korean Army's impressive numericalsuperiority, the objective to take over SouthKorea within two or three days seemed easyas pie.

On 25th June 1950 North Korean troopscrossed the border, quickly advancing southand seizing the South Korean capital of Seoulin four days - just as planned. What the strate­gists in Moscow had not counted on, however,was the quick reaction of the West. On 25thJune the United Nations Security Council heldan emergency session, calling for interventionin the conflict; eight hours later the first aircraftof the USAF's 5th air force were pressed intoaction. On 29th June, USAF aircraft bombedNorth Korean airbases, knocking out the Com-

munists' air arm; now the UN coalition forcesenjoyed complete air superiority.

On 4th July the UN Command under GenDouglas MacArthur was established. Until mid­September, UN aviation9 kept North Koreantroops at bay along the Pusan perimeter in theextreme south - all that was left unoccupied bythe Communists. Meanwhile, the coalitionsteadily built up forces within the perimeter;by mid-September the 70,000-strong NorthKorean group besieging the Pusan perimeterwas outnumbered by a factor of two. At thesame time, USAF Boeing B-29 Stratofortressbombers pounded North Korean cities andindustrial centres with impunity.

On 15th September the UN coalitionlaunched a counter-offensive, inflicting heavylosses on the Communists, coupled with theInchon amphibious landing. The North KoreanArmy was virtually wiped out; according toWestern reports, nearly 100,000 were takenprisoner. By late October UN forces had takenthe capital of Pyongyang and reached the YaluRiver which is the border between Korea andChina. The tables were turned; the North Koreangovernment addressed the USSR and Chinafor help.

The first MiG-1 5s arrived in Korea in Novem­ber 1950. It has to be said that North KoreanMiG-15s were largely flown by Soviet Air Forceunits; thus the North Korean markings'O wereusually applied just for appearance's sake,since the Soviet Union was not officiallyinvolved in the conflict. MiG-15 deliveries toSoviet and Chinese/Korean units fighting inKorea were so great that the USSR was forcedto slow the pace of re-equipping its units inEurope and postpone new equipment deliver­ies to its Warsaw Pact allies.

The participation of Soviet MiG-15 pilots inthe war can be divided into three stages:November 1950 to April 1951, April 1951 toJanuary 1952 and January 1952 till the end ofthe war (27th July 1953). Stage One beganwhen the first Soviet units hastily relocated tobases in China across the Yalu River were putinto action against the UN forces in an attemptto strip them of air superiority over Korea. Theysucceeded in checking the advance of theiradversary, but only until the F-86 came on thescene.

The 28th lAD (comprising the 139th GvlAPand 67th lAP), 50th lAD (29th GvlAP and 177thlAP) and 151st GvlAD (28th GvlAP and 72ndGvIAP) were the first to arrive. These three divi­sions became the first components of the 64thIAK (istrebifel'nyy aviakorpoos - fighter corps)

The crew chief reports to the pilot that theaircraft is ready to fly, Dachang 1950.Yefim Gordon archive

The serial almost obliterated by crude greencamouflage, 351st lAP MiG-15bis '546 Red'(c/n 53210546) is prepared for a sortie at AntungAB in the autumn of 1952. This aircraft was flownby Maj I P Golyshevskiy. Yefim Gordon archive

formed in late November from WS, PVO andPacific Fleet Air Arm units specifically for fight­ing in Korea. Besides fighter units, it includedanti-aircraft artillery (AAA), air traffic control andcommunications, and support units. This fairlylarge group was initially commanded byStepan Krasovsky who had a lot of experienceleading air units in the Great Patriotic War.

The main function of the 64th IAK was thedefence of bridges and power stations on theYalu River. In December 1950 the 28th lAD wasrelocated to Xingdao and assigned the task oftraining Chinese and Korean jet fighter pilotswhich joined the fray in the summer of 1951 asthe Joint Chinese/Korean Air Army (JAA). The151 st GvlAD was also assigned to training Chi­nese and Korean pilots for a while, duringwhich time the 50th lAD was left to shoulder thetasks of the war alone.

Both sides operated under rigid restrictionsimposed by the UN on one side and by theSoviet Union's reluctance to expand the con­flict (and reveal its involvement) on the otherside. UN pilots were prohibited from crossingthe Yalu, while the Soviet MiG-15 pilots wereordered to stay behind an imaginary line drawnbetween Pyongyang and Wonsan in centralNorth Korea. The area between this line and theYalu River soon became universally known as'MiG Alley'.

In a rather na'ive attempt to hide their trueidentity, Soviet pilots were initially ordered to

speak Chinese or Korean on the radio (!), butthis stupid requirement was later withdrawn. 'Atfirst we were prohibited to speak Russian' onthe radio, - pilot G K Kormilkin recalled. - Westarted studying Chinese and sat in the class­room memorizing the basic commands in Chi­nese. All of us had Chinese pseudonyms (ascallsigns - Auth.). At first, everything seemedOK and we spoke Chinese - until our firstencounter with the Americans. But when itcame to real combat and our aircraft startedgoing down in flames, the Chinese commandswere interspersed with Russian ones, includinga good many f-words. When we came back, wesaid: 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. Fromthen on, it was Russian all the way.'

Soviet MiGs were also prohibited from oper­ating over the sea. These restrictions did notapply to Chinese and North Korean pilots,which could fly pretty much anywhere but suf­fered heavy losses when Soviet pilots were notclose at hand to protect them.

Apart from orders, Soviet operations wereseverely restricted by the lack of suitable air­fields. Antung AB located in the mouth of theYalu was the only available airbase in the for­ward area until early 1951 . Later, it was supple­mented by Angshan, Miaogow, Dapu andDagushan;" there were other airfields as well,but these were occupied by Chinese units.

MiG-15 59

Attempts to use 34 airfields in North Korean ter­ritory failed, as these were systematicallydestroyed by UN bombings as soon as theywere rebuilt or at the first sign of MiGs beingbased 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 GvlAPFagot-As intercepted a flightof North AmericanP-51 Ds near the Yalu River and Lt (sg)'2 Chizhdestroyed one of the Mustangs. Westernsources, however, deny the loss of any P-51 sthat day; moreover, the MiGs have beenmisidentified in some sources as Chineseones.

According to Western reports, the first jet­versus-jet battle in world history took place aweek later, on 8th November - and, as the read-

60 MiG-15

er has surely guessed, the reports state that theMiGs lost it. Western accounts of this battlevary, but a 'generic' description is as follows.That day the USAF had planned a major raidagainst Sinuiju and a bridge on the Yalu River.Prior to the main strike, P-51 D Mustangs andF-80C Shooting Stars attacked North Koreanpositions on the southern bank of the Yalu, withtwo flights of 51 st Fighter Interceptor Group(FIG)/16th FigHter Interceptor Squadron (FIS)Shooting Stars from Kimpo AB flying top coverat 6,000m (19,685ft).

Six MiG-15s (29th GvlAP aircraft led by CaptAfonin -Auth.) took off from Antung, climbed to9,000m (29,527ft) and engaged one flight of thetop cover F-80s. The American pilots turnedhead on, splitting up the attackers, then dived,trying to lure them down to low altitude wherethe F-80 could outturn the MiG. One MiG-15

Top left: Maj I P Golyshevskiy in the cockpit ofhis 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 metalfinish is prepared for a sortie at Antung in theautumn of 1952. Lt (sg) Iskhangaliyev is sittingin the cockpit. Yefim Gordon archive

went for the bait and Lt Russell J Brown, seeingthe enemy aircraft below him, gave chase. Theheavier Shooting Star dived faster and closedin on its quarry, and Brown ripped up the MiG'sfuselage with a five-second burst of machine­gun fire. Pieces flew off the MiG and it dived intothe ground, trailing smoke.

~----~=~--------~--------

Russian aviation historians and WS records,however, give a totally different account. Firstly,Western authors describing the famous battlerarely mention the fact that five out of sixmachine guns on Brown's aircraft jammed."This alone makes the 'kill' very doubtful indeed,since the MiG-15 has exhibited high resistanceto 12.7mm (.50 calibre) bullets; Sabre pilotssometimes reported that 'the MiG absorbed theentire ammunition supply and still got away'.While the 'entire ammunition supply' statementseems a bit exaggerated, it was certainly hardto shoot down a MiG-15 with just one Browning.

Secondly, Soviet military archives show thatno Soviet (ie, quasi-North Korean) aircraft werelost on 8th November 1950. Since Soviet unitswere the only ones operating against UN avia­tion at the time, Russell J Brown could not pos­sibly have shot down a Chinese or NorthKorean pilot, which means he did not shootdown anyone at all.

Still, Brown had reasons to believe that hehad scored a 'kill'. The most probable explana­tion is this. When Capt Afonin's flight made forhome, five of the six aircraft made a climbingturn towards Chinese territory. Lt (sg) Kharitonov,however, dived after an F-80 and was, in turn,attacked by Lt Brown. When he realised he wasunder attack he jettisoned his drop tanks andmade for home at low altitude (according tosome sources, Kharitonov's aircraft was hit butlanded safely at Antung).

Now the first thing a fighter pilot does beforeentering a dogfight is jettison his drop tanks.However, Soviet pilots in Korea started doingso only a week or two after they joined theaction - simply because drop tanks were inshort supply at first and the pilots were reluc­tant to jettison them. Lt Brown probably did notexpect his adversary to begin a dogfight withthe drop tanks still in place. When the tanks fellaway, streaming fuel, and hit the ground in acloud of dust and kerosene mist, Brown wasprobably confused and believed the MiG haddisintegrated in mid-air. Thus one can hardlyaccuse him of inventing the whole story; evenmore 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 moreinteresting statement. According to these doc­uments: on 1st November 1950 the unitengaged in two aerial battles, not one. Thereport reads as follows:

'Between 14:12 and 15:31 (Peking time ­Auth.) a flight of four MiG-15s (flight leader MajBordoon, wingmen Lt Khominich, Lt Sookhovand Lt Yesyunin) was out on a sortie to interceptenemy aircraft nearAntung. 25 minutes after theflight had reached the Antung area there werestill no enemy aircraft in sight and the flight wasordered to return to base. Two or three minuteslater the pilots were ordered by radio to headback for Antung and repel an enemy strike.Three MiG-15s led by Maj Bordoon (Lt Yesyuninwas Iowan fuel and had to return to basebecause he had no drop tanks) returned to the

Antung area. Following a heading of 1600 to1700 magnetic, Lt Khominich spotted ten F-80Shooting Stars in his left front quadrant. Theywere flying at 4,500m [14, 763ft] - four F-80s upfront, followed by a pair 800 to 1,000m [2,624 to3,280ft] behind and 100m [328ft] higher andanother four F-80s 800 to 1,000m behind thepair; the aircraft were in echelon starboard for­mation with 50 to 70m [164 to 230ft] intervals.Reporting enemy aircraft in sight, Lt Khominichmade a left turn and attacked the lead four F-80sout of the sun in a dive from behind. He shotdown 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-80sbringing up the rear which attempted an attackon Lt Khominich as he completed his firingpass, but unsuccessfully. As a result the enemyfighters broke formation and left the scenesingly or in pairs. '

Thus the first jet battle actually took place on1st November 1950. It is an honour to win afight with a new and potent adversary - andwinning on the very first occasion makes thevictory even more honourable. Small wonderthat matters of national prestige almostinevitably affect the facts (putting it mildly). TheWestern world probably regards 8th November1950 as the· day of the first jet battle justbecause Lt Russell J Brown was creditedwith a 'kill' that day (to quote Col Yevgeniy GPepelyayev who ranked second-highest amongSoviet aces in Korea, 'not everything that iscredited is actually shot down'!). There is noother possible explanation why the F-80 pilots'failed to notice' the MiGs attacking them aweek earlier (with the result that the ShootingStar became a Shot-Down Star).

Yet, if we are to be perfectly honest, we can­not regard Lt Khominich as the world's first pilotto score a jet-versus-jet 'kill' with absolute cer­tainty. The USAF acknowledges the loss of oneF-80 on 1st November but claims it was shotdown by AAA during the morning raid on SinQi­ju AB. The results of this raid were unsatisfac­tory, leading the USAF to make a second attackon SinQiju in the afternoon. As the F-80s mak­ing this second attack approached the target,the dogfight between Mustangs and 72ndGvlAP MiGs mentioned earlier took place.Since Lt Khominich made his attack after thisdogfight, the F-80 credited to him must be adifferent one.

Possibly the USAF chose not to acknowl­edge the loss of a second Shooting Star thatday for some reason, but we cannot say forsure until documents confirming or discountingthis loss are available. Also, the 72nd GvlAPreport does not say what exactly happened tothe supposedly Shot-Down Star; the aircraftmay have simply gone back south, trailingsmoke - and made a safe landing.

Thus the first confirmed jet-versus-jet 'kill'took place on 9th November, when the MiG-15had its first encounter with US Navy aircraft. At10 am eighteen 139th GvlAP Fagot-As attacked

a group of 20 Vought F4U-4 Corsairs andDouglas AD-1 Skyraiders bombing a bridgeacross the Yalu River near SinQiju. They wereimmediately pounced upon by the escortingtwo flights of Grumman F9F-2 Panthers whichwere 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 ofthe unit's personnel had been transferred to thenewly-formed 67th lAP; thus many establishedpairs (see tactics section below) had been sep­arated and new ones had not yet formed.

According to Soviet sources, in the ensuingbattle the MiGs destroyed six strike aircraft,three of the 'kills' being credited to Capt MikhailGrachov, Commander of the unit's 1st Sqn.Unfortunately, Grachov was killed immediatelyafterwards - he got separated from his wing­men and was shot down by Lt Cdr William TAmen ofVF-111 .

(It has to be said here that 'MiG-15 vs USNavy aircraft' statistics remain extremely con­fused. For example, there is no evidence of anyPanthers being shot down by MiGs, but theycould have been misidentified as ShootingStars in the heat of the battle.)

On'the same day the MiGs claimed the firstB-29s destroyed in the war. The heavy bomberswere considered priority targets, since theyinflicted heavy damage on North Korean andChinese ground troops. On 9th November, N IPodgornyy (67th lAP) and Maj A Z Bordoon(72nd GvIAP) shot down one B-29 each; Pod­gornyy also damaged an RB-29 but had tobreak off the attack when his fighter was hit andthe oxygen system damaged. (According to USsources, the MiG-15 first met the Superfortresson 4th November when four MiGs attacked anddamaged an RB-29.) The MiG-15's cannonsproved deadly for the B-29 and could literallyrip a wing off the bomber; conversely, theB-29's defensive armament was of little useagainst the MiGs.

The improved MiG-15bis came to Koreaalmost simultaneously with the basic MiG-15;the 50th lAD was the first unit to fly it. 29thGvlAP Fagot-Bs flew their first sorties in the waron 30th November from Angshan AB and hadtheir first dogfight the next day. Other Sovietunits which came to Korea flying the Fagot-Aquickly converted to bises (mostly Kuybyshev­and Novosibirsk-built), passing their old aircrafton to Chinese and North Korean units; laterthose, too, began receiving the new model.

Originally Soviet pilots had to deal with pro­peller-driven aircraft or early straight-wingedjets such as the F-80C (dubbed krest, 'cross',because of its cruciform shape) and the Repub­lic F-84E/G Thunderjet, which were no matchfor the MiG-15. The first encounter with theF-84 was on 21 st January 1951 when a flight ofThunderjets attempting to bomb a bridgeon the Hangan River was intercepted by six177th lAP MiG-15s. Capt M Ya Fomin and CaptAndryushin each claimed one 'kill'; the tworemaining Thunderjets fled.

MiG-15 61

Also, at first UN pilots knew almost nothingabout the Reds' new fighter. Western expertsdid know something after the MiG-15's Tushinodebut but dismissed it as 'Russian, ergo sub­standard', and there was hell to pay for thisapproach. Soon, however, the heavy lossesinflicted by MiGs caused the USAF to hastenthe delivery of the brand-new swept-wing NorthAmerican F-86A Sabre to the Korean theatre ofoperations, and things began to change.

The first battle between the F-86A and MiG-15took place on 17th December 1950. The Sabrecame out on top that day. Expending about1,500 12.7mm (.50 cal.) rounds, Lt Col BruceHinton (4th FIG/336th FIS) flying an F-86A-5-NAnamed 'Squanee' (49-1236I'FU-236') shotdown the first MiG-15 in Korean skies, a 29thGvlAP aircraft. The pilot, 50th lAD inspectorpilot Maj Yakov Yefromeyenko, was killed. Fourdays later the MiGs retaliated; Capt IvanYourkevich from the same unit became the firstMiG-15 pilot to shoot down an F-86 on 21 stDecember." Soviet and American accounts ofthat battle vary widely; Soviet sources claimthat three Sabres were destroyed and two MiGslost, whereas US sources state six MiGs andone Sabre.

The first 'big day for UN pilots' was 22ndDecember 1950 when the Sabres had severalskirmishes with 50th lAD MiGs. The sidesclaimed the destruction of five F-86As and sixMiG-15s; actual losses were one Sabre and twoMiGs. By the end of December the Americansclaimed eight MiG-15s shot down, with the lossof only one Sabre in 76 dogfights. While thesefigures are grossly exaggerated (only threeMiGs were really destroyed), consider this.According to Soviet sources, MiG-15 units lostthree aircraft in the six weeks before the Sabrecame on the scene - and just as many in twoweeks after that. The F-86 certainly did changethe situation in Korean skies.

The USAF noted little MiG activity in Januaryto April 1951. Consequently the F-86s wereshifted to strike duties, supporting UN groundtroops engaged in bitter fighting with the Chi­nese 'volunteers', as they were known (inreality, regular People's Liberation Army units).

The explanation is this. The first group ofSoviet pilots in Korea still had little combatexperience in the MiG-15, and individual pilottraining often needed improvement. It was easyto shoot down P-51 sand F-80s, but the F-86was a far more formidable enemy. Thus, know­ing their tactical disadvantage, MiG-15 pilotsoften turned tail when confronted by Sabres, asconfirmed by Col Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev. Still,one has to remember that the main objective ofSoviet fighter units was to neutralize USAFbombers; from this point of view, avoiding com­bat with the F-86 can be justified.

The fi rst stage of MiG-15 operations in Koreaended when the first group of Soviet pilotsleft Antung and returned to the USSR as a unitin April 1951. This first stage had been verydifficult, as testified by the fact that Sovietpilots were honoured with the HSU title, the top

62 MiG-15

Soviet military award, after destroying justthree or four enemy aircraft. The Order of Lenin,or alternatively the Order of the Red Banner ofCombat, was given merely for flying a certainnumber of sorties. However, because this firstgroup gained combat experience at a greatcost, pilots who replaced them had it easier.And the newer pilots were better trained, goingto Korea as volunteers with no illusions, pre­pared to confront an experienced and well­equipped opponent.

The Soviets rotated whole units into and outof combat at once. This approach had an inher­ent flaw; newcomers went into battle withoutexperienced colleagues beside them and'stepped on the same rake' (from a Russianjoke about repeatedly making the same mis­takes). Pilots who completed a tour of dutycould pass along their experience to newcom­ers only orally. There was a decline of MiG activ­ity after each turnaround of pilots, and oneconsequence was increased losses.

This rotation scheme typifies the way Sovietleaders, military and civil, approached anyactivity. If something did not succeed, shallowdecisions, often not touching the cause ofthe problem, were usually taken. If F-86s wona battle against MiG-15s, Soviet pilots andcommanders were blamed and replaced. TheAmericans, in contrast, rotated individuals, notsquadrons; experienced 'high-timers' coachednewcomers and protected them during missions.

Stage Two of the air war was characterisedby a major Communist offensive (Chinesetroops under Marshal Peng Te-huai advancedsouth as far as Seoul and recaptured it) andhence intensified bombing by the USAF. Thesebombings also served another purpose. In July1951 the belligerent parties began peace talks,and the systematic flattening of North Korea'scities and communications was intended toexert constant pressure on the enemy, tiringout the North Koreans and Chinese and per­suading them to give up the fight.

The second group of Soviet pilots sent toKorea at this stage was selected more care­fully than the first. It was formed in the autumnof 1950 and started towards Manchuria inNovember. The 324th lAD under Col Kozhedo­ob (comprising the 176th GvlAP and the 196thlAP) was equipped with experienced pilots whohad a lot of jet flying time (by Soviet standards)- also in the MiG-15; many of them were GreatPatriotic War veterans. The 324th lAD relocatedto Antung AB in April 1951.

The 303rd lAD under Maj Gen GheorgiyAgeyevich Lobov, HSU (later succeeded by ColAleksandr Koomanichkin when Lobov was pro­moted to 64th IAK Commander) was formed atthe same time. It comprised the 18th GvIAp, the17th lAP and the 523rd lAP. The 18th GvlAPjoined the action in early May, initially operatingfrom Antung; in mid-June the other two regi­ments started flying from the new airfield atMiaogow (other sources state Manpo).

303rd and 324th lAD MiG-15s introducedquick-identification markings (red noses and

fin tops). This was because, in the heat of adogfight, a natural metal F-86 could for a fewseconds look like a MiG and do a lot of damagebefore the MiG pilot realised his mistake; con­versely, there were cases when MiGs fired ontheir own aircraft, mistaking them for Sabres.(Not to be outdone, some USAF pilots paintedthe noses of their Sabres red, trying to fool theenemy into thinking they were MiGs!) How­ever, these markings were relatively shortlived,giving way to various camouflage patterns inFebruary 1952.

Now the domination of American air power inKorea was reversed; the MiGs seized air super­iority over the Yalu River area. Each time UNaircraft entered that area, they sufferE!d heavylosses.

True, the new group also learned a fewthings the hard way. The 176th GvlAP lost threeaircraft on its very first sortie. The 196th lAPcommanded by Col Pepelyaev was more lucky,losing no aircraft or pilots in its first skirmishesbut also claiming no 'kills' initially. Pepelyaevcoached his pilots harshly, so the old Russianmotto 'tough in training, easy in combat' wastrueforthem. As for the 'kills', these did not takea long time coming.

The biggest achievement made by the Sovietfighter units during this stage of the war wasputting an end to the daytime activity of B-29bombers. The Superfortresses suffered theirfirst major defeat on 12th April 1951. This is howhistorian Robert Jackson describes the day:

'It was a different story on April 12th when8-29s of the 19th, 98th and 307th Groups (40aircraft in all - Auth.) were once again orderedto attack the bridge at SinOiju, which still stub­bornly refused to collapse despite the batteringit had received. Close escort was once againprovided by the 27th Wing (27th Fighter EscortWing flying F-84Es -Auth.), which put up 39 air­craft, while Sabres of the 4th Wing flew topcover. With the target still several minutes' flyingtime away the bomber formation was savagelyattacked by about 50 MiG-15s which qUicklydestroyed one 8-29 of the 19th Group and dam­aged five others. This attack had scarcelyended when another was launched by 20 moreMiGs which sent the Thunderjets scattering inall directions as they dived vertically throughthem on to the bombers. This time it was the307th Group's turn to be hit. One of its 8-29sspun down to explode on the ground and a sec­ond was so severely damaged that it had tomake a crash landing at Suwon. A small numberof MiGs also attacked the 98th Group, whichwas bringing up the rear, but all its 8-29s camethrough unscathed. On the credit side theSabre pilots claimed four MiGs destroyed andsix damaged, while the gunners of the 8-29 for­mation claimed the destruction of ten enemyfighters, although the latter claim was in allprobability greatly exaggerated. The Thunderjetpilots also claimed three MiGs probablydestroyed. Nevertheless, the price of three8-29s destroyed - the one that crash-landed atSuwon 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 beingdamaged in combat on 12th April 1951. Theaircraft sits on a special 'beaching gear'; notethe red-painted nose for quick identification.Most MiGs damaged in combat over Korea werequickly restored to active status by thetechnicians. 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 JointChinese/Korean Air Army, including 518 Blue.Yefim Gordon archive

badly damaged was too high, and on General[George E] Stratemeyer's orders all further 8-29raids in the Sinuiju area were called off untilsome really effective means of escorting thebombers could be found. ' 15

Six months later, on 30th October - a daywhich came to be known as Black Tuesday, ­came a battle which completely changed B-29operations in Korea. That day a large formationof 307th BG(H) B-29s escorted by nearly 200assorted fighters made for Namsi airbase in theheart of 'MiG Alley'. The enemy aircraft werespotted by ground pickets, and forty-four 303rdlAD and 324th lAD MiG-15s scrambled to inter­cept. The pilots were ordered to destroy thebombers and not to tangle with the fighters if atall possible. Once again, the MiGs divedthrough the escorting fighters, causing them totake violent evasive action, and went for thebombers.

According to Maj Gen G A Lobov, the Sovietpilots destroyed twelve B-29s and fourThunder­jets for the loss of only a single MiG-15. (A morerecent Russian publication says ten B-29s andno MiGs shot down!) Also, many of the remain­ing Superfortresses were damaged, with casu­alties in almost every crew. (American recordsshow that three 8-29s were lost, four more weredamaged and forced to divert, and only onereturned to its home base; also, only one F-84is listed as lost. Two MiG-15s were claimeddestroyed by the F-86s flying top cover, onemore by the F-84s providing close escort, andthree more by 8-29 gunners.)

The 'shock caused by the Black Tuesdaywas so great that not a single USAF aircraftappeared in 'MiG Alley' for the next three days.A month later three 8-29s attempted a daytimeraid on the bridges across the Yalu, but all threewere shot down by MiGs. That did it - fromthen on the Superfortresses became strictlynocturnal.

Also during the second stage of the air war,Soviet fighter units encountered an adversaryother than USAF aircraft - namely Royal Aus­tralian Air Force Gloster Meteor F.8s. The MiG-15first met the Meteor in mid-August 1951 whenby pure chance a 303rd IAD/523rd lAP pilot,Capt G Kh. D'yachenko, got a twinjet fighter ofa type hitherto unknown to Soviet pilots on his

gun camera while attacking an F-86. It wasquickly established that the Meteors were flownby the RAAF's 77 Sqn which had been in actionin Korea since 29th June 1950 (originally flyingP-51 s and converting to Meteors in April to June1951).

The first battle between 77 Sqn Meteors and303rd lAD/17th lAP MiGs took place soon afterthis first sighting, on 25th August. Maj GrigoriyI Poolov, 17th lAP CO, and Lt (sg) Nikolay VSootyagin (who went on to become top-scor­ing Soviet ace of the Korean War) shot downone Meteor each. Generally the Meteors didnot stand much of a chance against the MiGs;by 3rd November 1951, 303rd lAD pilots haddestroyed 18 of them, after which the 324th lADpicked up where the 303rd had left off.

64th IAK Commander Maj Gen Lobov per­sonally prepared the operation aimed at takingthe 77 Sqn out of the picture. As he put it later,

'the Meteors as such had no major importancein the huge intervention force [in Korea] repre­sented primarily by the USA. However, inflictinga defeat on a US ally could have some politicaleffect. We decided to wipe out the Australiansquadron with one blow.'

To this end Lobov calculated where andwhen the Meteors were most likely to make amajor raid on North Korean positions. A for­ward command post was deployed near Anshuon the outskirts of 'MiG Alley' to direct 176thGvlAP MiG-15s at the Meteors. Lobov went togreat lengths to maintain security, telling 324thlAD CO Kozhedoob nothing about the impend­ing operation and personally briefing the pilotsjust two hours before the mission. 'Perhaps Iwas being a little over-cautious' he reminisced,'but I had my reasons. Anyway, this made for100% stealth and surprise. And of course, wehad a bit of luck, too; had the Americans begun

MiG-15 63

Gun camera shots from Capt"Soochkov's MiG·15showing a 8·29 under attack on 7th April 1951.Yefim Gordon archive

An F·80 and an F·84 in the sights of a MiG·15.Yefim Gordon archive

64 MiG-15

Shots from Col Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev's guncamera showing a Sabre under attack on 28thNovember 1951. Yefim Gordon archive

their attack an hour earlier or an hour later, thewhole plan would have gone down the drain.'

On 1st December 1951 a group of sixteenFagots led by 176th GvlAP CO Guards Col 8 FVishnyakov took off at the planned time andbegan loitering high over 'MiG Alley', waitingfor the target to come. Right on schedule, six­teen Meteors escorted by Sabres put in anappearance. Suddenly they found themselvesattacked by MiGs which dropped on them fromabove. What came next can only be describedas mayhem. Only four of the Meteors made itback across the Pyongyang - Wonsan line; theSabre escort was so shocked that it gave noassistance, and the attackers got awayunscathed. 'Considering the Australians' previ­ous losses, the 77 Sqn can be regarded ascompletely devastated that day', Lobov con­cludes. (Later Russian research, however,shows that the claim of ten Meteors destroyedon 1st December 1951 was grossly exaggerat­ed. Only three Meteors were actually shot downin that battle; Sgt Bruce Thompson and 8gtVance Drummond ejected and were taken pris­oner, while Sgt Ernest Armit was killed.)

The French magazine Le Fana de I'Aviationstates that after 1st December 1951 the 77 Sqnwas led by Wg Cdr Ronald Susans, suggestingthat the unit's previous leader Wg Cdr L TSpence was shot down (and probably killed) inthat battle. According to the sarne source, fromJanuary 1952 onwards 77 8qn Meteors wereused only in the ground attack role and did not

venture into 'MiG Alley', which is surely a fairindication concerning the unit's condition!

According to Soviet sources, 324th lADpilots shot down 13 Meteors plus one 'proba­ble'; another 'kill' was scored by a 216th lADpilot. On the other hand, by the end of the war77 8qn had claimed six confirmed MiG-15 'kills'plus seven 'probables'; most of these were JAAaircraft flown by Chinese or Korean pilots.RAAF pilots with MiG 'kills' include Fg Off BruceGogerly (on A77-15 'Elyana'), George Hale (onA77-851 'Halestorm') and Fg OffW Simmonds.In passing, it may be noted that one of theMeteors, A77-446 'Black Murray' flown by PIOKenneth Murray, probably holds the KoreanWar record, having flown 333 sorties..

According to Soviet sources, by the end of itsKorean tour (February 1952) the 324th lAD haddestroyed 207 enemy aircraft, 103 of them shotdown by the 176th GvlAP and 104 by the 196thlAP. The 303rd lAD destroyed another 303 UNaircraft - a nice coincidence. Thus Soviet pilotsscored 510 'kills' in less than a year of the con­flict. Soviet losses totalled 22 aircraft in the324th lAD and about 30 aircraft in the 303rdlAD, ie, about 50 MiG-15s. Thus, the 'kill' ratiowas 10:1 in favour of the MiG-15 with Sovietpilots during this period, if we count all UN air­craft shot down and not just F-86s. (The lossrecords of the UN forces indicate that the allieslost about 40 aircraft, not 510, during the firstyear of the MiG-15's involvement.)

The third stage of the Soviet involvement ranfrom January 1952 until the end of the Koreanwar. The 324th lAD returned to the USSR andwas replaced by the 97th lAD (PVO) under ColShevtsov comprising the 148th GvlAP and 16thlAp, while the 303rd lAD was succeeded by the190th lAD (256th lAp, 494th lAP and 821 st lAP).Though officially ready for battle, the 97th wasstaffed with inexperienced pilots. To make mat­ters worse, its debut in Korea coincided with amassive improvement in equipment and train­ing on the part of its adversaries as a result ofthe hammering they had taken during the sec­ond stage; for instance, new versions of theSabre were introduced (the F-86E in August1951 and the F-86F in March 1952).

The result was predictable: in March andApril the 97th lAD suffered heavy losses; theAmericans resumed massive raids on NorthKorean communications and other vital targets,engaging Soviet MiGs even over China. By Maythe 97th lAD had learned its lessons the hardway and was beginning to regain control, butthe preceding months of all-out combat hadovertaxed its resources; further participation inthe war could lead to high and unwarrantedlosses. Hence in July 1952, four days after re­inforcements in the shape of the 133rd lAD(comprising the 147th GvIAp, 415th lAP and726th lAP) had arrived at Antung and Dapu, the97th lAD was transferred to the second echelonof Soviet forces and relocated to Mukden.

The 303rd Division's 494th lAP was justabout the unluckiest of all Soviet units partici­pating in the war. On one occasion a group of

494th lAP MiGs was attacked by Sabres whilegetting ready to attack a group of Thunderjets;in the ensuing fight seven MiGs were downedfor the loss of only one USAF aircraft. By theend of the war, the unit's 3rd Sqn alone had losteleven aircraft and two pilots.

Additional Soviet fighter units - the 216th lAD(comprising the 51Bth lAp, 676th lAP and B7BthlAP) 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 theirlevel of combat readiness was also low. Con­sequently they scored fewer kills of UN aircraftand sustained higher losses than the secondgroup (the 303rd lAD and 324th lAD). Still,although with flaws, MiG forces maintained aneffective defence, and UN air power could notrestore the supremacy it had enjoyed earlier.

UN fighter-bombers flying daytime sortieswere one of the main targets for Soviet pilotsduring this stage. And keep in mind that USAFfighter-bomber units were now equipped withF-86Fs instead of Shooting-and-BombingStars. Combatting them wasn't at all easy.

USAF heavy bombers remained the othermajor target. Switching to night operations didnot stop the B-29s from suffering losses. Twoindependent fighter regiments - the 29Bth lAPand 351 st lAP - and one squadron in each ofthree other regiments (the 147th GvIAp, 224thlAP and 32nd IAD/535th lAP) were transformedinto night fighter units at this stage. Initially,obsolete piston-engined La-11 s were used inthe night fighter role but soon found to be totallyinadequate. Not only were they too slow, theirmachine guns were located on the upper sideof the engine cowling - with the result that themuzzle flash blinded the pilot for several sec­onds, causing him to lose sight of the target.

Maj Anatoliy M Karelin (351st lAP) becamethe first MiG pilot to score a night 'kill', shootingdown 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 whenKarelin could not catch up with a B-29 per­fectly illuminated by searchlights When flying aLa-11 was exactly what prompted the Sovietcommand to use the MiG-15 for night interceptmissions.

Contrary to Robert Jackson's claim, no 'MiG­15s equipped with airborne interception radar'were used on such missions.'6 The fighterswere guided to their targets by GCI stationsand then sought visual contact with the targetwith the help of AA searchlights. Pilots also tookadvantage of moonlight or exhaust flames,if any.

In addition to the B-29, the USAF madeactive use of the Douglas B-26C Invader lightbomber for night bombing raids. At least threeB-26Cs were reportedly shot down by MiGs,though Western sources deny the loss of anyInvaders in Korea.

Now B-29s were escorted by USAF Lock­heed F-94B Starfires and US Marines DouglasF3D-2N Skyknights equipped with powerful

radars, so that nocturnal combat was filled withdrama for both sides. The first encounterbetween the MiG-15 and the Skyknight tookplace on 3rd November 1952 when Maj Strat­ton ofVMF(N)-513 attacked a 133rd IAD/147thGvlAP aircraft, which he misidentified as aYak-15 (!), and set it alight. Of course, he wascredited with a 'kill'; in reality, however, the MiGpilot, Capt Vishnyak, managed to extinguishthe fire and bring the fighter home. The aircraftwas completely repaired and flying againwithin a few days.

Still, the first real night victory against a MiGwas indeed scored by a VMF(N)-513 pilot, CaptOliver Davis. On the night of Bth November heshot down Lt (sg) Kovalyov (unit unknown);Kovalyov ejected safely. According to USsources, Skyknight crews destroyed six MiGs.It is not known if any Skyknights were claimeddestroyed by Soviet pilots, though they niayhave been misidentified as F-94Bs (of which 13were reportedly destroyed).

Even without radar, MiG-15s were some­times guided by Gel stations so precisely thatthey accidentally rammed their targets. Forexample, on 7th November 1952 Lt (sg) I Kova­Iyov - possibly the same oneI - collided with anF-94B at 10,000m (32,BOBft) in pitch darkness.Both aircraft burst into flames and the crewsejected safely. However, American sources donot confirm this incident; USAF records list oneF-94B as shot down and two more as missing.

Maj Karelin's fourth B-29 'kill' scored in theautumn of 1952 also happened in highly unusualcircumstances. GCI guidance to the target wasso precise that Karelin's MiG-15bis struck theB-29's tail turret with its gun; fortunately, therewas no damage, but stealth had gone to thewinds. Then the B-29's tail gunner made a seri­ous blunder: he started firing wildly, unable tosee the MiG. Having identified the target by themuzzle flash from its tail gun, Karelin shot thebomber down at point-blank range.

After a massive raid on the Supung dam andpower station on 12th January 1953, a 20thAF/31 st Strategic Reconnaissance SquadronRB-29 (44-62217) based at Kadena AB, Oki­nawa, flew over Antung on a post-strike recon­naissance mission. Lt (sg) YaZ Khabiyev (32ndIAD/535th lAP) intercepted it and set it ablazewith his first burst. The RB-29 started fallingafter the second attack, and eleven of the 14crewmen bailed out. Among them were ColKnox Arnold, Jr., and 31 st SRS CO Maj WilliamHorl Bowmer. (USAF sources claim that the air­craft was shot down by AAA, not by a MiG.)

Speaking of reconnaissance aircraft, theMiGs managed to score two jet-versus-jet vic­tories as well. The USAF denies the loss of anyNorth American RB-45 Tornados in Korea. Yetone such aircraft was shot down over Antungby four 50th lAD/29th GvlAP MiGs on 14thDecember 1950; the crew bailed out and wascaptured. In April 1951 N K Shelomonov (324thIAD/196th lAP) flying MiG-15bis '231 Red' (c/n122031) seriously damaged another RB-45which force-landed near Pyongyang.

On one notable occasion in January 1953,Capt Yuriy N Dobrovichan shot down two B-29son a single night. He was awarded the Order ofLenin for this double victory.

Throughout the Korean War the MiG-15 wasupdated and improved. Some changes, suchas the enlarged airbrakes, RHAWS, new can­nons and gunsight, improved ejection seat andarmour protection, have been described in theprevious chapter. One urgent modificationmade in the first few weeks of combat was thereinforcement of the stabilizer tips and outerelevator hinges because the elevators buckledduring high-G manoeuvres (this even causedtwo fatal crashes in the 50th lAD). Some improve­ments were local ones; for instance, CaptSergey M Kramarenko, one of the Korean Waraces, installed half a pair of binoculars besidethe gunsight of his MiG-15 (!) so that he couldtell friend from foe at long range. (Twenty yearslater, in 1972 McDonnell Douglas introducedthe Northrop AN/ASX-1 Target IdentificationSystem, Electro-Optical [TISEO] on the F-4E+.'Ain't nothing new'?)

A few words have to be said about Chineseand North Korean MiG-15 operations in theKorean War. As mentioned earlier, the JointChinese/Korean Air Army (JAA) went into battleinmid-1951. Most Chinese MiG-15 pilots werenovices freshly trained by Soviet instructors.However, there were exceptions; some wereveterans who had fought against the Japaneseduring the Second World War.

As Soviet pilots noted, the PLAAF pilotsfought bravely but often grew careless in com­bat and consequently suffered high losses. Onone occasion they spotted a B-29 formationover the sea and took off to intercept it withoutcontacting the nearby Soviet unit and request­ing cover. The Chinese regiment CO leadingthe attack (his name is unknown) shot downthree Superfortresses, one after another, butwas in turn shot down by Sabres and killed. Hisaircraft lay on a shoal for several days until itwas recovered by a US Navy ship (which, inci­dentally, gave a cannon salute as it departedwith its booty).

Lack of experience led to many take-off andlanding accidents. Even worse, Chinese pilotsoften suffered G-Ioc (gravity-induced loss ofconsciousness) in high-G manoeuvres becausefood was strictly rationed, with the result thatthe pilots were chronically malnourished. Theoft-quoted 10:1 'kill' ratio in favour of the F-B6mostly reflects dogfights between Americanand Chinese pilots, and the latter can hardly beblamed for this.

PLAAF MiG-15s were mostly after the bombersand strike aircraft. In a meeting with Sabres,they had little chances of survival because thehastily trained Chinese pilots were up againstreal pros - experienced American opponents,many of whom were Second World War aces.On one occasion twelve Sabres lined upbehind eight PLAAF 4th Fighter Division MiGsand shot them all down; the pilots, to use acommon expression, never knew what hit them!

MiG-15 65

Not being encumbered by bans on flyingover the sea, the PLAAF formed a special unittasked with hunting US Navy/Marines andRoyal Navy aircraft, and it had a measure ofsuccess in doing so. On 26th July 1952 a flightof 'naval hunter MiGs' jumped four No 852 SqnFairey Firefly 5 attack aircraft from HMS Oceanand shot down two of them; a third was dam­aged but made it back to the carrier. AnotherFirefly 5 of No 812 Sqn from HMS Glory wasdowned on 6th February. Yet the lack of experi­ence among Chinese pilots led to losses evenin encounters with prop-driven aircraft. Forexample, on 9th August 1952 eight MiG-15sattacked a flight of Hawker Sea Furies whichfought back, destroying one MiG and damagedanother; the 'kill' was scored by Lt P Carmichael(N0802 Sqn, HMS Ocean). Five more MiGswere damaged by Sea Furies over the next twodays. On 10th September five MiGs attackedtwo VMA-312 Vought F4U Corsairs and shotone down but lost one of their own.

Still, the Chinese pilots were not as clumsyas Western publications may lead one to believe.Little by little they gained experience, and someof them even became aces. Wang Hai andChao Bao-tung had nine 'kills' each, Liu Mingand Fang Wang-chow had eight, and SunShen-ku had six.

The North Koreans did not fly the MiG-15until late 1952. Like the Chinese, they sufferedheavy losses, and the Soviet command soonrelegated them to the second echelon ofdefence in order to conserve valuable cadrewhich would rebuild the North Korean Air Forceafter the war. Captured USAF pilots noted thatgroups of North Korean pilots differed percep­tibly in training level; there were skilled airmenwhich the Americans were reluctant to tanglewith, and there were ill-trained ones which theyhunted and shot down.

Remarkably, the (real) North Korean AirForce was the only one in the world to havefemale jet fighter pilots. One of them, Tha SenHi, rose to squadron leader and was honouredwith the Hero of the Korean People's Democra­tic Republic title. On one occasion a group ofeight MiGs led by Tha Sen Hi acted with purelyfeminine cunning, tailing a group of Thunder­jets covered by Sabres across the 38th paralleland all the way to their home base. As theSabres, apparently oblivious of the MiGs,departed for their own base, the F-84s startedcoming in to land. Not expecting to see MiGsso far behind the frontlines, the Americansprobably believed this was a case of massdefection and did not open fire. When theyrealised their mistake, it was too late; the un­invited guesIs shot down seven Thunderjetsand hightailed it home at treetop level.

North Korean pilots also managed to score afew Sabre 'kills'. The squadron commanded byKim Di Sanh claimed 36 Sabres destroyed andten damaged; Kim Di San h was responsible forsix and one of these respectively. Cam DenhDec became the top-scoring Korean ace witheight 'kills' to his credit.

66 MiG-15

Regarding the question of statistics and 'whokilled whom', Soviet sources state that by theend of the war 64th IAK pilots - mostly flyingMiG-15s - had destroyed 1,106 enemy aircraft(including 651 Sabres) in 1,182 air-to-airengagements. Another 271 aircraft, including181 Sabres, were reportedly destroyed by theJAA in 366 engagements. The Americans claim954 Soviet, Chinese and North Korean aircraftdestroyed, including 792 MiG-15s (some sourceseven state 827!), but this figure is definitelyexaggerated.

The USAF recorded 'kills' by gun camera evi­dence only; according to K V Sookhov (HSU),this system was about 75% effective. Many ofthe MiG-15s apparently shot down in flameswere only damaged, landing at their homebases. For example, out of four 176th GvlAPMiGs reportedly shot down on 3rd April 1951only one was actually lost and the other threedamaged. Such aircraft were usually repaired­and possibly 're-shot down', and re-repairedand so on until finally they were reallydestroyed.

The Soviet side had a stricter system ofrecording aerial victories. Pilot reports werebarely taken into account. Confirmation fromground troops or civil authorities was requiredin addition to gun camera film if the 'kill' was tobe credited; material evidence, especially man­ufacturer's plates from the downed aircraft,rated even higher. If a UN aircraft downed byMiGs fell into the sea or outside 'MiG Alley' andcould not be retrieved, the 'kill' was often notcredited. (A possible reason is that Sovietpilots, too, received combat pay - 1,500 rou­bles for each 'kill' - and Soviet officials wereunwilling to 'squander the people's money'!)Even so, 'kill' statistics by both sides seemequally inflated.

Measuring losses is an equally tricky thing,and both sides downplayed losses. Americansources list 971 USAF aircraft lost in the KoreanWar to all causes (shot down by enemy fightersand destroyed by AM, and accident attrition),including 78 Sabres shot down in air-to-aircombat and 26 more gone missing. Sovietsources acknowledge that 335 Soviet MiGswere shot down and 120 pilots killed in action;the JAA lost 231 aircraft (though the proportionof MiGs is not known) and 126 pilots.

Fifty-two 64th IAK pilots became aces. Theymade up 15% of the 347 Soviet pilots scoring'kills' in the Korean War but destroyed 416enemy aircraft, or 37.6% of the total 'kills'. Bycomparison, 365 Sabre pilots ofthe 5th AF shotdown a total of 818 enemy aircraft. 39 of thembecame aces, scoring 305.5 'kills', or 37.3% ofthe total 'kills' scored on Sabres.

Twenty-two of the Soviet pilots earned theHero of the Soviet Union title. Oddly, manypilots who scored up to ten 'kills' did not gainthis title for some reason. A partial list of SovietMiG-15 aces is given opposite.

Other MiG-15 pilots who earned the Hero ofthe Soviet Union title in Korea but did notbecome aces were Maj Gen Gheorgiy A Lobov,

Maj Stepan Nazarenko (Deputy SquadronLeader) and Lt (sg) Yevgeniy M Stel'makh, whowas honoured posthumously for personalheroism (one 'kill' in 15 sorties)." Lobov gainedhis high rank during the Second World Warwhere he flew 356 combat missions, scoring 19personal 'kills' and eight shared 'kills'. He wasawarded the HSU title in recognition of his roleas 64th IAK CO.

Interestingly, Col Ivan N Kozhedoob, thepopular Commander of the 324th lAD, wasexpressly forbidden to fly combat missions inKorea (the Soviet leaders obviously felt theycould not risk losing him!), and Maj Gen Lobovrarely flew combat missions. Thus, the fourF-80s he shot down in 15 sorties when he wasstill 303rd lAD CO can be regarded as 'quite anachievement.

Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev had the best 'kill'ratio, or number of victories per sortie, 0.21. Onaverage, he shot down one enemy aircraft inevery four missions; by comparison, it took thetop-scoring ace Nikolay V Sootyagin six mis­sions to bring down one aircraft.

The aces also got shot down sometimes, justlike ordinary pilots. Lev K Schchookin, then inthe rank of Lieutenant Senior Grade, was evenshot down twice - on 17th June 1951 (bySamuel Pesacreta, 4th FIG) and 11th January1952 - and lived to tell the tale. On the latteroccasion MiG 'kills' were credited to Col Fran­cis S Gabreski (51st FIG CO), Maj William TWhisner Jr. (51st FIG/25th FIS CO), 1st Lt EarlS Payne (51 st FIG/16th FIS) and 1st Lt Thiel MReeves (51st FIG/25th FIS), but it is not knownwho downed Schchookin.

On 18th June 1951 eight MiG-15s led byCapt Serafim P Soobbotin engaged a group of16 Sabres. Shortly after shooting down the leadSabre Soobbotin was attacked by another F-86piloted by Capt William D Crone. After takingseveral hits the MiG's engine quit and the fight­er spiralled earthwards. Crone, however, wasnot content and followed the stricken MiG,hammering away at it at close range. ThenSoobbotin deployed his airbrakes; taken bysurprise, the Sabre pilot had no time to takeevasive action and the two fighters collided.(One Russian author describing the incidentclaims that Soobbotin wilfully caused the colli­sion in order to teach the insolent Yankee a les­son!).

Crone must have been wounded by theimpact and made no attempt to eject as hisaircraft spun into the ground, its starboardwing partially demolished. The damaged MiGstarted rolling uncontrollably and Soobbotinwas thrown clear of the aircraft, parachuting tosafety.

Not all of the aces survived a shootdown,however. Lt (sg) Fyodor Shebanov was mortallywounded by a .50 calibre bullet from an F-80and passed out, his aircraft diving vertically intothe ground, out of control. Lt (sg) V I Stepanovmade it back to Antung in his crippled fighterbut died when the aircraft overran due to brakefailure and burned out beyond the runway.

Soviet MiG·15 AcesEntries in bold type refer to aces who were killed in action.

'Kills' Rank Name Unit Position (where known) Sorties

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 Aleksandr PSmorchkov (HSU) 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Regt CO 191Captain Serafim Pavlovich Soobbotin (HSU) 324th IAD/176th GvlAP Regt Nav*Captain Lev Kirillovich Schchookin (HSU) 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Flight Leader 212

13 Captain Sergey Makarovich Kramarenko (HSU) 324th IAD/176th GvlAP Deputy Squadron Leader 149

12 Soochkov (initials unknown)NKSheberstov

11 Major Stepan ABakhayev (HSU) 303rd IAD/523rd lAP Deputy Squadron Leader 166Major Dmitriy POs'kin (HSU) 303rd IAD/523rd lAP RegtCO* 150Captain Nikolay GDokashenko (HSU) Flight Leader 148Captain Grigoriy UI'yanovich Okhay (HSU) 303rd IAD/523rd lAP Deputy Regt CO 122Captain Mikhail SPonomaryov (HSU) Squadron Leader* 140

10 Captain Grigoriy IGes' (HSU), 324th IAD/176th GvlAP Squadron Leader* 120Lieutenant (senior grade) Dmitriy ASamoylov (HSU) 303rd IAD/523rd lAP 161Captain PSMilaooshkin 324th IAD/176th GvIAP*

9 Captain Mikhail I Mikhin (HSU) 216th IAD/518th lAP Deputy Squadron Leader*Major NVZabelin 190th IAD/256th lAP

Captain Lev Nikolayevich Ivanov 324th IAD/196th lAP Flight LeaderCaptain Stepan AFedorets 32nd IAD/913th lAPCaptain NVBabonin 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP

IMZaplavnev

Lieutenant Colonel Grigoriy IPoolov (HSU), 303rd lAD/17th lAP Regt CO* 120Major Anatoliy MKarelin (HSU) 351 st lAp, Deputy RegtCO 50Captain Arkadiy SBoytsov (HSU) 97th lAD/16th lAP Deputy Squadron LeaderLieutenant (senior grade) Fyodor Akimovich Shebanov (HSU) 324th IAD/196th lAP KIA 26·10·1951 150Lieutenant Colonel SFVishnyakov 324th IAD/t 76th GvlAP RegtCOCaptain NMZameskin 216th IAD/878th lAPCaptain PFNikoolin 324th IAD/176th GvlAP

Boris VBokachAPNikolayevVMKhvostontsev

5 Lieutenant (senior grade) Boris AObraztsov (HSU) KIA (date not known)Major Nikolay IShkodin 133rd IAD/147th GvIAP*Captain Boris Sergeyevich Abakoomov, 324th IAD/176th GvlAP tCaptain Grigoriy NBerelidze 32nd IAD/224th lAPCaptain VPLepikov*Captain SINaoomenkoCaptain Gherman Timofeyevich Shatalov 303rd IAD/523rd lAP KIA 28·11·1951Lieutenant (senior grade) VI Stepanov 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP KIA 6-1·1952

AT BashmanVI BelousovGIBogdanovNIGherasimenkoSDDanilovGLKorniyenkoAMKochegarovVANazarkinNKShelomonov 324th IAD/196th lAP

* Some sources give different figures - 19 'kills' for Pepelyayev, 15 for t Abakoomov was forced to quit flying after being shot down by a SabreOs'kin, 14 for Ponomaryov, 11 for Mikhin, 8 for Poolov, 7 each for on 7th January 1952 and losing his left thumb which was hit by a .50 cal-Milaooshkin and Soobbotin, 6 for Ges', 4 'kills' for Lepikov and 3 for ibre bullet. Interestingly, some Russian publications refer to him as BorisShkodin. Stepanvich, not Boris Sergeyvich.

MiG-15 67

The situation in Korea was anything but calm inthe immediate postwar years, and the SovietMiG-15 units stayed there until 1954. Amongother things, USAF and Republic of Korea AirForce (ROKAF) aircraft intruded into NorthKorean airspace every now and then. Theseincursions peaked in 1955, resulting in severalclashes in which both sides chalked up a few'kills'. For example, on 2nd February 1955 eightNorth Korean MiG-15s intercepted a USAFNorth American RB-45C Tornado recce aircraftescorted by sixteen Sabres over the YellowSea. In the ensuing battle the Americans shotdown two MiGs with no losses for themselves.

To catch a MiGOf course, faced with a potent adversary in theshape of the MiG-15, the West was eager toobtain a sample for detailed examination, ifnothing else. The most desirable option, ofcourse, was to obtain a flyable example sothat USAF pilots could be trained in anti-MiGtactics.

The 'acquisition' operation was code-namedOperation Mullah. It reportedly gave the firstresults in July 1951 when a downed MiG-15was lifted from about 5m (16ft) of water off theKorean coast by Royal Navy ships. The aircraft,an early-production Kuybyshev-built Fagot-A,was handed over tb the USAF for examinationat Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (Da.yton,Ohio). However, ·this aircraft could not berestored to flying condition.

A year later another MiG-15 was located inthe mountains of North Korea in good condi­tion. A US Army team in a Sikorsky H-19 heli­copter was sent to retrieve it but could notextract the MiG in one piece. The team wasforced to 'dismantle' the fighter by means ofsaws and hand grenades (!). The pieces weresent to Cornell Aero Lab, Buffalo, New York.

The first intact Fagot reached the West on 5thMarch 1953 - the day Stalin died - whenPorucznik (Lt) Franciszek Jarecki of the PolishAir Force's 28th Fighter Regiment defected inhis MiG-15bis serialled 346 Red, taking off fromSiupsk and landing at Ronne airport on theDanish island of Bornholm. The West was notallowed to keep the fighter; after detailedinspection the aircraft had to be returned on22nd May aboard a Polish merchant ship. How­ever, two days earlier, on 20th May, another28th Fighter Regiment pilot, Podporucznik (Lt[jg]) Zdzislaw Jazwinski, defected to the samelocation in another MiG-15bis!

(It should be noted this was not the lastdefection. On 7th November 1957 a 31 st FighterRegiment 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 offeringa $100,000 reward and political asylum toanyone who would deliver a MiG-15 to the UNside. No one responded to that alluring offeruntil two months after the end of the war, on21 st September 1953, when Lieutenant Ro Kim

68 MiG-15

Suk '8 (who claimed not to have heard about theoffer, but collected the $100,000 anyway) flewhis MiG-15bis to Kimpo AB near Seoul. The air­craft (2057 Red, cln 2015357) underwentdetailed evaluation at Kadena AB in 1953,where it was flown by test pilots Tom Collinsand 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 AirForce Flight Test Center (AFFTC), put it, 'the tri­als of the Russian MiG showed what Chuckcould do. It was dangerous work, flying in thatbeastly weather. Collins and Yeager tossed acoin on the first day to decide who would flyfirst; much to Chuck's disappointment, Tomwon. We knew that the MiG climbed well but didnot know its service ceiling. Tom reached48,000ft [14,630 m] and got oxygen supplyproblems. When he landed we started thinkingwhat to do next. Chuck said he could go higherthan that. I said OK, providing I would escorthim in a Sabre and tell him to descend at the firstsigns of hypoxia.

We climbed to 51,000ft [15,545 m], whichwas as far as the Sabre would go, and stillChuck kept. climbing; possibly he was usingmuch less oxygen than Collins. Chuck reached55,600ft [16,950 m], and the MiG could easilyfly at that altitude. Jesus Christ, that wasamazing.

We quickly realized that the Sabre was amuch better aircraft, as it had better equipmentand armament. (While the equipment part istrue, the 'better armament' allegation is a state­ment open to doubt - Auth.) However, the MiGhad certain advantages: a better climb rate, ahigher service ceiling, quicker acceleration.After these trials we advised service pilots toengage the MiG at at least Mach 0.8, therebyneutralizing the Russian fighter's advantage inacceleration.

Many service pilots believed the MiG couldcrack the sound barrier. We decided to provethat it could not. Yeager accomplished this mis­sion, the most dangerous hitherto. I said: 'OK,Chuck, we'll climb to 50,000ft [15,240 m] anddive together. I will call out Mach readings onthe radio because our instruments may be moreaccurate.' We knew damn well that the MiGmight 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. Icounted on Yeager's instinct for danger. 'Chuck,this is again a great risk, and I won't blame youif you refuse. ' His reply was, 'No, Sir. What thehell did I go through all this trouble with the ejec­tion gun, then?' (Chuck Yeager personallychecked and armed the ejection seat, not trust­ing the mechanics at Kadena to do it - Auth.)

So we took off, climbed to 50,000ft and wentinto a vertical dive. The MiG started shaking likemad and the ailerons became totally inefficientat 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 [4,876m] and the aircraft leveled out at 12,000ft [3,657m] in the middle of a layer of storm clouds.We concluded this most dangerous experimentby landing together in pouring rain. GeneralCannon (Pacific Air Force C-in-C - Auth.) wasamazed that we managed to test the MiG thor­oughly in these appalling conditions. '

(NOTE: The above extract is taken from GenChuck Yeager's autobiography which he wrotetogether with Leo Janson (Bantam Books,1985). In response to this, Lt Col Stepan AMikoyan, Artyom I Mikoyan's nephew, wrote:

'I do hope that it was Yeager's co-author andnot Yeager himself who was responsible for thefalse statements [in this book]. After readingYeager's account of his flights in the MiG" 15...and Gen Boyd's story I'd like to make a fewcomments... I logged several hundred hours invarious versions of the MiG-15 and performed alot of test programmes; thus I am in a position tosay that most ofYeager's claims concerning thisaircraft are wrong. He writes that I asked him insurprise, 'For God's sake, did you really dive inthis plane? Every time its nose goes down myheart is about to stop. ' This is ridiculous; I diveddozens of times [in the MiG-15], including aspecial 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 thatno Russian test pilot ever reached that speed inthat thing'!)

There was never any loss of pitch control inthe MiG-15, nor any 'unexpected pitch and yawoscillations'. The ailerons did become ineffi­cient at critical Mach numbers, but this pre­sented no danger, since this was onlyencountered in a steep dive at full power. TheMiG-15 was fairly easy to fly and it killed no morepilots than any other fighter.

Our pilots never had any problems with oxy­gen supply at high altitude. Incidentally, GenBoyd quoted too high a figure for the MiG-15'sservice ceiling; in reality it is about 51,000ft(15,500 mY. ... The MiG-15 was reluctant tospin; 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 pilotmessed up the spin recovery procedure bymoving the stick in the opposite direction to thespin - which is exactly why we painted a whiteline down the middle of the instrument panel[for aligning the stick during spin recovery]. Ifyou did everything right, the aircraft recoveredwithout any problem; I did it many times. I readan American report about the F-4 Phantom'sspinning behaviour and realised that [the Phan­tom] was much more dangerous in this respectthan the MiG-15.

As for the warning not to switch on the emer­gency fuel pump because it could trigger anexplosion and tear off the tail, this is completebullshit. 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 hethink have thousands of ordinary service pilotsflown it for thirty years in many countries of theworld? In this connection I'd like to quote anAmerican pilot who had fought in Korea. Whenasked by the same magazine (Aviation Week ­Auth.) whether he'd like to fight in the Sabre orin the MiG-15, he said, "I'd like a MiG-15equipped with the gunsight from a Sabre". ')

According to USAF specialists, there wasnothing unusual in the MiG-15's structure - 'nomagic'. The verdict was that it was a well-builtand reliable combat aircraft but with no finessesuch as special fuel, new structural materials orother innovations. Western experts noted thatthe aircraft was lighter than contemporaryswept-wing fighters (35% lighter than the F-86Fand 47% lighter than the Hawker Hunter). Theyliked the neat weapons arrangement and easeof engine change but criticized the MiG's over­sized inlet, low rate of fire and lack of a gunranging radar which reduced the chances of a'kill'.

As the well-known aviation writer Roy MBraybrook noted back in the 1960s, for all itsshortcomings the MiG-15 made the Westrethink its approach to fighter design. TheFagot's high-altitude performance, excellent inits day, influenced the design of such aircraft asthe Folland Gnat, Fiat G-91 and LockheedF-104 Starfighter.

There were also cases when Soviet Air Forceaircraft (including MiG-15s) made emergencylandings in West Germany due to naVigationerrors. The first information on the latest Sovietaircraft often reached the West from Germanybecause WS units in East Germany were firstto convert to up-to-date aircraft.

To catch a SabreThe USSR was also interested in obtaining anF-86A, preferably a 'live' specimen, for muchthe same reasons. Of particular interest was theequipment associated with the Sabre pilot'sG-suit. However, there was little hope of cap­turing a Sabre. If the aircraft was badly shot upbut still flyable, the pilot would try to reachKorea Bay where rescue was guaranteed, andrecovering the aircraft from the sea was out ofthe question. If the F-86 was so badly damagedthat it came down on North Korean territory,'the wreckage told no more about the planethan the ashes of a burnt book could tell aboutits contents', as one Russian writer put it.

Offering a reward, as the UN side did, wasnot the solution. Nobody was going to wastemoney trying to corrupt American pilots. TheSoviet government seemed to guess that noone with common sense would fly towards theSoviet territory. What F-86 pilot would want to

F-86A-5·NA 49-1319 shot down by Col YevgeniyG Pepelyayev on 6th October 1951. This aircraftwas transported to the Soviet Union andexamined in detail. Yefim Gordon archive

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'i11951 a group headed by Nil W$ Director LtGen A Blagoveschchenskiy arrived in China byspecial order of the WS Coin-C. It includedtwelve 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 Blagoveschchenskiygroup', 'the Nil WS group' or, most often, as'Comrade Dzyubenko's group' because Dzyu­benko led it on actual sorties.

The mission of the Blagoveschchenskiygroup was to force a Sabre to land at a Sovietairbase. After a month's preparations the grouparrived in Antung and was seconded to the196th lAP on 29th March, 'borrowing' the fight­ers of one of the unit's squadrons. The unit'sCO Col Yevgeniy Pepelyayev was against theidea from the outset. '[Blagoveschchenskiy'spilots] started cajoling me, saying, 'We'll giveyou all the 'kills' we score', - Pepelyayevrecounted later. - I said, 'I don't need it. Andthere will be no 'kills'; you'll be lucky if youcome back alive.'

He was right; the test pilots were well-trainedbut had no combat experience and no know­ledge of tactics. The result was deplorable. Onthe very first attempt on 31 st May, twelve MiGsengaged four Sabres escorting a pair of B-29sover Anshu (now Anju - Auth.). In the resultingmelee one MiG-15 was shot down, MajPerevozchikov losing his life, and two othersdamaged by Sabres.

The attempt was repeated on 5th Juneafter several tactical training sessions withPepelyayev. However, once again the missionended in tragedy. On final approach to Antungin a strong crosswind Lt Col Dzyubenko hitwake turbulence from his wingman's MiG; hisaircraft rolled, struck the ground with its wingtipand overturned, killing him. This was the laststraw: the Blagoveschensky group returned to

the USSR. Some of its pilots, however, stayedin Korea and fought well (with proper training).For example, Maj A I Mitoosov, who wasPepelyayev's next in command, became anace and was nominated for the HSU title;Mitoosov eventually became 196th lAP COwhen Pepelyayev was promoted after the war.

The efforts to obtain a Sabre finally bore fruiton 6th October 1951, and it was none otherthan Pepelyayev who bagged the g~me. Theaircraft, a 4th FIG/335th FIS F-86A-5:-NA (49­1319I'FU-319'), was hit by a single 37mm shelljust aft of the cockpit that dart)aged the engineand the ejection seat. UnaQle,to eject, the pilotmade a belly landing on a, sand bank in themouth of the Chonchongi Rive,r 13km (8 miles)west of Pyongwong and':was rescued by aUSAF helicopter. The aircraft was recovered bythe Russians, delivered to),n.tung and sent toMoscow., ,

There the F-86 was exam'ined in detail by var­ious MAP divisions. Wind ~tunnel models weremanufactured and tested 'at TsAGI to investi­gate the Sabre's aerodyns,'mics and handling.The Mikoyan OKB studied the control systemon a special test rig. Elements of the Sabre's airconditioning system were installed in a modi­fied MiG-17 designated izdeliye SI-91 and testedat altitudes up to 12,OOOm (39,370ft). The gunranging radar was carefully studied; the resultsof this investigation accelerated the develop­ment of the first Soviet gun ranging radars (theSRD series). Other design areas, such as elec­tric equipment and structural materials, yieldedvaluable data forthe improvement of Soviet avi­ation technology and manufacturing standards.

The examinations were completed by earlyMay 1952, and ajoint MAP/WS report was sub­mitted to the Council of Ministers on 23rd May.TsAGI specialists noted that the F-86A handledsatisfactorily in all flight modes up to Mach 0.93to 0.94. Wind tunnel research showed thatMach tuck manifested itself at Mach 0.8 andelevator efficiency was sharply reduced aboveMach 0.9, necessitating the use of stabil izer trim.

According to TsAGI specialists, 'the aircraft'sgeneral arrangement and aerodynamics are oflittle interest, with the exception of: (a) ailerons

MiG-15 69

70 MiG-15

--

Above: Ro Kim Suk's Fagot-B (ex-2057 Red, c/n2015357) shortly after 'delivery' with 'MiG-15'nose titles and spurious markings with a SovietAir Force star on the fin.Yefim Gordon archive

Left and below left: The 'donated' MiG wasextensively tested by the USAF - first at KadenaAB, Okinawa, and then at Wright-Patterson AFB.Here, it is duly repainted in USAF markings withthe last three of the USAF serial on the fin andnose. Yefim Gordon archive

Below: The MiG's armament is being examinedby USAF specialists. Yefim Gordon archive

of relatively large chord and span ensuringgood roll control at both low and high speed;(b) large airbrakes increasing the aircraft's dragapproximately 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 weightand a lower engine thrust rating than the MiG-1S;hence, according to calculations, the MiG-1S isslightly superior to the F-86A in top speed at lowaltitude and markedly superior in rate of climbthroughout the altitude range. Diving speedswith airbrakes deployed are almost identical;however, in level flight the F-86A's airbrakes aremore 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 classby our structural strength norms. '

In essence, the MAPNVS report recom­mended adopting some of the Sabre's designfeatures for new Soviet aircraft. There wasn'teven the remotest hint at copying the F-86Acompletely and producing it in the USSR, ashad been the case with the B-29/Tu-4. This ishardly surprising - MAP and WS leadersagreed that, given the availability of the MiG­15bis and MiG-17 (and despite all their short­comings), copying the Sabre in 1952 waspointless. Besides, some of the F-86A's fea­tures (gun ranging radar integrated with opticalgunsight, large airbrakes, powered elevatorsetc) were then being introduced or tested onthe MiG-15bis and MiG-17.

At a late stage of its evaluation the captured MiGreceived full USAF insignia. The TC-prefixedbuzz number is said to denote Tom Collins, oneof the test pilots who flew the jet.Yefim Gordon archive

Not all Soviet military leaders, however,thought the MiG-15 was better. Lt Gen YevgeniyYakovlevich Savitskiy, C-in-C of the PVO's fighterelement, expressed his alarm to the Soviet gov­ernment regarding the condition and prospectsof the Air Defence Force after inspecting the64th IAK in Korea. At least twice (in February1952 and April 1953) he addressed the Councilof Ministers with an analysis of the 64th IAK'soperations, stressing that the MiG-15 was inef­fective against the F-80 and F-84 at low altitudeand inferior to the F-86NE at low and mediumaltitude. Savitskiy proposed the developmentof a special tactical fighter optimised for dog­fighting at low and medium altitude; quite pos­sibly his opinion did have an influence on laterfighter development in the USSR.

Meanwhile, things took an interesting turn. InMay 1952 one Vladimir V Kondrat'yev, a TsAGIemployee, wrote a letter to Stalin, proposing to'build the F-86A Sabre in quantity, retaining acomplete likeness to the original' (= copy it)with a view to 'critically amassing the American[engineering] school by improving this aircraftwith the purpose of modification' (! - sic). Hecited the Sabre's better manoeuvrability as thereason for this approach and concluded his let­ter with the generous offer to appear as chiefproject engineer for this programme.'o (Nocomment.)

Apparently the idea appealed to the 'Peo­ples' Father'. Kondrat'yev was given a group ofspecialists and started work at the formerSukhoi OKB's facilities (Pavel OsipovichSukhoi's OKB had been eliminated in 1949).The group later became part of the Sukhoi OKBwhen the latter was resurrected in 1953 andstarted working on jet fighters and fighter­bombers for which it is now famous. As for thereverse-engineered Sabre, it never appeared.To the best of the author's knowledge the cap­tured F-86A was never flown in the USSR, andits ultimate fate is unknown.

Good guy, bad guyNow we come to the perennial question:'MiG-15 vs F-86: which was better?' This issuehas been partly addressed in the precedingparagraphs. Seldom have two fighters so simi­lar in history and performance faced each otherin combat - in fact, so similar that there havebeen uninformed allegations that 'the Sovietscopied the Sabre'! (The alleged Soviet customof copying Western designs was a commonsubject in the Cold War years, but that is a sep­arate issue which lies outside the scope of thisbook.)

Both aircraft first flew in 1947 (the MiG-15 on30th December, the XP-86 on 1st October);both entered production in 1948 and were builtby the thousand in their home countries andabroad. Both fighters were developed intonumerous versions and served with the airforces of many nations, becoming true sym­bols of the jet age in military aviation.

The MiG-15 and F-86 were somewhat similarin general arrangement. They were all-metal,single-seat monoplanes with wings swept back35° at quarter-chord, swept tail surfaces andhydraulically-retractable tricycle landing gear.Both were powered by a single turbojet buriedin the rear fuselage, which was detachable forengine maintenance and change.

But here the similarity ended. The MiG-15was a mid-wing monoplane, while the F-86 wasa low-wing monoplane. The Sabre's wing tor­sion box was a rigid structure because themainwheels were housed in the fuselage, notthe wings; consequently, the wing drop prob­lem that plagued the MiG for a long time wasunknown to the F-86.

The MiG-15 had a higher wing thickness/chord ratio than the F-86; this differencebecame even greater when the F-86F came onthe scene. Early versions of the Sabre had lead­ing-edge slats for better manoeuvrability. Onthe F-86F-25 the slats were deleted and wing

MiG-15 71

chord increased by extending the leading edge6in (152.4mm) at the root and 3in (76.2mm) atthe tip (hence the term '6-3 wing'). Thisreduced thickness/chord ratio even more,increasing top speed by 10km/h (5.4kts).

Both fighters had a swept tail; however, theMiG-15 had cruciform tail surfaces while theF-86 had a conventional tail unit with low-setstabilizers. This difference was associated withthe difference in wing design (mid-wing vs. low­wing). The Sabre's vertical tail area was rathersmaller.

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 hada smaller cross-section and created less drag.All F-86 versions used in. the Korean War hadnon-afterburning engines, although waterinjection was introduced on the E to increasethrust. (In passing, it can be noted that theGeneral Electric J47 turbojet was extremelysmoky at high rpm, leading Soviet pilots tobelieve that the Sabre was equipped with anafterburner!) The water-injection method wasnot 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 hadconventional stabilizers and inset elevators, butthe E introduced one-piece slab stabilizers(stabilators) giving better pitch control. Thisfeature found its way to Soviet fighters only in1955 on the MiG-19S.

There was a striking difference in armament.The MiG-15 had a powerful battery of one37mm and two 23mm cannons. The rate of fireof the 37mm cannon (400 rounds per minute)and 23mm cannons (800 to 950rpm) madethem a marginal weapon against other fighterswhen handled by ordinary pilots, but experi­enced pilots like Yevgeniy Pepelyaev thinkthat, when used skilfully, the cannon batterywas good enough. The heavy cannons werereliable 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 aircraftcould expend their ammunition supply in 15seconds.

The MiG-15's durability and survivabilitybecame a legend in the Soviet Air Force. Theaircraft proved extremely resistant to 12.7mmslugs; MiGs came home with up to 204 bulletholes! In May 1952 a 190th IAD/821 st lAPFagot-B (688 Red, c/n 0615388) piloted by Lt(sg) Veshkin was shot up in a dogfight. Thewounded pilot flew 11 Okm (59nm) to his homebase and was almost there when the enginequit and the fighter made a belly landing 5km(2.7nm) from the airfield. The awed mechanicscounted 154 bullet holes; no fewer than 39heavy slugs had hit the engine, bending everysingle compressor and turbine blade, and stillthe engine held! The aircraft was back in ser­vice in eight days.

72 MiG-15

On 16th September in the same year a32nd IAD/535th lAP MiG-15bis (928 Red, c/n2915328) flown by Maj Karatayev took 119 hitsin a dogfight. 24 bullets hit the engine, punc­turing two combustion chambers out of nineand bending 16 turbine blades. The forwardfuel cell was punctured, the aft fuel tank explod­ed and the port airbrake burned away; thehydraulic tank was also hit, causing completehydraulics failure. Still, the pilot made it back toDagushan and landed normally; the aircraftwas rebuilt and flying again in 16 days.

In late November 1951 Col YevgeniyPepelyayev did a half roll to dive at a Sabre fly­ing almost directly below him and exceededthe aircraft's G limits in so doing. When he land­ed his MiG-15bis (325 Red, c/n 1315325) was astrange ~ight. The wing anhedral had disap­peared and there were pronounced creases inthe skin of both wings and the centre fuselage;Pepelyayev must have pulled more than 12 Gsas he went after his prey! Still, the aircraft hadstayed in one piece. The wings were removedand sent to TsAGI for analysis, and 325 Redreturned to service on 7th December with afresh set of wings.

Perhaps the most striking illustration (no punintended) of the MiG's ability to take a lot ofpunishment and still bring the pilot home - andof excellent airmanship as well - was the inci­dent on 20th June 1951 involving 176th GvlAPMiG-15bis '785 Blue' (c/n 0715385). SquadronLeader Capt Grigoriy I Ges' attacked a P-51 D atless than 100m (328ft) range. The Mustangblew up in mid-air and its port wing struck theMiG's tail, slicing off part of the starboardtailplane and jamming the elevators. At thatmoment Ges' and his wingman Lt (sg) Niko­layev were attacked by a flight of Sabres andNikolayev's aircraft was hit. Even though hisown aircraft was almost barely controllable,Ges' covered his wounded wingman until theywere out of immediate danger. Then he startedexperimenting with the controls and found thatby '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 hiscredit.

The F-86 also exhibited high resistance to23mm shells from the NR-23 cannons, but evena couple of hits from the 37mm cannon usuallydestroyed it. Maj Stephen L Bettinger (4thFIW/335th FIS), who was shot down on 20thJuly 1953 and taken prisoner, later said, 'Youhave to give credit to the enemy's 20mm and37mm guns. One hit from the 37mm gun canbe enough to take a wing or the tail off or toblow up the engine.'

The gunsight was of great importance forboth aircraft. The Sabre had an automatic sightlinked to its gun ranging radar, giving it anadvantage in adverse weather conditions andat night. The Soviet fighter also had an auto­matic sight but no ranging radar; besides, theASP-3N sight was troublesome, often failingduring high-G manoeuvres, so pilots used it as

a simple collimating sight. Working with thisdisadvantage demonstrates the high profes­sionalism of Soviet pilots who succeeded inshooting down Sabres in high-G combat.

The Sabre offered good cockpit visibility. Thepilot sat high and the large bubble canopy wasof single glass, with a simple frame. In contrast,the MiG-15 pilot sat low under a smaller canopyoptimised for low drag and high strength. It haddouble glazing, and pilots were constantlybothered by annoying reflections from thecanopy. The canopy was also prone to mistingbecause water penetrated between the two lay­ers of glass and froze at high altitude, makingthe pilot practically blind to the rear from wherehe was usually attacked by Sabres. All mea­sures taken by the Mikoyan OKB to cure theproblem, such as placing silica gel cartridgesbetween the layers of glass, were of little effect.Finally, the rather complex canopy frameimpaired cockpit visibility.

The MiG-15's ejection seat was reliable andno cases of pilot death caused by its failurewere recorded. But at first it had a considerableshortcoming: it could only be fired with the righthand. If this hand was injured in combat, thepilot 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 sideof the seat in July 1952.

As for performance, the MiG-15 had a higherlift/drag ratio than the Sabre (13.9 versus 11;the bis did even better at 14.6) and a higherthrust/weight ratio. Consequently the MiGcould outclimb the Sabre. At sea level, they hadvirtually the same rate of climb but, starting atapproximately 6,000m (19,685ft), the MiG hadan advantage and this superiority grew asaltitude increased.

On the other hand, the F-86 could outdivethe MiG because it had a smaller fuselagecross-section (thanks to the axial-flow engine)and a lower wing thickness/chord ratio, creat­ing less drag. Hence the heavier F-86 picked upspeed in dive more quickly and recovered withless loss of altitude. The increased thrust oflater Sabres gave them an advantage in speed;the MiG-15bis and F-86F had approximatelyequal engine thrust, but the F-86F was 35km/h(19kts) faster.

All F-86 versions had better horizontalmanoeuvrability because of their lower wingloading; the Sabre's leading-edge slats andlarge airbrakes helped a lot. The original Fagot­A's airbrakes were definitely too small. Airbrakearea was increased on the MiG-15bis, but thiswas not enough, as the Korean War showed. In1952 the Fagot-B's airbrakes were enlarged stillfurther; yet the MiG never reached the Sabre'slevel of efficiency in this respect. This was takeninto account when designing the MiG-17 andMiG-17F, where airbrake area was increasedonce again.

Sabre pilots were equipped with G-suits - aluxury MiG-15 pilots could only dream of; thiswas another reason why the Sabre could pull

tighter turns! True, the PPK-1 G suit was testedon the MiG-15bis in 1952 but never made it tothe 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 fromGen Chuck Yeager's autobiography in whichGen Albert Boyd describes the trials of the cap­tured MiG-15 at Kadena:

'There was a funny episode on our last day atOkinawa involving Chuck and two Air Forcepilots who had ferried the Sabre we used as achase plane from Korea. One of them, a Lieu­tenant Colonel, asked Chuck why we had notperformed a mock combat session between theMiG and the F-86. Yeager said it was pointless­the result depended not so much on the aircraftas on the pilot. The man did not believe him.Then Chuck offered him fly the MiG in a mockcombat session against the Sabre. The Lieu­tenant Colonel agreed; Chuck briefed him onhow to fly the MiG and they took off. Very soonChuck fastened himself onto the MiG's tail andstayed glued to it. Then they landed andswitched planes, and the scenario was repeat­ed; Chuck kept mercilessly polishing his oppo­nent's tail. When they landed the other manlooked very embarrassed. 'I had no idea that somuch depended on the pilot', he said. Chuckreplied with a smile, 'A more experienced pilotwill always get the better of you, no matter whatyou're flying. It's dead simple.' The manbecame famous in the Force, since the story ofhis dogfight with Yeager spread far and wide.Yet, he lost to the best pilot I have ever known. '

MiG-15 tactics in KoreaThe 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 pilotleft without cover was very vulnerable. A pairusually comprised pilots with equal tacticalskills, able to switch attack and cover functionsas per necessity. Full psychological compati­bility and a shared understanding of the logic ofthe 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 Sovietterminology, two flights, since the Russiansview a flight as two pairs). This was deemed asuitable size for supportive interaction in air-to­air combat. Starting in 1951, Soviet MiG-15pilots began to fly in groups of six rather thaneight at high altitudes - a tactic later adopted bythe 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 threesquadrons in a regiment relieved each other.When the duty shift received the 'ReadinessNo l' signal from the control tower the pilotswould climb into their fighters, ready to scram­ble. While on the ground, unit commanders

tried to keep the pilots sitting in their cockpitsas little as possible to save their strength in thehot, wet climate. Two sorties per day was theaverage for MiG-15 pilots during the KoreanWar.

In the Korean War, a Soviet squadron wasdivided into three groups for different tacticsand purposes: attack, cover (known in Ameri­can terms as CAp, or combat air patrol), andreserve. The attack group included at least oneflight and was tasked with destroying theenemy's main force. The cover group was toprotect the attack group and act as reinforce­ment in case of need; this made for concen­trated firepower when stopping a major enemyair raid. The reserve (one or two pairs) sup­ported these groups and repelled any freshenemy fighters trying to join the fight. If notneeded, the reserve stayed on the ground.

The cover and attack groups were usuallyarranged above one another. Separationequalled the vertical distance that the aircraftroutinely needed during a yo-yo manoeuvre;this facilitated coordination between thegroups. The same principle applied to thegroups of six MiGs used from 1951 onwards,with the attack, CAP and reserve functions filledby one pair each.

After take-off, the MiGs often loitered abovethe objective they were defending, such as thepower stations and bridges on the Yalu River.The MiG flights were arranged in two levels.GCI operators informed the pilots aboutapproaching enemy aircraft. The upper groupof MiGs moved against the enemy with theadvantage of altitude and speed. The escortingSabres would then try to prevent the MiGs fromattacking Allied strike aircraft.

The GCI alert system was based on ascheme tried and tested in the Great PatrioticWar. The main GCI station monitored the situa­tion by receiving target data from air defenceradars and called the alert when enemy aircraftappeared. Forward pickets would be deployedin the battle area to monitor the situation visu­ally and advise the MiG pilots of new targetsand/or threats.

After a fight, the results were analyzed inpreparation for the next sortie or shift. Muchimportance was attached to the analysis ofenemy tactics which frequently changed. Aftera period of intensive fighting the Americanswould take a breather to correct errors andwork out new tactics, and the Soviet pilots hadto keep up with these.

Unlike the MiG-15 with its air defence role,the Sabres were free to choose the time andmethods of their attacks, so the initiativebelonged to them. Interestingly, the Americanpilots felt that it was the MiG-15s that held theinitiative, since they operated close to theirbases, remaining behind the Yalu if they choseto, and could begin a fight with the advantageof higher altitude.

The strengths and weaknesses of the aircraftflown by the opposing sides determined thetactics. 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 aspiral, trying to gain an advantage in altitude soas to dive down on the enemy. Knowing that,USAF pilots tried to force a turning fight on theMiGs, using the Sabre's su~erior manoeuvra­bility. Another favourite Sabre tactic was to rollinverted and dive sharply when under attack.MiG pilots found it difficult to repeat thismanoeuvre because speed built up quicklyand the aircraft began experiencing controlproblems at Mach 0.92; the Sabre had a higherMach limit than the MiG.

The most common tactic used by MiG-15pilots in Korea was the hit-and-run tactic. Afterreceiving target information from a GCI stationthe MiGs typically began a head-on engage­ment. They usually had the initial advantage ofhigher altitude and used it by diving on theenemy at high speed, pair after pair. If theenemy broke formation and began defensivemanoeuvres as the first pair attacked, the sec­ond pair changed course and chose the mostvulnerable target. After attacking, the MiGsimmediately climbed away, using the speedgained during the dive. They tried to avoid sus­tained combat, but repeated the diVing attackwhenever possible. Success depended ongood timing and, when well-executed, thismethod made it hard for the enemy to counter­attack, since the Sabre did not have enoughthrust to climb after the MiGs. A variation on thistactic involved diving on the target out of thesun and exiting toward the sun after making afiring pass.

A tactic called 'roundabout' was used duringpoint defence of ground targets. Two pairs ofMiG-15s formed a circle and the pilots coveredeach other. There were two or three such cir­cles, one above the other, and the upper pairmoved toward the enemy. Sabres usuallyattacked the lower echelon; then, a hit-and-runattack was launched against them from aboveand the MiGs went into a new circle after break­ing off the attack. This tactic called for goodcoordination between the pairs.

A 'pincers' tactic was sometimes used. Twoflights of MiG-15s headed south on slightlydiverging headings at 10,000m (32,808ft). Theflights were separated beyond visual range, sotheir their actions were coordinated by groundcontrol. Before meeting the enemy the MiGsdescended to 4,500 to 6,000m (14,763 to19,685ft) and turned north, heading towardseach other. On the way back the flight searchedfor enemy fighter-bombers and small groups ofSabres heading back to their bases. At a pre­determined time a third flight (sometimes apair) of MiG-15s entered the 'pocket' createdby the other two flights and shot down theenemy aircraft. In some cases, this flight or pairhad the added purpose of covering MiGsreturning from a mission with limited fuel.

The tactic known as 'distraction' was fairlydemanding, and MiG pilots used it only aftergaining 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. Aground picket monitored the situation and gavethe OK for the strike group when the way wasclear. The distracting group could also engagethe Sabres as part of the main objective of airdefence.

The 'snare' tactic was an active method. TheSoviet commanders knew well that Sabre pi lotsdelighted in hunting lone stragglers or pairswhich had become separated from theirgroups, and they used this to set the trap.A squadron of MiGs formed a 'ladder', flying inpairs, flights, or sixes, the bottom one beingnearest to the enemy. This lower echelon con­sisted of separate pairs that acted as baitforthepatrolling Sabres. When attacked, the baitgroup turned tail and climbed away towardsthe other MiGs. The pursuing Sabres nowfound themselves at a disadvantage, facingattack from above.

The 'jaws' tactic was similar to the snare. Ifthe Sabres tried to climb after the MiGs actingas bait, the main group of MiGs formed a lad­der in two echelons, one above the other, andthe Sabres were attacked by the lower echelon.

74 MiG-15

The 'hit from underneath' tactic was usedagainst Sabres and fighter-bombers at low alti­tude. Pairs of MiG-15s flown by the most skilledpilots 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 mountainousterrain. These tactics required careful planning;every possible option had to be calculated.

The Americans, too, tried to set devioustraps for the MiGs - for instance, going on theair in flawless Russian, trying to give the Russ­ian pilots false instructions. But, as Capt BorisS Abakoomov wrote in his book View from aMiG's Cockpit, 'they could never duplicate IvanNikitovich's guttural bass. Every single one ofour pilots knew those inimitable tones. Thenthey tried false beacons - and also failed. Theyset the powerful transmitters of their ships to thesame frequency as our outer marker beacon inorder to throw the MiGs off course. Naturally,our instruments would give funny readings andwe were forced to navigate by the sun, flyingabove the clouds. The compass and the innermarker beacon helped us to avoid those trapswhen in clouds.

Knowing our daily routine, the Americanstimed their attacks to our meals, believing wewould find it hard to fly and fight with a full stom­ach (consider the G loads). Ivan Nikitovichresponded by also playing radio games with theAmericans, and with considerable success.The method was this. R Ye Milyukov, the [324thlAD's] communications section chief, set upseveral radios at forward locations for ground/air communication. Three pairs of MiGs wouldtake off, using the callsigns of the leaders oflarge groups to fool the enemy into thinking wehad 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 thatenemy 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 thoughhe could not actually see a single Sabre. Thenhe would order another pair to attack from rightetc, knowing that the Americans were listening.Ground control then told us that the Sabreswere hastily jettisoning their drop tanks andpreparing to engage the enemy, even thoughthere was not a single MiG in sight.

We then continued communicating with thethird pair which allegedly sees the Sabres jetti­soning their drop tanks and takes evasiveaction, preparing to attack them from below.The enemy is now frantic; the Americans'ground radars can't see any targets. Judging bythe Russians' talk, the attack was about tobegin; in reality, we - a mere six MiGs - were faraway and invisible to them. Thus, the enemy'splans were foiled without a single shot; theSabres would get low on fuel and head forhome in great confusion. '

Soviet pilots put the proximity of their basesto the Yalu River to good use. This enabledthem to save fuel at the early stages of the airwar. In contrast, the Sabres had already burnedmost of their fuel by the time the MiGs engagedthem.

Though USAF pilots were officially prohibit­ed from crossing the Yalu River, they often didwhen in hot pursuit of a MiG (such incursionswere known as 'Maple Special', courtesy of ColFrancis S Gabreski). In these cases the attackusually continued until the MiG touched down;then a kind of unwritten law took effect and theattack was broken off. In mid-1952, however,the Sabres started attacking the MiGs on theirairfields in China. Western analysts observedthat if the USAF had bombed the Chinesebases, MiG activity would have fallen sharply ordropped to zero, as shown by the way theAmericans wiped out the abovementioned 34airfields in Korea.

Left and opposite: Russian MiG-15s sent to Koreaseen before being repainted in Korean markings.Yefim Gordon archive

In early September 1952 the Sabres sharplystepped up their MiG base blocking andsearch-and-destroy missions over southernChina. It seemed that the spirit of noble air-to­air duels, Baron Manfred von Richthofen-style,was gone forever; the temptation to shootdown the enemy on take-off or landing when hewas vulnerable was too strong.

The Sabres patrolled above Korea Bay andthe mouth of the Yalu in pairs or flights at highaltitude. Their pilots had an excellent view of theSoviet airbases and the tell-tale dust cloudrevealing that the MiGs had started theirengines. After spotting it the Sabres immedi­ately entered a steep dive, cracking Mach 1 bythe time the MiGs became airborne, made onefiring pass and headed for the sea at top speed.Zero-zero ejection seats had not yet beeninvented, and a pilot shot down at a couple ofhundred feet had no chances of survival. Norwas there any chance of a belly landing, sincethe airfields were surrounded by hills. Nearlyhalf of the 64th IAK aircraft lost in September1952 were shot down in this fashion.

Lt (sg) Nikolay I Ivanov (133rd IAD/726th lAP)was one of the few pilots to survive such anattack - and possibly the only one to shootdown his attacker as well. 'Finding an answerto this Sabre tactic was extremely hard, andoften the only option for the Soviet pilots was tostay on the ground', he recalled. On 5th Sep­tember, Ivanov and his wingman were the leadpair of several MiGs lined up for take-off whenthe incoming Sabres were spotted, droppingdown on them like thunderbolts. The rest of thegroup immediately aborted the take-off, but thelead pair was too far down the runway and theonly way was up.

'j had one hand on the catapult when I tookoff, - Ivanov recalled. - I never purposefullystudied that trick, nobody even talked to meabout it, but when I heard them yelling on theRff, 'You're under attackl', and it was too late tostop-I'd hit the hills if I did, -I dumped my droptanks. Perhaps that was what saved me. Theguys on the ground told me afterwards that mytake-off looked impressive as hell. Well. ..I don't know. I was not impressed.

I was lucky; I was only hit by a single bulletand my wingman was not hit at all. We hadquite a bit of cloud that day, and as I brokethrough the clouds a pair of Sabres whizzedover me, heading for the bay (Korea Bay ­Auth.). And I shot down one of them - that's forsure. It was right over the airfield, and every­body saw it.'

For this action Ivanov was promoted to Majorand received the Order of Lenin. Incredibly,however, he was not credited with this 'kill' dueto lack of material evidence! The Sabre fell intoKorea Bay and the gun camera film was over­exposed, as Ivanov was heading right into thesun when he fired. 133rd lAD documents statethat virtually every man in Antung watched theSabre 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 sadlyfor the Americans. On 23rd January 1953 MajEdwin L Heller, the well-known CO of the 51 stFIW/16th FIS, was shot down over Antung by Lt(sg) II Karpov21 (32nd IAD/913th lAP) and takenprisoner. By then he had scored 3.5 'kills' inKorea, plus another 5.5 in the Second WorldWar.

Heller's shootdown had far-reaching conse­quences. As noted earlier, incursions into Chi­nese airspace were officially forbidden butwidely practiced; wing commanders pretend­ed there were no incursions and the Far East­ern Air Force (FEAF) headquarters pretendedthey believed it. Now there was no hiding thefact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff resolutionabout the Chinese border was being blatantlydisobeyed. To make matters worse, Heller hadbeen shot down before the eyes of the Chinesedelegation 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 COGen Glenn 0 Barcus arrived at Suwon, the 51 stWing's home base, and chewed him out.Mitchell, a Second World War ace with 11 'kills'to his credit, was thoroughly disliked by hismen, earning epithets like 'the maddestColonel of all'. One 51st FIW pilot said, 'Withsome officers I'd go to hell and back, but I willnot raise a glass of free booze to this one'shealth.'

Now Mitchell needed a scapegoat, and hequickly found one. Capt Dolphin D Overton III,one of Heller's wingmen, had scored at leastseven 'kills' (all of them in 'forbidden territory',ie, over China) and was unlucky enough to bethere when his squadron leader was shotdown. Mitchell vented his wrath on Overton,deciding not to give him ace status and limit hisscore with four MiGs. The higher command didnot agree with Mitchell; yet Overton was credit­ed with five 'kills' and kicked out of Korea.Unable to bear the insult, he resigned afterreturning to the States.

MiGs at work elsewhereApart from the war in Korea, the MiG-15 was amajor irritant for the West all over the world inthe 1950s and 1960s. It was a time when theEast and West expected the Cold War to turnhot any moment, and an encounter with theMiG-15 spelled trouble for any Western aircraft- military or otherwise. The MiGs mercilesslyshot down anything unlucky enough to becaught in the aiming reticle of their sights so asto obtain hard evidence of the Western imperi­alists' aggressive intentions.

Most peacetime incidents and shootdownsin which the MiG-15 was involved happened inthe Soviet Far East, a highly sensitive area withnumerous military installations, and the Balticrepublics, 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 1950when a USAF RB-29 Superfortress was detect­ed by Soviet air defences over the Tyumen'­Oola River in the Far East. Two 523rd lAPFagots flown by Capt S A Bakhayev and Lt (sg)N Kotov scrambled to intercept, attempting toforce the intruder down on their home base, butwere fired upon by the RB-29's gunners andreturned fire, destroying the aircraft.

1952 was a busy year for spyplanes andinterceptors alike, with no less than 34 incur­sions into Soviet airspace. On 11 th May 1952,a pair of MiG-15s intercepted a US Navy MartinPBM-5 Mariner flying boat over the Sea ofJapan, making six attacks but inflicting onlyminor damage. On 13th June, Baltic FleetFagots destroyed a Swedish Navy Consolidat­ed PBY Catalina flying boat which had beenpestering Soviet air defences for quite a while.On 15th July a USAF Martin RB-26 Marauderweather reconnaissance aircraft was attackedover the Yellow Sea. Sixteen days later, PacificFleet MiG-15s attacked another PBM-5 in thesame spot.

On 15th April 1953 a pair of Pacific FleetMiG-15s intercepted a USAF Boeing RB-50

MiG-15 75

reconnaissance aircraft near Petropavlovsk­Kamchatskiy. The intruder refused to obeyorders to land and opened fire first; the result ispredictable - the RB-50 was shot down nearthe village of Zhoopanovo and the crew wentmissing in action (MIA).

On 7th November 1954 an RB-29 enteredSoviet airspace over the Sea of Japan. TheAmericans probably believed the Russianswould be celebrating, full of vodka and out ofcondition to react; their suppositions werebadly misplaced. Two MiG-15s scrambled tointercept and attacked the RB-29 over Tan­fil'yev Island (one of the Kurile Islands). Thedamaged Superfortress returned fire and gotaway, crash-landing near Nokkegun village onHokkaido Island, Japan. On 22nd June 1955 aUS Navy (VP-19) Lockheed P2V-5 Neptune wasattacked and damaged by a MiG-15 over theBering Strait, crash-landing on St LawrenceIsland in the Bering Sea. According to somesources, the MiG pilot did not make it back tobase, running out of fuel and ejecting near thecoast of Chukotka.

On 18th April 1955 MiG-15 pilot CaptKorotkov shot down a USAF Boeing RB-47Stratojet near the Bering Islands. In July 1956 agroup of 7th lAD (Pacific Fleet) Fagots attackedanother P2V near Nakhodka, killing one crewmember. The damaged Neptune ditched in theSea of Japan and sank; the remaining crewwas rescued by a US Navy rescue team.

Not all such episodes ended well for theMiGs. On 18th November 1952 a fierce fightbroke out near Vladivostok in the Far Eastbetween four Pacific Fleet!781st lAP MiG-15sand three VF-718 Grumman F9F-2 Panthersfrom the aircraft carrier USS Princeton. Two ofthe MiGs were shot down, pilots Belyakov andVandalov went MIA. The pilot of a third MiG-15,Pakhomkin, was mortally wounded but man­aged to make an emergency landing on thecoast. The 'kills' were scored by Lt I D Middle­ton and Lt E R Williams; one of the Pantherswas damaged.

There was also a tragic red-on-red incident inthe summer of 1954 when a spyplane enteredSoviet airspace near Nakhodka and was 'paint­ed' by Soviet air defence radars. Immediatelyafterwards the intruder descended to sea leveland made for home, which the radar operatorsfailed to detect. Unfortunately, a group of PacificFleet/46th MTAp22 Tu-14T torpedo bomberswas returning from a training sortie at that verymoment - and by the greatest bad luck therearmost aircraft's IFF transponder was out oforder. The PVO officers decided that the intrud­er was tailing the torpedo bombers, and CaptPyotr Byvshev (32nd IAD/535th lAP) wasordered to intercept it. Spotting a 'twinjet air­craft of unknown type with no identificationmarkings', as he reported, Byvshev receivedthe order to fire and shot down the Tu-14 withhis 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 SovietNavy, was unfamiliar to Air Force and AirDefence Force personnel. Also, the starinsignia were barely visible, not to mention themalfunctioning IFF transponder. Incidentally,Capt Byvshev was killed in an accident soonafterwards, colliding with high ground in poorweather when returning from another sortie.Call it fate's revenge, if you like.

WS MiG-15s stationed outside the SovietUnion had their share of hunting, too. The mostpublicised incident took place on 29th April1952 when a MiG-15 - reportedly a 73rd GvlAPaircraft based at K6then in East Germany ­attacked an Air France Douglas DC-4-1009(F-BELI) over the Berlin corridor. The airlinerlanded at Berlin-Tempelhof airport with 89holes in the aft fuselage; fortunately, no onewas hurt. The incident caused internationalair traffic to West Berlin to be suspended for awhile.

On 4th June of that year an aircraft carryingthe US Supreme Commissioner in Austria wasforced down at a Soviet airbase by a MiG-15bis.On 8th October the same thing happened to aUSAF Douglas C-47 Skytrain flying over theBerlin corridor. An RAF Avro Lincoln bomber(reportedly converted for signals intelligenceduties) fared even worse. On 12th March 1953the aircraft was intercepted outside the Berlincorridor; ignoring orders to land, the bombertried to get away and was shot down, killing fivecrewmen and seriously injuring a sixth.

Soviet and North Korean Fagots were not theonly ones to fire in anger. For example, Alban­ian Air Force Fagots 'arrested and detained'two intruders in December 1957 - a BritishOverseas Airways DC-4 and a USAF LockheedT-33A Shooting Star (51-4413). The latter air­craft was never returned and was to become amuseum exhibit in Gjirokastra.

On the night of 9th September 1954 a Bul­garian Air Force MiG-15bis piloted by Lt IliyaYelenski shot down an unidentified aircraftwhich had intruded into Bulgarian airspace.The MiG-15's career in Bulgarian service wasmarred by a tragic incident on the night of 27thJuly 1955 when two fighters on quick-reactionalert intercepted an intruder. This turned out tobe 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 wasbehind schedule and the crew decided to makeup for time lost by taking a short cut across Bul­garian territory. Probably mistaking it for aUSAF C-121, the MiG pilots shot the Conniedown near Petrich with the tragic loss of all onboard.

Chinese MiG-15s were constantly in actionagainst ROCAF and USAF/USN aircraft.According to Chinese official sources, PLAAFMiGs destroyed or damaged around 200enemy 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, halfof these victories were claimed by AAA crews.

The biggest operation in which PLAAFFagots participated after the Korean War wasthe Taiwan crisis of late 1958 which almostresulted in a new major war. In the course of theconflict the MiGs fighters shot down or dam­aged 42 ROCAF aircraft, with the loss of 15 oftheir own. The Taiwan crisis marked the first­ever operational use of air-to-air missiles; usingthis new weapon, Taiwanese fighters shotdown four MiGs in a single battle.

Later, The MiG-15 was used for reconnais­sance flights over Taiwan, which led to moreshootdowns. Incidentally, the reconnaissancestreet was a two-way one. A number of Fagot­Bs were delivered to Taiwan in 1958-1991 bydefecting Chinese pilots, and many of theseand other aircraft obtained in this fashion wereused for recce flights over mainland China,masquerading as bona fide PLAAF aircraft. TheMiG-15bis was also used operationally by thePLAAF as a fighter-bomber - for instance, in thesuppression of the 1959-60 Tibetan uprisingand in the invasion of the Paracel Islands inJanuary 1974.

Czech Air Force MiG-15s also managed toscore a few 'kills'. On 10th March 1953, a pairof USAF F-84s entered Czech airspace aftertaking off from Bitburg AB in West Germany.Two 5. SLP (5th Fighter Regiment) Fagot-Bspiloted by Jaroslav Sramek and Milan Forsttook off to intercept. Sramek shot down one ofthe Thunderjets, the other got away. We'll letPorucik (Lt) Sramek tell the story:

'The shootdown occurred on 10th March atabout 1100. It was an ordinary training sessionand I was practicing formation flying and stan­dard attack manoeuvres with my wingmanForst, a young lieutenant, in the Prestice - Stod- Merklin area. We were flying at about 3,000 to4,000m [9,842 to 13,123ft) and the visibility wasgenerally good. Suddenly I spotted a pair ofaircraft heading towards us on the left at about2,000 to 2,500m [6,561 to 8,202ft]. At first, whenthey were about 5km [3.1 miles) away, I couldnot identify them, but they sure were not MiG­15s. At about 4km [2.48 miles) I could see theywere straight-winged aircraft; I thought theywere Yak-1 01 s (sic - probably Yak-11 s, sincethere 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 asThunderjets.

I called the tower, describing the situation,and said that I intended to attack. The radio wassilent for a minute, then the ATC officer beganissuing instructions how to perform the attack,reminding me to cock the guns, to get withinclose range before firing etc. I was worriedabout my wingman possibly getting separatedfrom 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 werealmost right below us. Apparently they did notsee us, as they seemed to be heading either forPlzen or for the local airbase. We made a right

tum to get on their tails, and then they spottedus. The Thunderjets began a defensive manoeu­vre, the flight leader breaking left and the wing­man right; we followed the leader. We hadevery possible advantage, since we saw themfirst and we were flying higher, which enabledus to gain speed quickly; thus we quickly gotinto firing position. I selected the guns, got thetarget into my sights, squeezed the trigger and- nothing happened! I had forgotten to cockthe guns!

I cocked them and lined up on the targetagain, squeezing off a burst. The shells hit theAmerican fighter's wing; the fighter rolledinverted and dived straight down. I climbed andwaited to see what would come next. The Thun­derjet did not lose control, it turned on asoutherly heading and made off, and I had nochoice but to follow. I got within about 300m(984ft) - closer than the first time - and firedanother 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 sawthe other [enemy] aircraft and was following it,but he lost sight ofthe target in clouds. Then weheaded for home. On the way back I remem­bered the Soviet fighter pilot [Guards Col Alek­sandr I.] Pokryshkin's24 words: 'Success inair-to-air combat depends on altitude, speed,manoeuvring and firepower'.

Until then I had been calm, but as weapproached the base I got a sort of nervousreaction. My hands started shaking and Imessed up the first approach; only on the sec­ond try did I manage to land.'

Almost exactly a year later (the exact date isunknown), Lt Zdenek Voleman of the same unitshot down another intruder, one of two un­identified multi-engine propeller-driven aircraft,in a MiG-15bis. (The aircraft were no doubtbombers, since they had a tail gunner's stationand a dorsal turret; however, Voleman reportedthat 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 reducespeed, and attacked. The tower was telling mewe were getting close to the border, and therewas not much room for doubt.

I ope'ned fire at 500m (1 ,640ft), breaking offthe attack at 100m (328ft); for a moment Ithought we would collide! (Subsequent inspec­tion at the airbase showed that the N-37D can­non had to be replaced, as it had overheatedduring that first long burst.) One thing amazedme. I could clearly see my rounds exploding allover the target's fuselage, yet the aircraft flewon; nothing happened. Then suddenly flameserupted from the aft fuselage and somethingfell off. I passed just 10m (33ft) over the target;I could see the gunner in the dorsal turret trackme with his weapons but I don't know if he firedor not.'

The burning aircraft dived into the nearestcloud 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; theintruder dived into clouds and was gone. Amassive search effort was mounted whichturned up pieces of metal from the damagedaircraft but no crash site. There was nothingelse to do but go back to the base, tune in toRadio Free Europe and wait. The 'voice of theenemy' reported that 'an American aircraft wasattacked and shot down over Bavaria by theCommunist enemies'. That said, it can beassumed the mission had been successfullycompleted.

Between 1954 and 1965, a standing task forCzech MiG-15s was to seek and destroy drift­ing balloons carrying reconnaissance equip­ment and printed matter. The total number ofsuch 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 taskbecause such a balloon'has a very small radarcross section and had to be acquired visually.Besides, the fighter' closed on the slowly drift­ing balloon at an enormous rate; the pilot hadtime to fire just a short burst, and then the shellsjust pierced the thin skin of the balloon withoutexploding. Finaily; the damn balloons took a lotof killing - they didn't burst when hit but deflat­ed slowly, being made up of several indepen­dent sections like an orange for greatersurvivability. The pilot had to expend almost allthe ammunition to make sure the intruder wasshot down.

Shooting the balloons down was imperative- for two reasons. Firstly, they could surveysecrets or deliver subversive Western literatureto gullible Socialist readers. Secondly (andeven more importantly), they presented a seri­ous danger for civil and military aircraft, espe­cially because the balloon's equipmentcontainer was painted blue for low visibility. Forexample, in the mid-60s a Soviet Air Force(164th GvORAP)25 Yak-27R Mangrove recce air­craft based at Brzeg AB, Poland, crashed aftercolliding with an unseen balloon near the townof Rademsk, killing the navigator and seriouslyinjuring the pilot. The cause of the crashremained a mystery until the accident investi­gation board found traces of blue paint on thewreckage - paint of Western provenance, aslaboratory tests established. On another occa­sion an IL-14P Crate airliner crashed after col­liding with a reconnaissance balloon, killing allon board.26

Occasionally CzAF MiGs had to stop aircraftfrom getting out, not getting in. On 19thDecember 1971 a 5. SLP MiG-15bis piloted byCapt Fiedler scrambled to intercept an aircraftheading for the West German border in an obvi­ous attempt to 'go over the wall'. The aircraftturned out to be a Zlin Z-226T Trener primarytrainer registered OK-MUA. Its pilot, LadislavBezak, had learned that his licence as an airlinepilot with CSA Czechoslovak Airlines had beenrevoked and things looked like he was going to

be arrested. 'Of course it was a risk, but a cal­culated risk, Bezak recalled later. Technicallythe danger was that the aircraft would be over­loaded and tail-heavy. Then there was the dan­ger of being shot down; there had been similarcases before and I had no illusions that thefighter pilot sent after me would not shoot. Andshoot he did.'

Having obtained permission to make a train­ing flight in a Trener, Bezak collected his wifeand kids and took off from Kladno airfield. Theheavy 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 tooslow to formate with it, and launched a red sig­nal flare, then fired a warning burst, hoping thatthe pilot would get the message and land.Instead, Bezak put his considerable aerobaticsskills to good use and started manoeuvring vig­orously.After more warning shots the Trenerdived into clouds and got away, landing suc­cessfully at Nurnberg. As for Fiedler, he gaveup flying after this incident and died of a heartattack before reaching 50.

Czech MiG-15s had their share of accidents,as illustrated by the 5. SLP. In February 1961 aMiG-15bis onQRA duty hit high ground inclouds while climbing to intercept an intruder,killing the pilot NadporuCik Jan Bednar. InNovember 1962 instructor pilot Maj VaclavDoskocil and Capt Vaclav JirlJ were killed in aUTI-MiG-15 during a weather reconnaissancesortie. After flying a circuit at 300m (984ft) theaircraft hit a hill while making an instrumentapproach to Plzen-Line AB, using the OSP-48ILS. 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!ehuman factor. Capt JirlJ had only recentlyjoined the 5. SLP and had not yet flown ininstrument meteorological conditions at Plzen­Line AB which is located in hilly terrain. What'smore, the instructor had decided to 'make thebest of a bad thing' and began an impromptuIFR training session in the middle of the sortie;the unit's CO had neglected to take over ATCcontrol when the weather deteriorated belowminima.

Another area. where Mikoyan aircraft haveseen a lot of action is the Middle East. EgyptianAir Force (EAF) MiG-15s first saw action duringthe Suez Crisis (26th October to 7th November1956). Great Britain was thoroughly displeasedwith President Gamal Abdul Nasser's indepen­dent political course; when Egypt nationalisedthe Suez Canal on 26th July 1956, this was thelast straw. Teaming with France and Egypt'sarch-enemy, Israel, Great Britain took action.According to the plan, Israel would start anarmed conflict with Egypt, then Great Britainand France would interfere on the pretext ofensuring the safety of international traffic in theSuez Canal and occupy the area. Stage 1,Operation Kadesh ('cleansing' in Hebrew), was

MiG-15 77

scheduled for 29th October to 1st Novemberand stage 2, Operation Musketeer, for 1st-7thNovember.

Only 69 of the Egyptian Air Force's 160 air­craft were serviceable at the beginning of theconflict. These included two squadrons ofFagot-Bs (about 30 aircraft, ie, half of those onstrength).

The MiGs drew first blood at daybreak on30th October, intercepting a flight of RAF Eng­lish Electric Canberra PR.7 reconnaissance air­craft and damaging one of them. At 0900 on thesame day four EAF de Havilland Vampires cov­ered by two MiGs strafed the positions of theIsraeli 202nd Airborne Division near the MitlaPass, killing 40 paratroopers.. Six vehicles werealso destroyed, and a Piper L-4 Cub liaison air­craft attempting to get away was promptly shotdown.

Soon after midday the attack was repeatedby two Gloster Meteor fighter-bombers escort­ed by six MiGs. This time, however, they werecounterattacked by six Israeli Defence ForcelAir Force (IDF/AF or Heyl Ha'avir) Dassault Mys­tere IVAs of the 101st Tayeset (Squadron)based at Hatzor. In the ensuing fight two MiGswere shot down; however, they succeeded inkeeping the Mysteres away from the fighter­bombers. The Israelis lost one fighter; its pilot,Binyamin Peled, became the first IDF/AF pilotto use the ejection seat.

(According to some sources, the Egyptianshad 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 QabritAB. Lt YosefTsuk succeeded in shooting downone MiG-15bis, but immediately afterwards 12more MiGs, including several MiG-17s,appeared on the scene and a frightful free-for­all began in which Tsuk's aircraft was seriouslydamaged.)

The 202nd Airborne Division became thesubject 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 threeof the attackers before MiGs appeared on thescene and ran them off. Lt Yallo Shavit scoredone 'kill' while Lt Yeshayahu Egozi shot downtwo Vampires.

At approximately 1220 on the same day CaptYaakov Nevo and Lt Yosef Tsuk had a dogfightwith seven MiG-15s between Bir Gafgafa27 andBir Hama with no losses for either side. Sever­al minutes later, however, they were attackedout of the sun by two more bises near EI'Arishin the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula andattacked. Nevo succeeded in damaging oneMiG-15bis but ran out of ammunition before hecould finish it off. The MiG pressed on towardsEI'Arish airbase but eventually ditched in LakeSirbon and sank; it was later recovered andtested by the Israelis.

At about 1600 six MiGs escorted severalMeteors 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 DassaultOuragans strafing an Egyptian armoured con­voy and attacked them, damaging both aircraft.One Ouragan force-landed in the Sinai Desertwhile the other made it back to base.

After the Anglo-French ultimatum to EgyptPresident Nasser ordered the EAF assets dis­persed to remote bases or relocated to Syriaand Saudi Arabia, and it was just as well that hedid. On the night of 1st November, Great Britainand France launched Operation Musketeer asplanned. RAF bombers detached to Luqa,Malta, and Royal Navy strike aircraft from thecarriers HMSAlbion, HMS Eagle and HMS Bul­wark attacked Egyptian airbases in the SuezCanal area. However, post-attack reconnais­sance revealed shockingly low results: thebases were almost empty. The Royal Navy hadmore success in the afternoon of 1st Novem­ber, destroying 27 Syrian Fagot-Bs and Midgetsat Abu Sueir which could not be flown out soeasily in the daytime; only four UTi-MiG-15sflown by Czech instructors managed to escapeto Hamaa AB in Syria.28

After that, EAF activity dropped sharply; inthe next five days the MiGs succeeded only indamaging two RAF Canberras and bombingBritiSh assault troops near Ghamil. They hadmore success on 6th November, shootingdown another Canberra over Syria. When theconflict ended, Egypt had lost four to eightMiG-15s shot down by the Israelis and anothereight destroyed on the ground. On the creditside, Egyptian MiGs shot down two Israeli air­craft, damaging two more and destroying oneon the ground. These unimpressive results areaccounted for primarily by the Egyptian pilots'poor training.

Interestingly, the Egyptians foresaw the pos­sibility of air strikes against their bases, for theywent so far as to build plywood mockups ofMiG-15s to confuse the enemy! It is not knownwhether any such 'wooden wonders' wereactually destroyed, but Western sources saythis ploy did not have any effect - the plywoodMiGs were given away by the lack of wear andtear and by their unrealistic positions too closeto the runway.

Six years later, in 1962, Nasser sent his MiGsto Yemen, extending support to the Republi­cans who had toppled the monarchy. GreatBritain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia supported theroyalists, sending their aircraft to Yemen, butthe opposing sides rarely met in air-to-air com­bat. The MiGs were used mainly in the groundattack role, and a few were shot down byground 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 AirForce against Israeli army positions. More than70 bises operated on both Egyptian and Syrianfronts. However, most of the Fagots that sur­vived the earlier conflict were destroyed on theground during this war, demonstrating to theworld the that Arab forces were weak and theirSoviet sponsors were throwing money away.

A few MiGs, however, survived long enough totake part in the next Arab-Israeli conflict in1973.

Soon after the Hungarian Air Force tookdelivery of its first MiG-15s they made theirmark, forcing down a stray USAF C-47 Skytrainat a Hungarian airbase on 19th November1951. The type was also used actively againstreconnaissance balloons; one MiG-15 was lostin so doing when it collided with its target.

Apparently the proximity of the West wasrubbing off on the political situation in the coun­try (and ultimately contributed to the 1956uprising). In 1954 a Hungarian MiG-15 pilotattempted to defect to the West but force-land­ed in Yugoslavia after running out of fuel. In asimilar incident in early 1956, Soviet Air ForceFagots based in Hungary were called upon tostop a Hungarian pilot from escaping to Austriain a stolen Tu-2 bomber.

During the famous uprising, part of the Hun­garian Air Force joined the insurgents led byImre Nagy. On 30th and 31 st October, 1956MiG-15s with crudely overpainted markingsattacked government/Soviet anti-aircraft artillerypositions near Budapest. Soon, however, allHungarian airbases were overrun by Sovietforces and the insurgent air arm ceased toexist. After that, Soviet Air Force Fagots weresporadically used to suppress pockets of resis­tance and stop any Hungarian aircraft fromfleeing to the West.

Nigeria was another country where theMiG-15 reportedly saw action. According toWestern sources, in February 1969 FederalNigerian Air Force (FNAF) MiG-15s and IL-28bombers escorted ex-Nigeria Airways DouglasDC-3s paradropping supplies to federal forcessurrounded by Biafran separatists at Owerri.However, considering that the only confirmedMiG-15s in Nigerian service were UTI-MiG-15trainers, this report was very probably a case ofmistaken identity and the aircraft in questionwere almost certainly MiG-17Fs.

MiG-15 operations in other parts of the worldcan be described literally in a couple of words.The North Vietnamese Air Force had a fewFagots by the time the Vietnam War began butthere is no positive evidence that they wereused in the conflict. Algeria used its MiG-15son a small scale during the brief tussle withMorocco. Cuban MiG-15s (of the second ship­ment delivered in 1962) were in action againstaircraft and boats used by anti-Castro groupsin the USA for inserting spies and saboteurs.

Afghan Air Force UTI-MiG-15s were occa­sionally used for reconnaissance and for strikemissions against the MUjahideen rebels in thelate 1970s and early 1980s. This was probablythe last conflict in which the famous fighterparticipated.

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 werestill reportedly operational in late 1991 alongside Czech Aero L-29 Delfinand L-39C Albatros trainers. No serial numbers are known.

ALBANIA

near Gjirokastra while in the middle of a routine training mission. Instead,they chose to defect, descending to low level and heading for Italy. Therethey were intercepted by an Italian Air Force/46° Stormo LockheedF-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 thetrainer came in on the wrong heading and narrowly escaped collisionwith some of the resident Aermacchi MS-339As, overshooting the run­way into the emergency barrier. The aircraft was later returned; the fateof the pilot is not known. Curiously, the unit has been quoted as the4020th Regiment but it is just possible that the unit had been renum­bered by then. Albanian MiG-15s identified to date are listed below.

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 stilloperational in the mid-80s. Unfortunately, no serial numbers are known.

The Algerian Air Force (AI Quwwat al Jawwiya al Jaza'erlya/Force Aeri­enne Algerienne) took delivery of its first·Soviet-built MiG-15bis fightersand UTI-MiG-15 trainers in early 1963, though some sources give thedelivery 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 stilloperational in Algeria as advanced trainers in 1984. Only one aircraft, aMiG-15bis serialled 6894, has been identified to date.

ALGERIA

Reported as operated by Air Force Academy at Kucove ASbut serial suggests Valona AS; see note on serials above.

MiG-15bis-style airbrakes.

Remarks

MiG-15 (F-2?)MiG-15 (F-2?)MiG-15 (F-2?)UTI-MiG-15MiG-15 (F-2?)FT-2FT-2MiG-15 (F-2?)MiG-15 (F-2?)FT-2UTI-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?)

Version

5-40 MiG-15 (F-2?)5-86 MiG-15 (F-2?)5-91 MiG-15 (F-2?)

731151192565223-263-385-065-085-115-125-145-155·165-185-245-32

SerialAvailable information on MiG-15 operations in this country is highly con­tradictory. Deliveries of Soviet-built MiG-15s to the Albanian People'sRepublic 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 Valonaairbase. About the same time, several UTI-MiG-15s were delivered. (Insome sources the Albanian name has been rendered as AviacioneUshtarak Shquipetare or as Forcat Ushtarake Ajore Shquipetare.)

When Albania severed diplomatic relations with the USSR in 1962 dueto a disagreement over the Marxist doctrine and went into self-imposedpolitical isolation, China was left as its only ally. Hence in 1964 Albaniabegan receiving spares for the Soviet-supplied MiG-15s, later augment­ed by ex-Chinese F-2s (MiG-15bises) and FT-2s (UTI-MiG-15s). TheFagots were later relegated to the fighter-bomber role. According to theEuromil - Military Air Arms in Europe handbook, 26 MiG-15s/F-2s werestill operational in 1995, including 12 with the 5818th Regiment at ValonaAS, but other available sources fail to confirm this.

Twelve assorted Midgets - four Soviet-built UTI-M iG-15s, four CS-1 02sand four Shenyang FT-2s - were operated by 1875th Regt!1 st Sqn atKucove 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 ofTirana. The Midgets are the next step after primary training on the Nan­chang CJ-6, a Chinese development of the Yakovlev Yak-18A primarytrainer. According to Air International/December 1992, however, thesethree units had four, four and twelve aircraft respectively, which makestwenty!

(NOTE: The same feature in Air International indicates that the first 18bises were delivered on 31 st January 1955, followed by a further eight inApril 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 airforces in Flight International, however, shows that only six Fagot-Ss andsix 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 adash; 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 underway 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 twopilots from Rinas AS (other sources say Kucove AS) defected in theirFT-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

MiG-15 79

80 MiG-15

5-32, an ex-Chinese MiG-15bis (so-called F-2)operated by the Albanian Air Force Academy atKucove AB near Berat. AIR International

5-11, a Shenyang JJ-2, also with the Albanian AirForce Academy. AIR International

An Algerian Air Force Fagot-B.Yefim Gordon archive

202 Red, a Bulgarian Air Force UTI-MiG-15preserved at Graf Ignatiev AB in Plovdiv, incompany with two Yak-23s and a Li-2.Morse Stanley

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

AUSTRALIA . . _ :.. =::.: :. '::'u u _ ~ u ~ ~ ~~~, ~ ~ ~ un

According to the Euromi/ handbook, in 1995 Armenia operated 20 UTI­MiG-15s inherited from the Soviet Air Force.

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

Serial Cln Version Remarks

26 7 MiG-1565 Blue 7 MiG-15 Graf Ignatiev AB.015 7 MiG-15017 MiG-15072 7 MiG-15bis Coded D- Dobrich AS7103 Red ? UTI-MiG-15 Dobrich AB.104 7 MiG-15109 MiG-15113 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Bulgarian AF Academy Museum

(Dolna Metropoliya AS, Pleven).123 White UTI-MiG-15 Camouflaged; coded D- Dobrich AS7169 Red MiG-15bis Dobrich AB.181 Red MiG-15bis Dobrich AS.202 Red UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Bulgarian AF Museum

(Graf Ignatiev AB, Plovdiv).221 MiG-15 Preserved Dobroslavtsi AS museum.1025 UTI-MiG-15 Derelict Varna.not known 922520 UTI-MiG-15 Ex-Czech Air Force 2520.

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 ofPrince Norodom Sihanouk and used operationally against the KhmerRouge guerrillas during the long and bloody civil war in that country.Eight F-2s were reportedly on strength in 1967. All of them weredestroyed in the war.

. ...CAMBO~IA (KAMPUCHEA)

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 operationalfor 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 andnine MiG-15s took part in a flypast over Sofia, as if to underscore that oldequipment was giving way to new aircraft.

The MiGs equipped two fighter regiments based in Plovdiv (the 19thlAP (Iztrebite/en Aviopo/k) at Graf Ignatiev AB) and Tolbukhin (DobrichAB). 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 wereconverted to UTI-MiG-15 standard in the 1960s and 1970s but· retainedpart of the original armament.

With the advent of more advanced fighters, such as the MiG-19 andMiG-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 operatedby the Bulgarian Air Force's training centre at Pleven (Dolna MetropoliyaAB) known as the G Bienkowski Aviation Academy until 1990. In their lat­ter days the Bulgarian Midgets received a three-tone tactical camouflageand the new BWS roundels in lieu of the socialist-era star markings.Known aircraft are listed below, with the colour of the serial indicatedwhere known.

Ex-PWL 906. Owned by Randal WMacFarlane (Brisbane, Qld, dId 3-89), laterGreg Lovett (Melbourne, Vic.), did 23-6-92.Ex-PWL 607. Owned by Randal WMacFarlane (did 3-89), later FWPike(Sydney-Bankstown, NSW), then HockeyTreloar, flf 4-91 as 'PWL 60T.Ex-PWL 782. Czech-built (CS-1 02).Ex-PWL 3804, converted MiG-15bis. Ownedby Randal WMacFarlane (did 3-89), laterBarry Batagol and Bruce Alexander(Melbourne, Vic., did 18-1-91), then BarryHempel and Greg Schweikert (Archerfield,Qld, did 14-3-95). Named 'No Fear'.Ex-PWL 126, Kuybyshev-built. Owned by RayREkinci (Bankstown, NSW), flf in Australia24-11-96.Ex-PWL 777, converted CS-1 02. Owned byRandal WMacFarlane (did 1989), laterHockey Treloar, stored pending restoration.Ex-PWL 636. Owned by Randal WMacFarlane (did 3-89), later Hockey Treloar,stored pending restoration.Ex-PWL 015. Owned by Randal WMacFarlane (did 3-89), later Gordon Glynn(Sydney-Bankstown, Qld., did 18-1-91), flf14-3-92 as 'PWL 6015'; crashed nearCanberra 13-3-93.Ex-PWL 216, Khar'kov-built. Ex-The FighterCollection (Duxford, UK), owned by MikeKelly (Mosgiel, NSW); transferred to theNew Zealand register as ZK-MIG.Ex-PWL 2782. Czech-built (CS-1 02)7 Ownedby Randal WMacFarlane (did 1989), laterGeoff Milne and John Raynor (Melbourne,Vic.), still later John Weymouth (Darwin, NT,did 8-89; flf Essendon 1-11-90). Displayed atFighter 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 WMacFarlane (did 1989), later Ray REkinci,then Kay Williamson (Sydney, NSW).

RemarksVersion

SBLim-2

SBLim-2

SBLim-2

7127827 UTI-MiG-15

26016 UTI-MiG-15

1A06-036 SBLim-2A

1A 06-015 SBLim-2A

712777 'SBLim-2'

10926 UTI-MiG-15

712782 UTI-MiG-153804 'SBLim-2'

1A06-007 SBLim-2A

1A 09-0067

VH- ...

VH-...

VH-NZM

VH-XIG

VH- ...

VH-LKW

VH-LSN

VH-EKI

VH-LJP

VH-BPG

VH-ADY

VH-BVXVH-DIE

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 thefuselage as well as on the fin) but with the post-1955 tactical code '15 White'. Moreover, theaircraft has twin narrow red stripes on the forward fuselage and proudly wears Air BP stickersand 'Hempels Aviation - Archerfield' titles. VH-XIG was likewise 'Soviet Air Force 15', whileKhar'kov-built VH-NZM was painted up as Soviet AF '501' to suggest it was aKuybyshev-builtexample (c/n 10501; see Soviet section/501 Y!).

CHIN~ (PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)

The first Soviet jet fighters were delivered to China in 1950. These wereYak-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 MinTaie-Fang-Tsun Pu-tai) in repelling Taiwanese air raids. One aircraft was

82 MiG-15

With an improbably camouflaged Mi-24V Hind-Eas a backdrop, this Soviet-built MiG-15 (calledJ-2 by the Chinese) is seen at the PLAAF Museumin Datangshan. The two upper characters on thenose read 'Chung Kuo' (China). Keith Dexter

A Soviet-built MiG-15bis (J-2) on display in theChinese Army museum (Peking) illustrates thefinish worn by most PLAAF Fagots. Keith Dexter

After the 1979 brush with Vietnam, China startedexperimenting with various camouflagepatterns. MiG-15bis '6273 Red', one of severalpreserved at Datangshan, wears a three-toneblue/ white splinter scheme. FeW Kasmann

A different disruptive camouflage is illustratedby MiG-15bis '4195 Red', another Datangshanexhibit. The aircraft has a rather chippedappearance after sitting in the open for yearsand the serial and national insignia have all butdisappeared. FeW Kasmann

MiG-15 83

lost in an accident at Hsuichow AB on 29th March 1950. When the unitmoved 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 thewar was 'in full burner'. Conversion training in the USSR took some timeand 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 theUSSR; these deliveries continued after the war. Initially, the UTI-MiG-15was also supplied by the USSR before entering licence production inShenyang as the JJ-2.

As the MiG-17 (J-5) became the PlAAF's main tactical fighter, allsurviving bises (known locally as J-2s) were converted into fighter­bombers in the early 1960s. At the time, more than 200 were still inservice. Some J-2s were sold on to other nations (notably Albania) andby 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:

CUBA

CONGO·BRAZZAVILLE

In late 1991 the Congo Air Force (Force Aerienne Congolaise) report­edly had a single UTI-MiG-15 used for training MiG-17F pilots.

Preserved Datangshan museum, tan/foliagegreen/olive drab camouflage, serialobliterated.Preserved Datangshan museum.

Unconfirmed (drawing only).Mottled green camouflage, Joint Air Army(Korean War).Preserved Datangshan museum, serialobliterated.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 notmake sense.Sold to the USNprivate owner as N7013N;c/n reported as 81676 but this does notmake sense.Sold to the USNprivate owner.Reportedly sold to the USA/private owner asN87GN,Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur.Sold to the USNEAA Aviation Genter asN15MG.Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur; c/n alsoreported as 2292. Sold to the USNprivateowner as N90589,PLANAF. Sold to the USA/private owner 3-93as N996.PLANAF. Sold to the USNpvt owner 10-86 asN90601.PLANAF. Sold to the USNprivate owner 3·87.PLANAF. Sold to the USNprivate owner 1986.

Preserved Datangshan museum, darkblue/pale blue/white splinter camouflage.

JJ-2MiG-15bis (J-2)MiG-15bis (J-2)

JJ-2

JJ-2MiG-15bis (J-2)MiG-15bis (J-2)

JJ-2JJ-2MiG-15bis (J-2)

MiG-15bis (J-2)

JJ·2

JJ-2JJ-2MiG-15bis (J-2)

83238 Red JJ-283277 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)?

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 137077 MiG-15bis (J-2)not known 137085 MiG-15bis (J-2)

'The meaning of PLAAF serials is obscure, but in the case of five-digit serials the first two digitsmay be adefence district code, the fourth digit aunit code within the district, while the third andfifth digits make up the individual number of the aircraft in the unit.

Deliveries of aircraft from the USSR to Cuba began after Fidel CastroRuz came to power. Cuba was one of the first foreign operators of theMiG-15bis; according to some sources, the Cuban Air Force (FAR ­Fuerza Aerea Revolucionaria) received 12 Czech-built Fagot-Bs in April1960. These aircraft took almost no part in repelling the April 1961 Bayof Pigs invasion because the Cubans had only ten trained pilots flyingSecond World War-vintage American and British aircraft left over from theBatista regime (the rest were taking conversion training in the USSR atthat time).

Several UTI-MiG-15s were delivered in October 1961. A further 30bises - Czech-built this time - followed in 1962. When MiG-17s and MiG­19s entered service with the FAR, UTI-MiG-15s were delivered from theUSSR for pilot training. Of the MiG-15 family, only 20 Midgets were still

63138 Red ?

67973 Red70201 Red81072 Red

4165 Red

81676 Red ?

4274 Red ?6032 Red ?6273 Red ?

8320 Red ?8561 Red ?26100 Red ?

63639 Red? ?63833 Red ?63862 Red ?

Unconfirmed (drawing only).

Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis)unknown. Joint Air Army, Korea.Sold to the USNprivate owner.

Sold to the USNprivate owner,

Sold to the USNprivate owner.Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis)unknown. Joint Air Army, Korea.Defected to Taiwan 3·3-62; preservedROCAF Museum, Kangshan AB.Preserved Datangshan museum, serialobliterated.Unconfirmed (drawing only); green/darkgreen/natural metal camouflage,

Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), DachangAB, mid-1950.Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), DachangAB, mid-1950.Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), DachangAB, mid-1950.Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), DachangAB, mid-1950.Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), DachangAB, mid-1950.

Remarks

Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown.Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown.

Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown.

Serial' G/n Version

07 Red ?(J-2)10 Red JJ-225 Red ? ?(J-2)27 Red ? ?(J-2)38 Red ? JJ-267 Red 0315367 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)

0161 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)0162 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)0163 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)0164 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)0165 Red ? MiG-15bis (J-2)0166 Red ? MiG-15bis (J-2)0167 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)0168 Red MiG-15bis (J·2)0224 Black MiG-15bis (J-2)0225 Black? ? MiG-15bis (J-2)0226 Black ? MiG-15bis (J-2)0227 Black MiG-15bis (J·2)0228 Black ? MiG-15bis (J·2)0229 Black ? MiG-15bis (J-2)0245 Red ? MiG-15bis (J-2)0322 Black ? MiG-15bis (J-2)0331 Red? ? ?(J-2)

0411 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)0443 Red JJ-20444 Red ? JJ-20651 Red ? MiG-15bis (J·2)1211 Red ? JJ-21301 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)1355 Red ?(J-2)

1765 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)

2348 Red ? JJ-2

4117 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)

84 MiG-15

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, forinstance, 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) , whichhad flown Yak-17 and Yak-23 first-generation jets. However, the acquisi­tion of the MiG-15 and its subsequent manufacturing under licenceboosted 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 inthe USSR and then at Mlada AB in Milovice near Prague. During the sameyear (on 8th July) the CzAF took delivery of its first Fagot-A (eventuallyserialled 0720). Soviet-built aircraft were supplied at first. In November1951, however, the MiG-15 entered licence production, followed by theMiG-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. Twomore units - the 1. Zvolensky SLP (stfhacf letecky pluk - fighter regiment)at Geske Budejovice AB and the 11. SLP at Zatec in north-westernCzechia - were formed in 1952, operating Czech-built aircraft. They werefollowed 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 and22nd through 26th fighter regiments. The 3. SLP was based at Brno­Turany AB, 5. SLP at Plzen-Line AB,' the 18. SLP at Pardubice AB, Otheroperators 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, threeoperational conversion units - the 2., 4. and 7. LSP (letecky skolnf pluk­training air regiment; the latter unit based at Prerov AB was disbandedby 1957) and a few other units.

Initially CzAF aircraft had serials consisting of one or two letters andtwo digits separated by a dash. The letters were a code denoting thesquadron; 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 theforward fuselage in huge characters. A different system was introducedin mid-1'957, with four-digit serials matching the last four of the aircraft'sc/n; the serial was painted on the rear fuselage. Usually the fighters hadnatural metal finish, but some MiG-15s sported highly colourful markingsfor airshows - or for war games where they acted as 'aggressor' aircraft.

As noted earlier, with the introduction of more modern fighters theFagot 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), namelythe 2., 6., 18., 22., 28. and 30. SBoLP (stfhacf-bombardovacf letecky pluk-fighter-bomber regiment). The latter unit was based at Hradec KraloveAB and the 6th SBoLP at Prerov AB.

The MiG-15SB and MiG-15bisSB remained in service until 1983; thelast UTI-MiG-15 trainers were retired in the following year. Some aircraftwere destined for 'life after death'. For example, the forward fuselage andengine of one MiG-15 was installed on a locally-manufactured Tatra 1116x6 truck for runway de-icing; the operator sat in the fighter's cockpit.

Known CzAF MiG-15s are listed below.

Serial Cln Version Remarks

V-11 141120? MiG-15bis (8-103) C/n read off poor-quality photograph.V-15 141306 MiG-15 (8-102) VZLlJ, weapons testbed for FFAR pods.B1-06 ? UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102?) Probable mispaint for BI-06.CN-02 ? MiG-15bis (8-103)CY-04 MiG-15bis (8-103?)EP-02 MiG-15 (8-102) CzAF display team, with red upper surfaces

ala 80viet Air Force 'Red Five' team.EX-55 MiG-15 (8-102?) 18. 8LP/3.letka.EZ-62 MiG-15bis (8-103)GT-01 MiG-15 (8-102) 5. 8LP/command flight.IF-10 313636? MiG-15bisR (8-103) Reserialled 3636 in 1957.KR-11 ? UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102) 7. LSP.KU-55 MiG-15bis (8-103?) 1. Zvolensk'j 8LP/3./etka.LN-03 523614 MiG-15bis (8-103) Reserialled 3614 in 1957.ME-36 ? MjG-15? Version unconfirmed (may be MiG-15bisi),MP-11 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka.MP-12 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka.MP-13 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka.MP-14 . MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1. /etka.MP-15 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. $LP/1./etka.MP-16 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. SLP/1./etka.MP-17 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1. letka.MP-18 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1. /etka.MP-19 143071 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka. Reserialled 3071 in 1957.MP-20 143058? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka. C/n read off poor-quality

photograph.MP-21 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka.MP-22 623840 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka. Reserialled 3840 in 1957.MP-24 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1./etka.MP-25 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1./etka.MP-26 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka.MP-27 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka.MP-28 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1.letka.MP-29 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1.letka.MP-30 ? UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102) 5. 8LP/1. fetka.NO-32 MiG-15bis (8-103) 32. 8LP/2.letka.NO-35 ...3423? MiG-15bis (8-103) 32. 8LP/2.letka. Reserialled 3423 in 1957?OL-10 ? MiG-15bis (8-103)PR-02 ? MiG-15bis (8-103)PR-03 MiG-15bis (8-103)RO-31 MiG-15bis (8-103)TL-13 MiG-15bis (8-103)TL-17 341317? MiG-15bis (8-103) C/n read off poor-quality photograph.TL-20 ? MiG-15bis (8-103)UF-41 MiG-15 (8-102)VT-75 MiG-15 (8-102)ZF-10 MiG-15 (8-102)ZF-11 MiG-15 (8-102)ZF-12 MiG-15 (8-102)ZF-13 MiG-15 (8-102)ZF-14 MiG-15 (8-102)ZF-15 MiG-15 (8-102)ZF-16 MiG-15 (8-102)ZF-17 MiG-15 (8-102)0529? 220529 MiG-15 (8-102) Converted to, see below.

MiG-158B0543 220543 MiG-15bis (8-103) Preserved Jihlava.0551 220551 MiG-15bis (8-103) Preserved Zruc Air Park.0562 220562 MiG-15bis (8-103) Preserved Hrbov.0720 107020? MiG-15 80viet-built?0738 530738 MiG-15bisR (8-103) Preserved Czech aerospace museum

(VM VHU), Prague-Kbely.1169? 141169 MiG-15bis (8-103) Converted to, see below.

MiG-15bis8B

MiG-15 85

1170 1411707 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved Zruc Air Park. 3234 6432347 MiG-15bis (S-1037) CzAF display team, with lightning side flash,1186 141186 MiG-15 (S-102) Converted to, see below. 32407 6132407 MiG-15bis (S-103) 5. SLP? Possibly converted to, see below,

MiG-15SB Preserved VM VHU, MiG-15bisSB Unconfirmed,1303 ,,1303 MiG-15 (S-1027) 'Aggressor' aircraft, blue/natural metal 3244 613244 MiG-15bisR (S-103)

checkered allover, early 1960s. 3255 613255 MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below.1585 141585 MiG-15 (S-102) Converted to, see below. MiG-15bisSB Preserved VM VHU.

MiG-15SB Preserved VM VHU. 3262 .. ,3262 MiG-15bis (S-103) 1, Zvalensky SLP. Converted to, see below,16717 3116717 MiG-15bisR C/n read off poor-quality photograph. MiG-15bisSB1710 2317107 MiG-15 (S-102) Preserved VM VHU. 34237 ...34237 MiG-15bis (S-103) 32, SLP/2.letka7 C/n read off poor-quality1713 231713 MiG-15 (S-102) Converted to, see below, photo; '35' stencilled on air intake splitter-

MiG-15SB Preserved VM VHU, ex-NO-357.1720 231720 MiG-15 (S-102) Preserved VM VHU, 3512 ,..3512 MiG-15bis (S-1 03) Serial off weapons tray removed from CzAF1811 ... 1811 MiG-15bis (S-1037) aircraft.1822 ...1822 MiG-15bis (S-1037) Preserved Zruc Air Park, 3614 523614 MiG-15bis (S-103) Ex-LN-03.1836 ,.. 1822 MiG-15bis (S-1 037) Preserved Zruc Air Park, 3621 313621 MiG-15bisR (S-103)1927 .. ,1927 MiG-15 (S-102?) 3636 3136367 MiG-15bisR (S-103) Ex-IF-10.2108 .. ,2108 MiG-15bis (S-1037) 5. SLP. Reported in Czech book as target tug 3652 613652 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved Siavenske Dapravne Muzeum,

but not MiG-15bisT (no undernose winch)! 3668 6136687 MiG-15bis (S-103)2210 ,..2210 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 027) 3671 613671 MiG-15bisR (S-1 03) Preserved VM VHU,2311 712311 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 5. SLP. 3703 .. ,3703 MiG-15bis (S-103)2349 9223497 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 3741 613741 MiG-15bis (S-103) 5, SLP. Possibly converted to, see below.2501 722501 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 02) Preserved Zruc Air Park. MiG-15bisSB7 6, SBoLP72506 7225067 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 5, SLP. 3785 ...3785 MiG-15bis (S-103)2512 922512 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 5, SLP. Preserved VM VHU. 3801 623801 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved Jimlin Zemech3,2514 922514 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 30. Ostravsky SBoLP. 3809 623809 MiG-15bis (S-103) 1, Zvalensky SLP. Converted to, see below,2520 922520 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 5, SLP. Sold to Bulgaria. MiG-15bisSB2528 722528 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) VZLU ejection seat testbed, Crashed 30-4-71. 3814 623814 MiG-15bis (S-103)2559 022559 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 02) 5. SLP. 3840 623840 MiG-15bis (S-103) Ex-MP-22. 5. SLP/1, letka,2611 142611 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 02) Preserved VM VHU, 3841 623841 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved VM VHU.2626 722626 UTI-MiG-15P (CS-1 02) Ex-OK-10. Preserved VM VHU, 3862 633862 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved Siavenske Dapravne Muzeum.2726 0227267 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) With PPZ-1ILS. 3903 623903 MiG-15bis (S-103) 5,SLP.2740 6127407 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 02) 30. Ostravsky SBoLP. 3904 623904 MiG-15bis (S-103) 5, SLP. Possibly converted to, see below.2744 612744 MiG-15 (S-102)? Preserved VM VHU; reported as MiG-15 but MiG-15bisSB7 30. SBoLP7

may be CS-1 02! 3906 623906 MiG-15bisT (S-103) Target tug unit, Kosice AB,2746 6127467 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-1 02) 3. SLP. 3907 6239077 MiG-15bis (S-103) CzAF display team, with lightning side flash,2752 6127527 UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) 5, SLP. 3911 423911 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved German museum; c/n as reported2826 7228267 UTI-MiG-15P (CS-1 02) but first digit may be misquoted,3001 713001 MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below, 3912 6239127 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved Nadace Letecke Histaricke

MiG-15bisSB Preserved Zruc Air Park, Spalecnasti Vyskav (Vyskav Aviation3004 7130047 MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below, Historical Collection).

MiG-15bisSB 6 SBoLP. 3914 623914 MiG-15bis (S-103) 5, SLP. Possibly converted to, see below.3005 7130057 MiG-15bis (S-103) 5, SLP. Converted to, see below. MiG-15bisSB7 6, SBoLP7

MiG-15bisSB Preserved Siavenske Letecke Muzeum, 3925 623925 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved Czech museum (VM VHU7)3010 7130107 MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below. 3932 623932 MiG-15bis (S-103) 5, SLP. Possibly converted to, see below.

MiG-15bisSB MiG-15bisSB7 6, SBoLP?3014 713014 MiG-15 (S-102) Converted to, see below. 3934 623934 MiG-15bis (S-103) 22, SLp, 'aggressor' aircraft with blue stripes

MiG-15SB Preserved Siavenske Dapravne Muzeum on nose, tail and centre fuselage,(Slovak Museum of Transport), Presov, 3935 623935 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved Jilem.

3058 143058 MiG-15bis (S-103) Ex-MP-20? Converted to, see below, 3943 713943 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved Zruc Air Park,MiG-15bisSB With PPZ-1 ILS. Preserved VM VHU. 3947 713947 MiG-15bis (S-1 03) Preserved Hradec KraJove,

3071 143071 MiG-15bis (S-103) Ex-MP-19, 5. SLP. 3949 713949 MiG-15bis (S-1 03) Preserved VM VHU,3085 143085 MiG-15bis (S-103) 5. SLP. WFU Prague-Kbely overhaul plant 3950 713950 MiG-15bis (S-103) VZLU, weapons testbed with R-3S AAMs.

(LOK) , 3952 713952 MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below,3108 713108 MiG-15bis (S-103) 5.SLP. MiG-15bisSB Preserved Ostrava Operation memorial.3125 713125 MiG-15bis (S-103) 5.SLP. 5237 225237 MiG-15bis (S-103) Preserved Zruc Air Park,3131 P713131* MiG-15bis (S-103) 5. SLP. Preserved Zruc Air Park. 5253 ...5253 MiG-15bis (S-103)3137 7131377 MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below, 8806 .,.8806 MiG-15bis (S-103) With PPZ-1 ILS,

MiG-15bisSB 30. Ostravsky SBoLP. OK-10 612744 VZLU ejection seat testbed, damaged3140 P713140* MiG-15bis (S-103) 5. SLP. WFU LOK 21-9-71, beyond repair, Preserved VM VHU.3144 7131447 MiG-15bis (S-103) Converted to, see below. OK-01O 822210 VZLU ejection seat testbed, Preserved VM

MiG-15bisSB VHU.3148 P713148* MiG-15bis (S-103) 5, SLP. WFU/stored Malacky 1-9-72, not known 119070 MiG-15 Soviet-built, D/D 6-5-51, pattern aircraft for3202 6432027 MiG-15bis (S-1 03?) S-102 production.3207 643207 MiG-15bis (S-103) not known 220503 MiG-15 (S-102) First Vodochody-built aircraft.3212 6432127 MiG-15bis (S-1037) not known 220505 MiG-15 (S-102)3213 643213? MiG-15bis (S-1037) CzAF display team, with lightning side flash. not known 220506 MiG-15 (S-102)3233 6432337 MiG-15bis (S-1037) CzAF display team, with lightning side flash. not known 220507 MiG-15 (S-102)

86 MiG-15

- 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 thesame unit. Lf§tectvi+Kosmonautika

One of the last S-103s to be built on thecompass platform at Vodochody. The unusualtwo-digit serial preceded by a black triangle was'Class B markings' applied for pre-delivery testflights. Lf§tectvi+Kosmonautika

MiG-15 87

EAST GERMANY

*This is how these clns were quoted in aCzech book; the meaning of the Pprefix is unknown.

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 DemokratischenRepublik - Air Force and Air Defence Force of the German DemocraticRepublic) were formally established on 1st March 1956. East Germantechnical 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 fromthe Soviet Air Force for use as instructional airframes.

Prior to 1956 the East German Air Force was known as KasernierteVolkspolizei-Luft - People's Police (Air) Quartered in Barracks (i.e. onconstant 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 VPD600/1 (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. JFRtook their training at Cottbus airbase (then occupied by a Soviet AirForce/GSFG unit). On 26th September of the same year the entire unitrelocated to Cottbus. Several Soviet instructors continued with the 1. JFRon a full-time basis until 1955, and the CO and his deputy each had aSoviet advisor. Only the CO's advisor remained in 1955-57.

101 MiG-15s were loaned to the KVP-Luft by the Soviet Air Force inApril 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 tobecome Lieutenant-Colonel. Curiously, the aircraft arrived at Cottbusfrom GroBenhain by road. Several more trainees followed, including IrisWittig - probably one of the first female pilots to master a jet fighter.

However, training was abruptly discontinued on 17th June when ananti-Communist uprising began in East Germany, and on the next daythe Midget was returned to the WS. The 101 single-seaters and the fivenon-flyable aircraft from Kamenz (!) followed suit within the followingmonth. The uprising was squashed, but it took a while for Moscow torebuild its trust towards Berlin. (Ironically, the economic difficulties whichhad caused the uprising were undoubtedly contributed to by the twobillion Deutschmarks spent on equipping the KVP by then.)

On 1st July 1956, the 1st Air Wing (FG 1 - Fliegergeschwader 1) wasestablished at Cottbus. Initially the unit had to make do with YakovlevYak-11 Moose and Yak-18 Max piston-engined primary trainers. The for­mer type was armed with a single 12.7mm (.50 calibre) machine gunand thus could be used as an ersatz-fighter - mostly against balloonsladen with propaganda leaflets which were launched en masse fromWest Germany in those days.

On 28th June 1956, however, FG 1 'went jet', receiving the first fiveMiG-15bis fighters to be officially delivered to the LSK/LV, followed by thefirst 12 UTI-MiG-15 advanced trainers in September. To be precise, thesewere Czech-built S-103s and CS-102s and they were flown to Cottbusby 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/LVMidgets was of Czech origin.

not knownnot knownnot knownnot knownnot knownnot knownnot knownnot knownnot known

220508220509240438225101623700143051142012142600022727

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.

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 strengthwith FG 1 in July-August and none remained by September, as the unitbegan re-equipping with more capable MiG-17Fs. In January 1961 theunit 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 'YuriyGagarin') at Trollenhagen, MecklenburgNorpommern (1956-57) and FG3 (JFG 3, JG 3 'Vladimir Komarov') at Preschen, Brandenburg (28 aircraftfrom 24th August 1956 to August 1959). FG 7 (JFG 7, JG 7 'WilhelmPieck') at Drewitz, Brandenburg had nine aircraft from September 1956to 1959; FG 8 (JFG 8, JG 8 'Hermann Matern') at Marxwalde, Branden­burg' operated 15 aircraft delivered on 4th January 1957, and FG 9 (JFG9, 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 trainingunits (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 movedto Rothenburg) and FAG 2 (later FAG 25 'Leander Ratz') in Bautzen. Theformer unit flew the MiG-15bis from 1959 to the autumn of 1964, thelatter from January 1958 to 1965; the type was gradually replaced byMiG-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 afterthe unit re-equipped with MiG-21 PF Fishbed-Ds and later MiG-21 SPSFishbed-Ds in late 1966 - albeit only in the weather reconnaissance andflight calibration roles. The Midget was also flown by FG 2, FG 7 (fouraircraft delivered in 1956), FG 8 (3/JFG 8), FG 9 (1956-70) and JBG 31'Klement Gottwald' (Jagdbombenfliegergeschwader - fighter-bomberwing) at Drewitz4 from 1971 to 1978. Finally, it served with FAG 15 (from1959 to 28th July,1966) and FAG 25 (1958-65).'

Because of East Germany's extremely limited territory, the numerousGSFG 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 thedomestic civil air traffic, operations from most LSK/LV bases, exceptPeenemunde, were restricted to three days a week. (The Soviet unitslikewise had three days a week, so that Soviet and East German militaryaircraft flew intermittently to avoid 'getting in each other's way'.) More­over, most of the bases were located so close to the Polish border thatthe aircraft had to enter Polish airspace, which meant that appropriateclearances had to be obtained. To coordinate LSK/LV operations theVHZ-14 (Vereinigte Hauptzentrale - united main control centre) staffed byRussian-speaking East German officers was established in 1975 at theSoviet 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 nospecialised reconnaissance units and aerial recce had to be performedwith virtually every aircraft type available (in continuation of HermannGoring's reputed principle 'everything that flies is mine'!).

While the Fagot was phased out, starting in 1958, and replaced by theMiG-17F, the UTi-MiG-15 soldiered on well into the 1970s. After Germanreunification 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 dealwas considered to be so classified that the aircraft in question were offi­cially listed as scrapped! (Speaking of which, unfortunately very littlepaperwork on aircraft retired by the LSK/LV before 1972 had survived bythe 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-15slater 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 otherLSK/LV aircraft, had black serials. (Single-seat MiG-15s operated bytraining units had black serials for a while but these were soon changed

88 MiG-15

back to red.) Initially East German military aircraft wore simple 44 Red 623760 MiG-t5bis Czech-built (S-103).black/red/yellow rhomboid insignia officially adopted on August 1953 45 Red 623761 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103).(star-type markings and roundels had been considered and rejected) but 46 Red 623763 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103).by 1956 or 1957 the insignia were modified by the addition of the coat of 46 Black 612825 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).arms of the GDR. 47 Red 623767 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103).

Known LSK/LV MiG-15s are listed below. 48 Red 7 MiG-15bis50 Black ? UTI-MiG-15

Serial Gin Version Remarks 53 Black 022541 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).1Black 612302 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). 66 Red 7 MiG-15bis2Red 623743 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). 67 Black 022538 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102).2Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 69 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 JG3.3Red 7 MiG-15bis 72 Black 612827 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102).3Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 75 Black 622925 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Preserved4Red 623747 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). Fahrzeugmuseum Marxzell.4Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 76 Black 622926 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).5Red 623748 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103). 80 Red 7 MiG-15bis5Black 612816 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). JG 2. 81 Black 7 UTI-MiG-156Red 623740 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). 82 Black 922258 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).6Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 85 Black 022539 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102).7Red MiG-15bis 89 Red 1673 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur or Saratov.8Red 623765 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103). 91 Black 622057 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102).8Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 DID 1957. 94 Red 7 MiG-15bis9Red 6237667 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-l 03). FAG 2. C/n quoted as 94 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15

627766 but probable misprint. 96 Red 53211127 MiG-15bis29Black 622932 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). 97 Red 1515305 MiG-15bis02 Black 712067 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). JG 1. 98 Black 7 UTI-MiG-1504 Black 922259 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 4-59. JG 8, later 99 Black 622061 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-l 02). JG 3. SOC 1972,

JBG 31. SOC* 30-12-80, reserialled 150 preserved on children's playground inBlack and sold to Mozambique 8-81 as '20'. Wunsdorf.

06 Black UTI-MiG-15 JG 8. 101 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 JG 1.10 Red 623746 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103). 102 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 JBG 31. SOC 1981.10 Black 622934 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). 103 Black 622064 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). DID 2-57. JBG 31.11 Red 623762 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103). SOC 30-12-84, preserved Bad Freienwalde11 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 barracks as '1 031 Black'.12 Black 612834 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 6-56. JBG 31. 106 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 JG 1.

SOC 25-6-78, scrapped. 107 Red 7 MiG-15bis13 Black UTI-MiG-15 108 Black 7 UTI-MiG-1514 Black UTI-MiG-15 110 Red 7 MiG-15bis15 Red MiG-15bis 110 Black 7 UTI-MiG-1515 Black 622474 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 11-56.JBG31. 111 Black 722621 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 2-58. JBG 31.

SOC 17-9-82, returned to the USSR. SOC 9-11-79, GIA* at MTS' Bad Duben, later16 Red 1768 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur or Saratov. scrapped.17 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 112 Black 022529 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 2-60. JBG 31.18 Black 622928 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). SOC 28-12-83, returned to the USSR.22 Red 623752 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103). 113 Black UTi-MiG-1523 Red 623753 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). 114 Black 022528 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 2-60. JBG 31.24 Red 623754 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). Serial possibly altered as '1141 Black' for25 Red 623755 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). publicity photos. SOC 25-6-80, sold to26 Red 623756 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). Guinea-Bissau.27 Red 623757 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103). 115 Black 7 UTI-MiG-1528 Red 623758 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103). 116 Black 022525 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).29 Red 623759 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). 117 Black 7 UTI-MiG-1530 Red 623770 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). 118 Black UTI-MiG-1531 Red 623769 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). FAG 2. Damaged 120 Red 7 MiG-15bis

beyond repair Bautzen AB, wreck later 120 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15transferred to Rothenburg. 121 Black 722625 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).

33 Red MiG-15bis 122 Black 7 UTI-MiG-1533 Black 022540 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). 123 Black 722647 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102).34 Red 7 MiG-15bis 124 Black 7 UTI-MiG-1534 Black UTI-MiG-15 125 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 Camouflaged. WFU, used as fire trainer.37 Red MiG-15bis 126 Black 7 UTI-MiG-1538 Red MiG-15bis 127 Black 022532 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 3-60. JG 8.40 Black 022535 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Crashed Cottbus AB Declared damaged beyond repair on

1972. overhaul at FWD, SOC 6-8-74 but later41 Red 7 MiG-15bis repaired. Used for weather recce by FWD41 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 until c.1990, now in museum in Rimini (Italy).43 Red 623750 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103). 130 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15 Not current by 1972.

MiG-15 89

90 MiG-15

Left and centre: Israeli technicians examine anEgyptian Air Force MiG-15bis at Hatzor AB.The aircraft was recovered from Lake Sirbonwhere it was shot down on 31st October 1956.The aircraft was restored to flying conditionand evaluated by the IDF/AF. Yefim Gordon archive

3224, the only identified Egyptian Air ForceUTI-MiG-15 - almost certainly a CS-102.Yefim Gordon archive

The first and the last Finnish Air ForceUTI-MiG-15s (CS-102s) in front of the hangarat Kuopio-Rissala AB. Yefim Gordon archive

For a while, HiivLv 31 UTI-MiG-15s had the serialwrit large on the nose, together with an equallylarge roundel. This photo was taken in 1963.Yefim Gordon archive

Right and below: Seen here in 1966, UTI-MiG-15MU-4 (c/n 722479) shows the more subduedmarkings worn later; note the squadron badge

·on the nose. The aircraft is now preserved at theCentral Finnish Aviation Museum in Tikkakoski.Yefim Gordon archive

/MiG-15 91

131 Black UTI-MiG-15134 Black UTI-MiG-15135 Black 722650 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). JG 8. SOC 1970,

preserved Marxwalde AB as '1970 Black',later to Luftfahrthistorische Sammlung Finow,Finow AB.

136 Black 722521 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 1957. JBG 31.SOC 9-11-79, GIA at MTS Bad DQben, laterfirefighting trainer at Drewitz,

137 Black 022534? UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). DID 3-60. Cln alsoquoted as 022537. JBG 31. SOC 28-2-82,returned to the USSR.

138 Black 922330 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 1959. JBG 31,SOC 28-2-82, returned to the USSR.

140 Black 722651 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). JAG 15. PreservedKlitten, to Museum Augsburg-MOhlhausenaround 1991, preserved in fake markings asSovAF '44 Red'.

141 Black ? UTI-MiG-15142 Black ? UTI-MiG-15145 Black ? UTI-MiG-15146 Black 022526 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 2-60. JBG 31.

SOC 9-11-79, scrapped.148 Black 022527 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). 0/02-60. JBG 31.

SOC 9-11-79, scrapped.150 Black ? UTI-MiG-15 Possibly ex-04 Black (922259), which see,

but could be adifferent aircraft.154 Black 1615393 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Cottbus Pioneers' Park, later to

Flugplatzmuseum Cottbus.156 Black 922267 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).160 Black ? UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Technikmuseum Speyer.163 Black 922257 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 4-59. JBG 31.

SOC 23-10·85, preserved LuftwaffenmuseumUtersen, Gatow AB.

166 Black 922268 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102), DID 4-59, JBG 31.Crashed 13-5-76,

181 Black UTI-MiG-15187 Black UTI-MiG-15 JG 8. Crashed near Seelow 1968.197 Black 722541 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). JG 8.1...9 Black ? UTI-MiG-15 JG 9, full serial not known.300 Red? ? MiG-15bis Unconfirmed (drawing only); possible

confusion with Lim-5 (MiG-17F) '300 Red',cln 1C 06-30.

311 Red MiG-15bis50... Red ? MiG-15bis51... Red ? MiG-15bis516 Red ? MiG-15bis52... Red ? MiG-15bis53... Red ? MiG-15bis601 Red MiG-15bis611 Red 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/ungWDnsdorf at the former GSFG HQ in Wunsdorf (Zossen) featured a SovietAir Force UTI-MiG-15 coded 16 Red which was later transferred to Luff­fahrtmuseum Dessau. Another WS Midget, a 85th GVIAP machinecoded 75 Red, was erected on a plinth in the Victory and LiberationSquare in Merseburg, where the unit was stationed, in 1975. After theGerman reunification in October 1990 the aircraft was promptly removedand scrapped - probably for political reasons as an unwelcomereminder of the socialist past. Luftfahrtmuseum Laatzen in Hannover hasa 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 manufacturethe MiG-15bis and the VK-1 A turbojet for same under licence. The firstaircraft built by ATG-Maschinenbau (Allgemeine TransportanlagenGmbH - ie, General Transport Systems Ltd) were to roll off the produc­tion line at Leipzig-Schkeuditz airfield (later developed into theLeipzig/Haile airport) on 1st January 1954. However, the plan did notmaterialise because of the 17th June 1953 uprising.

EGYPT (UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC)

Egypt was the first Arab nation to operate the type. When the Egyptianmonarchy was overthrown and President Gamal Abdul Nasser came topower in 1952, the new government's independent political courseangered Great Britain (which was the primary arms supplier to Egypt)and new aircraft deliveries to the Egyptian Air Force dried up. Financialconstraints forced Egypt to buy outdated equipment such as GlosterMeteors 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 firstof 120 Czech-built Fagot-Bs (S-103s) delivered to the United ArabRepublic Air Force (UARAF) arrived in Alexandria in October 1955aboard the Soviet freighter M/S Stalingrad; 60 were in service by March1956. The fighters were based at EI Qabrit (1 Sqn and 20 Sqn with 12and 13 aircraft respectively), Abu Sueir (30 Sqn with 15 aircraft) andInhas (15 aircraft, inoperative). During the Suez crisis (26th October to7th November 1956) most of them did not take part in the fighting.

Few Fagot-Bs were delivered after 1956, the bulk of fighter supplies toEgypt 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 weredestroyed 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 rearfuselage and wingtips. Serials appeared only after the formation of theUnited Arab Republic, and a sand/brown/green camouflage was hastilyintroduced after the Six-Day War of 1967. Only three aircraft - one MiG­15bis (S-103) serialled 2707 and UTI-MiG-15s (CS-102s) serialled 2711and 3224 has been identified to date.

FINLAND

Maintaining a non-aligned status and being positioned geographicallybetween the NATO nations and the USSR, Finland purchased militaryequipment 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 aircraftwere operated by HiivLv 31 (Havittaja Lento/aivue - fighter squadron),which was part of the Karja/an Lennosto (Karelian Air Wing), and basedKuopio-Rissala AB. The aircraft were flown in natural metal finish with thedigit of the serial and the squadron badge (a leaping black lynx) on thenose. The Midgets remained in service until superseded by five MiG­21 UMs in 1978. MU-4 is now on display at the Central Finnish AviationMuseum (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 in1980 (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 airforces to receive the MiG-15 (in 1951); the aircraft was known locally asthe Jaguar. Plans to produce the MiG-15 in Adiliget had to be abandonedbecause ofthe 1956 Hungarian uprising. Starting in 1953, MiG-15bis sin­gle-seaters (known locally as the Sas - Eagle, pronounced 'shash') andUTI-MiG-15 trainers of Soviet and Czech origin were delivered to theMHRC and all of the original MiG-15s were returned to the USSR.

Most aircraft retained retained their natural metal finish and had redthree-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 followingits 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 Vecsesstorage depot near Budapest) where they were allocated phoney four­digit serials matching the year when they were placed in storage; it wasnot uncommon to see three or four sister aircraft wearing the sameserial at such locations. For example, the dump at Vecses contained twodifferent Fagot-Bs marked '1977', one '1978' and one '1981 " plus no lessthan 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, inphoney Soviet markings.

22 Red .. ,227 MiG-15bis26 Red ...267 MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses,011 Red ...011 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses,027 Red ...027 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses,043 Black ...043 MiG-15bis Unconfirmed (drawing only), black serial

doubtful!060 Red 3060 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved

Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses.061 Red 552106017 MiG-15bisR7 101 st recce regiment, Szolnok; preserved

Haditechnikai Park, Budapest.062 Red 3062 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved

Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses,063 Red 30637 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Dumped

Vecses storage depot.065 Red 3065 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved

Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses.067 Red 3067 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved

Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses,069 Red 30697 Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur?108 Red ...108 MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum.201 Red 3201 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses; built

in Ulan-Ude (full c/n 10993201) 7203 Red 3203 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum,

Szolnok; built in Ulan-Ude (full c/n 10993203) 7212 Red ...212 MiG-15 Czech-built (S-1 02)7 Special colour scheme.424 Red .. .424 MiG-15 Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum,

Szolnok.512 Red 4512 MiG-15bisR Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur.

Based Szolnok; preserved MagyarRepiilestorteneti Muzeum.

543 Red ...543 MiG-15bis547 Red ...547 MiG-15bis Preserved Army Museum,657 Red .,.657 MiG-15bis Kilian Gy6rgy Air Training School, Szolnok,

1969.677 Red ...677 MiG-15bis Camouflaged.681 Red ...681 MiG-15bis684 Red .. ,684 MiG-15bis Camouflaged.701 Red .. .701 MiG-15bis

707 Red 315307077 MiG-15bis708 Red .,.708 MiG-15bis718 Red ...718 MiG-15bis724 Red 31530724 MiG-15bis Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum,

Szolnok.754 Red .. ,754 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses.771 Red .. ,771 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses.802 Red 31530802 MiG-15bis807 Red ...807 MiG-15bis Preserved Bekescsaba.809 Red ...809 MiG-15bis812 Red ...812 MiG-15bis Coded B- Bakony regiment7823 Red 315308237 MiG-15bis827 Red 315308277 MiG-15bis838 Red .. 838 MiG-15 Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum,

Szolnok,902 Red 315309027 MiG-15bis Coded C.906 Red 315309067 MiG-15bis Coded B- Bakony regiment7912 Red 315309127 MiG-15bis981 Red 31530981 MiG-15bis Dumped Vecses storage depot; later to

Ozigetvar Muzeum,'1950' UTI-MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved in Hungarian

museum,'1951' (a) MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Magyar

Repiilestorteneti Muzeum, Szolnok,'1951' (b) UTI-MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Gsapatai Muzeum

(Aeronautical Museum), Kecskemet.'1963' MiG-15bis Phoney serial, preserved Hadtorteneti

Muzeum, Budapest.'1974' (1) MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum,

Vecses,'1974' (2) MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum,

Vecses,'1976' MiG-15bis Phoney serial, preserved Gsapatai Muzeum,

Kecskemet.'1977' (a) MiG-15bis Phoney serial, preserved Haditechnikai Park,

Budapest.'1977' (b) MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum,

Vecses,'1978' MiG-15 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 enjoyedSoviet military aid. Soviet hardware supplied to the Indonesian Air Force(AURI - Angkatan Udara Republik Indonesia; later TNI-AU, TentaraNasionallndonesia - Angkatan Udara) included MiG-17F and MiG-19Sfighters, a squadron of MiG-21 F-13 Fishbed-As flown by the best Sovietpilots 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-17Fand MiG-19S. Three aircraft serialled J 751, J 760 and J 762 have beenidentified so far, but it is very probable that the intervening serials werealso 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! Othersources say that an unspecified number of MiG-15bis fighters - proba­bly Czech-built - was also supplied and the fighters were operated byNo 10 Sqn.)

In 1966, however, Dr. Soekarno was overthrown by the staunchly anti­Communist Gen Soeharto. A wave of repressions against Communistsswept through the country, and Soviet support was promptly cut off. Pre­dictably, all Soviet-built aircraft soon became unserviceable due to thelack 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 standardnatural metal finish. The MiG-15In Action

This Hungarian MiG-15bis (060 Red) hascamouflaged 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·15bispreserved in Szolnok. Unlike the serial, theCommunist-era national markings have not beenrefreshed. 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 Westernweapons systems. It was not until thirty years later that the TNI-AUexpressed an interest in a warplane of Russian origin, namely the SukhoiSu-30MK multi-role fighter.

IRAQ

MOROCCO

In the 1960s, the Kingdom of Morocco purchased a few Soviet militaryaircraft, including two UTI-MiG-15s. Later, however, the Royal MoroccanAir Force (al Quwwat al-Jawwiya a/-Ma/akiya Marakishiya or AviationRoyale CMrifienne) bought US and French aircraft only.

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 theIraqi Air Force (al Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-Iraqiya). In the 1960s, asquadron of MiG-15bis fighter-bombers was formed. There was also atraining squadron equipped with UTI-MiG-15s. Only 30 of the latter type,including a Czech-built example serialled 874, were still operational inearly 1987.

MOZAMBIQUE

The Mozambique People's Air Force (FPA - Forqa Popular Aerea deMoqambique) 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 werereportedly operational in late 1991.

ISRAELNEW ZEALAND

The Israelis captured an Egyptian Air Force MiG-15bis which ditched inLake Sirbon near EI'Arlsh on 31 st October 1956 after being damaged byIsraeli Defence Force/Air Force (IDF/AF or Heyl Ha'avir) Dassault MystereIVAs. The aircraft was recovered, repaired and test flown at Hatzor AB bythe Israelis; Heyl Ha'avir pilots logged a total of 500 hours in it. Later, theaircraft was preserved as a war memorial.

In 1993 a Khar'kov-built UTI-MiG-15 (ex-Polish Air Force 216 Red, c/n26016) owned by Mike Kelly and previously flown in Australia as VH-NZMwas 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.

LIBYA

NIGERIA,

When another great 'socialist', Col Muammar Qaddafi, came to power inLibya, Soviet weapons were rushed to the country. Deliveries of combataircraft to the Libyan Arab Republic Air Force (LARAF) began in the1970s; 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.

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 ofthem were serialled NAF 601 and NAF 602, which were airfreighted toKano on 18th August 1967. Only two of the trainers were still operationalby the mid-80s.

NORTH KOREA

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 ofMidgets operated by the Armee de I'Air Malgache is unknown, to saynothing of serial numbers. None remained in service by 1991.

MALI

When North Korea went to war against South Korea in June 1950, it had150 to 200 Soviet aircraft of Second World War vintage. Very soon thisobsolescent air arm was all but wiped out by USAF bombing raids, butafter the Soviet Union and China intervened in November 1950, with aidto the Pyongyang government, the North Korean Air Force was createdanew 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 aninventory of several hundred Fagot-Bs and Midgets, mostly left behindby the Soviet units which had flown them during the war. The MiG-15bisremained a first-line fighter until the late 1950s when it was graduallyreplaced by the MiG-17 and MiG-19, while the UTI-MiG-15 soldiered ontill the early 1980s.

Known North Korean aircraft are listed below, with the Soviet unitswhich operated them during the war indicated where known.

32nd IAD/913th lAP.

50th IAD/177th lAP.

32nd IAD/913th lAp, Antung AB, summer1953, camouflaged.

RemarksSerial Gin Version

03 Red .,.03? MiG·15bis07 Red ...077 MiG-15bis12 Red ...12? MiG-15bis13 Red ...13? MiG·15bis16 Red ... 16 MiG·15bis

17 Black ...177 MiG·15bis20 Blue ...20? MiG·1522 Black ...22? MiG·15bis93 Red ...93 MiG·15bis033 Red .. ,033? MiG·15bis039 Red .. ,039? MiG·15bis Unconfirmed (drawing only), red nose ala

303rd lAD.

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.

During the period when the USSR and Mali were on good terms, a soleUTI-MiG-15 was delivered to the Mali Air Force (Force Aerienne de laRepublique du Mali) for training its MiG-17F pilots. The aircraft wasbased at Bamako and was reportedly still in service in late 1991. Therehave also been unconfirmed reports in 1973 of six MiG-15s being oper­ated; possibly the truth is that they were ordered but never delivered.

96 MiG-15

044 Red 134044 MiG-15bis 133rd IAD/415th lAp, camouflaged, 21/2'kills',

079 Red ,0797 MiG-15 Preserved in Chinese museum, 9 'kills';markings may be non-authentic,

122 Red .,,1...22 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th IAP/1stAE, Miaogow AB.125 Black 111025 MiG-15 324th IAD/176th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB.132 Red 121032 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th lAp, Miaogow AB,138 Red 121038 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB, Damaged

27-10-51 and repaired.146 Red 121046 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB, Damaged

27-10-51 and repaired.183 Red 121083 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th lAp, Miaogow AB, Damaged

23-10-51 and repaired.188 Red 121088 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 22-10-51

and repaired,192 Red 121092 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 23-10-51

and repaired,226 Red 122026 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP231 Red 122031 MiG-15bis271 Red 2015371 MiG-15bis 216th IAD/518th lAP300 Red 1231007 MiG-15bis 351st lAp, Antung AB, 4'kills'. Unconfirmed

(drawing only),306 Red UTI-MiG-15325 Red 1315325 MiG-15bis Ex-1325 Red, 324th IAD/196th lAP To the

97th lAD/16th lAp, later probably to the 351 stlAp, Antung AB.

327 Red 123027 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP343 Red 123043 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP344 Red 123044 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP345 Red 123045 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 23-10-51

and repaired,349 Red 123049 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 24-10-51

and repaired,349 Blue ".3".49 MiG-15bis 324th IAD/176th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB.

C/n could be 1315349 or 2315349.351 Red ".3".51 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB. C/n is

either 123051 or 1315351,393 Red 2315393 MiG-15bis 32nd IAD/913th lAp, Antung AB, 4'kills'.406 Red 2415306 MiG-15bis 32nd IAD/913th lAp, Antung AB.408 Red 2415308 MiG-15bis502 Red 2515302 MiG-15bis 133rd IAD/726th lAP503 Red ,.,5",03 MiG-15bis Joint Chinese/Korean Air Army (JAA). C/n

could be 53210503,125003 or 2515303,518 Blue ".5".18 MiG-15bis JAA, C/n could be 53210518, 125018 or

2515318,546 Red 53210546 MiG-15bis 324th IAD/196th lAP To 351st lAp, Antung AB.683 Red 0615383 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB. Damaged

27-10-51 and repaired,684 Blue 0615384 MiG-15bis 324th IAD/176th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB,686 Blue 0615386 MiG-15bis 324th IAD/176th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB,688 Red 0615388 MiG-15bis 190th IAD/821 st lAP Damaged in combat

5-52 and repaired.689 Red 0615389? MiG-15bis 324th IAD/196th lAP To 351st lAp, Antung AB,708 Red 0715308 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB. Shot

down 23-10-51.720 Red 0715320 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th GvIAP/1 st AE, Antung AB,723 Red 0715323 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th GvIAP/1 st AE, Antung AB,729 Red 0715329 MiG-15bis 324th IAD/176th GvlAP735 Blue 0715335 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB.751 Blue 0715351 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB.768 Red 0715368 MiG-15bis 196th IAP/324th lAD, later to the 16th

IAP/303rd lAD.773 Yellow 0715373 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/3rd AE, Antung AB.780 Yellow 0715380 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/3rd AE, Antung AB.785 Yellow 0715385 MiG-15bis 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 Existence not proven; see note in USoperators section.

823 Blue 108023 MiG-15 176th Gv1AP/324th lAD, Antung AB,899 Red ".8",99 MiG-15bis C/n is 1815399, 53210899 or 5899,925 Red 109025 MiG-15 196th IAP/324th lAD, later to the 16th

IAP/303rd lAD.928 Red 2915328 MiG-15bis 32nd IAD/535th lAp, Antung AB. Damaged in

combat 16-9-52 and repaired,931 Black 2915331 MiG-15bis 32nd IAD/535th IAP/1 st AE, Antung AB.976 Red 2915376 MiG-15bis 351st lAp, Antung AB.1032 Red 10153327 MiG-15bis JAA, Preserved Victory Museum,

Pyongyang, 8 'kills',1325 Red 1315325 MiG-15bis Serial later shortened to 325 Red, which see,1355 Red 13153557 MiG-15bis2057 Red 2015357 MiG-15bis Defected to South Korea 21-9-53, to USAF

'7616' (ie, 47-06167).2249 Red 22153497 MiG-15bis Preserved Datangshan museum, China.

Markings may be non-authentic (JAA aircraftif authentic).

North Korean (and quasi-North Korean) MiG-15s originally flew in naturalmetal finish. The forward fuselage and fin top were later painted brightred on many aircraft for quick identification purposes. Starting in Febru­ary 1952, however, these markings were removed as too revealing andvarious camouflage patterns introduced, ranging from crudely appliedgreen 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/39thFIS) on 18th May 1953 allegedly had a dragon painted the full lengthof the fuselage! (It was after this 'kill' that Thompson's F-86F-1-NA51-2897I'FU-897', already named 'Bill's Baby'I'Miss Jenny', acquired itsfamous dragon nose art and became 'The Huff'.)

Incidentally, despite being extremely hard-line and inflexible, Kim IISung's regime was always favoured when it came to new equipmentdeliveries from the Soviet Union. For example, North Korea was one ofthe 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 FighterConversion Unit at Mianwali AB; known aircraft are serialled 71-2918 and715618 (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 receivethe 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 firstof these entered service in late 1952, of the MiG-15bis deliveries from theUSSR began in 1953, and the first locally-built Lim-2s entered service inlate 1954. The PWL received new-build UTI-MiG-15s (CS-102s) fromCzechoslovakia 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-102trainers were converted to SBLim-2 standard with 0.8m' airbrakes (!).

Various versions of the MiG-15 formed the backbone of the PWL'sfighter 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 atBelice AB (Sochaczew). The type was also operated by the Polish Navy(Marynarka Wojenna) - for instance, the 7. PLM-B at Siemirowice ABwhich later became the 7. PLS (pulk lotnictwa specjalnego - special airregiment).

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. Somewere used as trials aircraft by the Polish Air Force's test squadron, the45.LED (/otnicza eskadra doswiadczalna - experimental aviationsquadron) at Modlin AB. Some Polish MiG-15s were eventually sold towarbird collectors abroad, notably in the USA.

Known PWL examples are listed below.

346 Red

309 Red 3509

317 Red 3517

Preserved Muzeum Wojska Polskiego (PolishArmed Forces Museum), Warsaw. Reportedas (Soviet-built) MiG-15bis (c/n53211132,31531132 or 1132) but could be Lim-2 cln 1B011-32.Reported in Polish book as MiG-15bis (c/n53211305,31531305 or 1305) but could beLim-2 c/n 1B 013-05.Reported as MiG-15bis (c/n 53211612 or1612) but could be Lim-2 cln 1B 016-12.31. PLM. C/n is 53211919, 31531919 or1919. 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 MuzeumWojska Polskiego, Warsaw, 10-7-64 as '625Red' (see above and Lim-1 pin 1A 06-025below!)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 L6dzMuseum (Ekspozicja Muzealna L6di).Czech-built (CS-1 02). WOSL, preservedD~blin.

Czech-built (CS-102). 39. PLM, storedMierz~cice AB, See Lim-2 section below.Khar'kov-buill. Sold to the USNprivate owneras N678. See Lim-2 section below.Khar'kov-buill. Sold to the UK/private owner,Czech-built (CS-102). 39. PLM, storedMierz~cice AB; sold to the USNprivate owneras N41125.Czech-built (CS-1 02).Czech-built (CS-102). Sold to USNpvl owneras N2276H.Czech-built (CS-1 02). 45.LED, trials aircraft;derelict Modlin.Czech-built (CS-102). Preserved EastFortune, UK.Confirmed as trainer but origin unknown.Czech-built (CS-1 02). 45.LED, trials aircraft.Czech-built (CS-102). Reportedly convertedto, see below.Sold to the USNprivate owner as N15UT.Czech-built (CS-1 02).Czech-built (CS-1 02). Reportedly convertedto, 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 convertedto, see below.Stored Katowice until 3-94. Sold to theUSNprivate owner.Czech-built (CS-1 02). 45.LED, trials aircraft.Czech-built (CS-1 02). Reportedly convertedto, see below.Stored Katowice until 3-94. Sold to theUSNprivate owner as N115MG.Czech-built (CS-1 02),Czech-built (CS-102), 45.LED, trials aircraft.

UTI-MiG-15UTI-MiG-15

UTI-MiG-15UTI-MiG-15

'SBLim-2'*

UTI-MiG-15

'SBUm-2'*

'SBLim-2'*UTI-MiG-15UTI-MiG-15UTI-MiG-15

UTI-MiG-15UTI-MiG-15

UTI-MiG-15

'SBLim-2'*UTI-MiG-15UTI-MiG-15

UTI-MiG-15UTI-MiG-15

UTi-MiG-15?UTI-MiG-15UTI-MiG-15

UTI-MiG-15

UTI-MiG-15

UTI-MiG-15

MiG-15bisMiG-15bis

MiG-15bis?

MiG-15bis

UTI-MiG-15UTI-MiG-15?UTI-MIG-15?UTI-MiG-15?UTI-MiG-15UTi-MiG-15

'SBLim-2'*MiG-15

MiG-15bis?

MiG-15bis?

702740712755

522596?622019622022

622026622028

522547522555

723309

723303

?522543522546

612273813277

26016242266

596 Red619 Red622 Red

740 Red755 Red

626 Red628 Red

309 Red

547 Red555 Red

303 Red

410 Red543 Red546 Red

216 Red266 Red

273 Red277 Red

203 Red (b)? 27003

203 Red (a)? 247003

197 Red 142697

1919 Red

not known 231873

06 Red 022040050 Red ?059 Red ?112 Red ?126 Red 10926193 Red 142693

1305 Red

1612Red

1922 Red2562 Red 2562

1132 Red

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 thisdoes not make sense. Preserved Warsaw.Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur.Converted to, see below.

Czech-built (S-1 03), Preserved MuzeumKatynskie, Warsaw, as '1964 Red' and thenas '365 Red'.

Czech-built (S-1 03). Converted to, see below.

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 inerror as 1A3504). Sold to USNprivate owner7-93 as N304SB.Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur.Converted to, see below.C/n read off airframe. Sold to the USNprivateowner (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.

Remarks

Soviet-built, DID 1951. 1. PLM.Soviet-built, DID 1951. 1. PLM.Soviet-built, DID 1951. Pres. MuzeumWyNlolenia Miasta Poznania (Poznan CityLiberation Museum) 16-6-64.Czech-built (S-103). Converted to, see below.

'SBLim-2A'*

'SBLim-2'*MiG-15bis

'SBLim-2A'*MiG-15bis'SBLim-2'*MiG-15bis

'SBLim-2'*MiG-15bis

MiG-15bis?'SBLim-2A'*

'SBLim-2'*MiG-15bis

MiG-15bis

MiG-15bis

MiG-15bis

'SBLim-2'*MiG-15bis

'SBLim-2M'*

'SBUm-2M'*MiG-15bis

MiG-15bis'SBLim-2'*MiG-15MiG-15MiG-15bis

MiG-15MiG-15MiG-15

VersionCln

308 Red 3508

613 Red 612713

625 Red 231873

417 Red 4017

365 Red 3605?

319 Red 3319

306 Red 3506

26 Red29 Red304 Red (a) 3404

304 Red (b) 3504

21 Red 242201

6.Red8Red01 Red

Serial

98 MiG-15

776 Red 712776 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Preserved L6di Museum, 017 Red (b) 1A 10-017 Lim-1 Converted to, see below.777 Red 712777 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Reportedly converted SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner as N15LC,

to, see below, 018 Red (a) 1A06-018 Lim-1'SBLim-2'* Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-LJP SBLim-2 Preserved Polish Air Force Museum, Krak6w.

782 Red 712782 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Sold to 018 Red (b) 1A ... -018 Lim-1 Converted to, see below.Australia/private owner as VH-BVX, SBLim-2t 7. PLS/1, eskadra/2, k!ucz, Polish Navy,

906 Red UTI-MiG-15? Could be SBLim-1 c/n 1A09-006, white overall.1524 Red 621524 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). Sold to the 020 Red 1A07-020 Lim-1 Converted to, see below.

USA/private owner. SBLim-2A Preserved Savigny, France,2004 Red 27004 UTI-MiG-15 Khar'kov-built. Preserved Polish Air Force 026 Red 1A 06-026 Lim-1 Converted to, see below.

Museum, Krak6w. SBLim-2A Stored Katowice, Sold to the USA/private2271 Red 242271 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102), Sold to USA/pvt owner owner 7-93,

as N271JM. 027 Red 1A 06-027 Lim-13302 Red 613302? UTI-MiG-15? Czech-built (CS-1 02)? Reported in Euromil 028 Red 1A 06-028 Lim-1

as SBLim-2A c/n 1A3302 but this does not 029 Red 1A 06-029 Lim-1make sense. Sold to the USA/private owner 030 Red 1A 06-030 Lim-1as N302LA, 031 Red 1A 06-031 Lim-1

3303 Red 613303? UTI-MiG-15? Czech-built (CS-1 02)? Preserved Muzeum 032 Red 1A 07-032 Lim-1 Converted to, see below.Katynskie, SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner as N132DG.

3387 Red 613387 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). Preserved East 033 Red 1A 06-033 Lim-1Fortune, UK, 034 Red 1A 06-034 Lim-1

3804 Red 3804? MiG-15bis? C/n reported in Euromil as 1A3804 but this 035 Red 1A 06-035 Lim-1 Converted to, see below.does not make sense. Converted to, see SBLim-2A 11. PLM, Preserved Polish AF Museum, Krakow,below, 037 Red 1A 06-037 Lim-1

'SBLim-2'* Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-DIE, 038 Red 1A 07-038 Lim-1 Converted to, see below,3814 Red 623814 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102), Polish Navy, SBLim-13821 Red 623821 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02), Polish Navy 056 Red 1A 07-056 Lim-1 Converted to, see below,6247 Red 622047 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Converted to, see SBLim-2A Also reported as recoded 7056 Red, Sold to

below. the USA/private owner as N76584.'SBLim-2A'* Sold to the UK/private owner as G-OMIG. 109 Red 1A 01-009 Lim-1 Converted to, see below.

01 Red 1A 10-001 Lim-1 Converted to, see below. SBLim-2 Preserved L6di Museum.SBLim-2A Preserved Poznan, 112 Red 1A 10-012 Lim-1 Converted to, see below,

04 Red 1A 05-004 Lim-1 SBLim-2A Preserved Muzeum Braterstwa Broni05 Red 1A ... -005? Lim-1 Converted to, see below, (Brotherhood-in-arms Museum), Drzon6w.

SBLim-1 115 Red 1A 10-015? Lim-1 C/n reported in Euromil as 1A 02-115 which06 Red 1A ... -006? Lim-1 Converted to, see below. does not make sense (number of aircraft in

SBLim-1 batch too high I). Converted to, see below.10 Red 1A 11-010 Lim-1 SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owned as N115PN,21 Red (a) 1A ...-021? Lim-1 Converted to, see below. 312 Red 1A03-012 Lim-1 Converted to, see below,

Lim-1.5 312White SBLim-2A t Camouflaged.30 Red 1A ... -0307 Lim-1 315 Red 1A03-015 Lim-1 Converted to, see below.41 Red 1A ... -041? Lim-1 Converted to, see below, SBLim-1A

SBLim-1 401 Red7 1A 04-001 Lim-1002 Red (a) 1A 05-002 Lim-1 Converted to, see below. 402 Red? 1A 04-002 Lim-1

SBLim-1 Instytut Lotnictwa, PZL 1-22 ejection seat 403 Red? 1A 04-003 Lim-1testbed. Preserved Warsaw, 404 Red? 1A 04-004 Lim-1

002 Red (b) 1A 09-002 Lim-1 Converted to, see below, 405 Red? 1A 04-005 Lim-1SBLim-2 Preserved L6di Museum. 406 Red? 1A 04-006 Lim-1

004 Red 1A .. ,-004 Lim-1 407 Red 1A 04-007 Lim-1 Converted to, see below.006 Red 1A ... -006? Lim-17 Original model unknown, Converted to, SBLim-1

see below, 408 Red? 1A 04-008 Lim-1SBLim-2 t 7, PLS/1. eskadra (Sqn)/2, klucz (flight), 409 Red? 1A 04-009 Lim-1

Polish Navy. 410 Red 1A 04-010 Lim-1010 Red 1A 06-010 Lim-1 Converted to, see below. 607 Red 1A 06-007 Lim-1 Converted to, see below,

SBLim-2A Preserved Warsaw. SBLim-2A Sold to Australia/private owner 1989 as011 Red 1A06-011 Lim-1 Converted to, see below. VH-BPG.

SBLim-1 39. PLM, stored Mierz~cice AB, 613 Red 1A 06-013 Lim-1 Ex-013 Red? Converted to, see below,012 Red 1A 09-012 Lim-1 Converted to, see below. SBLim-2A Preserved Philipville, Belgium,

SBLim-2A Also reported as recoded 9012 Red. Sold to 616 Red 1A06-016 Lim-1 Converted to, see below,the USA/private owner as N9012. SBLim-1

014 Red 1A 06-014 Lim-1 625 Red 1A06-025 Lim-1 Converted to, see below,SBLim-2 Preserved Polish Air Force Museum, Krak6w. SBLim-1 Sold to the USA/private owner as N15MU,

015 Red 1A 06-015 Lim-1 Converted to, see below. 634 Red 1A 06-034 Lim-1 Converted to, see below.SBLim-2A Sold to Australia/private owner 1989 as SBLim-1 Reported in Polish book as SBLim-2A

VH-LSN. (c/n 1B006-34) I

017 Red (a) '1A 04-017 Lim-1 Converted to, see below. 636 Red 1A06-036 Lim-1 Converted to, see below,SBLim-2A SBLim-2A Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-LKW.

MiG-15 99

100 MiG-15

Don't you believe it. This very new and shiny,supposedly North Korean MiG-15bis is animpostor - probably a Czech Air Force·S-103painted up for a movie appearance (note theAero L-200 Morava Iightplane in thebackground). Letectvi+Kosmonautika

Judging by the four-digit serial, this supposedlyNorth Korean MiG-15bis preserved at theDatangshan museum near Peking is actually aChinese machine. However, there may be sometruth in the masquerade, as this aircraft couldhave participated in the Korean War, fighting forthe Joint Air Army. Helmut Walther

Natural metal Romanian Air Force Fagot-As(almost certainly Czech-built S-102s) lined up asthe pilots listen to 'all-systems-go' reports fromthe ground crews. Yefim Gordon archive

This Romanian Air Force MiG-15bis (S-103?)is painted light grey overall and wears theroundels introduced in 1985. Yefim Gordon archive

638 Red 1A 06-038 Lim-1 Converted to, see below, 6034 Red 1A 06-034 Lim-1 Ex-034 Red? Converted to, see below,SBLim-2A Also reported as reserialled 6038, Sold to the SBLim-2A 32,PLRT.

USA/private owner as N38BM, 7022 Red 1A 07-022 Lim-1 Ex-022 Red? Converted to, see below,640 Red 1A 06-040 Lim-1 Possibly converted to, see below, SBLim-2A 11, PLM,

SBLim-2A Also reported as reserialled 6040, Sold to the 7026 Red 1A 07-026 Lim-1 Ex-026 Red? Converted to, see below,USA/private owner as N40BM, SBLim-2A 7, PLM,

655 Red 1A 06-055 Lim-1 Converted to, see below, 7031 Red 1A 07-031 Lim-1 Ex-031 Red? Converted to, see below,SBLim-1 SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner as N150MG,

671 Red 1A 06-071 Lim-1 Possibly converted to, see below, 7039 Red 1A 07-039 Lim-1 Ex-039 Red? Converted to, see below,SBLim-1? Unconfirmed (drawing only), SBLim-2A t 7, PLS, Polish Navy, Preserved L6dz

710 Red 1A07-010 Lim-1 Ex-01O Red? Converted to, see below, Museum,SBLim-1 Sold to the USA/private owner as N710DW. 7048 Red? 1A 07-048 Lim-1 Ex-048 Red? Converted to, see below,

712 Red 1A 07-012 Lim-1 Preserved Muzeum Lotnictwa iAstranautyki SBLim-1 Sold to the USA/private owner as N90JD,(Aerospace Museum), Krak6w, 16-3-67, 8017 Red 1A 08-017 Lim-1 Ex-017 Red? Possibly converted to,

732 Red 1A 07-032? Lim-1? Possibly converted to, see below, see below,SBLim-1 6, PLM-B, std Pila AB, C/n quoted in Euramil SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner as N17KM,

as 1A2732 but this does not make sense; 8020 White 1A 08-020 Lim-1 Ex-020 Red? Converted to, see below,could be CS-1 02 c/n 712732, SBLim-2A t Camouflaged, preserved Muzeum Braterstwa

757 Red 1A 07-057 Lim-1 C/n doubtful (this high number of aircraft in Brani, Drzon6w, Now repainted as 8020 Red,batch correct?), Converted to, see below, 9002 Red 1A 09-002 Lim-1 Ex-002 Red? Converted to, see below.

SBLim-1 SBLim-2A Retired, ground instructional airframe,801 Red 1A 08-001 Lim-1 9013 Red 1A 09-013 Lim-1 Ex-013 Red? Converted to, see below,802 Red 1A 08-002 Lim-1 SBLim-2A 39, PLM, stored Mierz~cice AB.803 Red 1A 08-003 Lim-1 9016 Red? 1A 09-016 Lim-1 Ex-016 Red? Converted to, see below,804 Red 1A 08-004 Lim-1 Converted to, see below, SBLim-2 Sold to the USA/private owner as N1383L,

SBLim-1 not known 1A01-001 Lim-1 First aircraft built.807 Red 1A 08-007 Lim-1 Converted to, see below, not known 1A 01-002 Lim-1

SBLim-2 Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-REH, not known 1A 01-003 Lim-1862 Red? 1A 08-062 Lim-1 ? Reported in Euramil but c/n doubtful not known 1A 01-004 Lim-1

(number of aircraft in batch too high!), not known 1A 01-005 Lim-1 Converted to, see below,905 Red 1A 09-005 Lim-1 Converted to, see below, SBLim-2 Sold to the USA/private owner 7-93,

SBLim-2 Preserved L6dz Museum, not known 1A 01-006 Lim-1908 Red 1A 09-008 Lim-1 Converted to, see below,

SBLim-2A Sold to the UK/private owner, under 46 Red 1BO,-46? Lim-2 Converted to, see below,restoration at Shoreham, SBLim-2 Unconfirmed (drawing only),

917 Red 1A 09-017 Lim-1 Ex-017 Red? Converted to, see below, 101 Red 1B001-01 Lim-2 First aircraft built.SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner, registration 102 Red 1B001-02 Lim-2

unknown, 103 Red 1B001-03 Lim-2 Converted to, see below,1005 Red 1A 10-005? Lim-1 Ex-005 Red? Converted to, see below, SBLim-2A

SBLim-1 104 Red 1B001-04 Lim-2R1018 Red 1A 10-018 Lim-1 Ex-018 Red? Converted to, see below, 105 Red 1B001-05 Lim-2 Converted to, see below,

SBLim-1 Instytut Lotnictwa, ejection seat testbed, SBLim-22001 Red 1A 02-001 Lim-1 Ex-001 Red? Converted to, see below, 106 Red 1B001-06 Lim-2 Possibly converted to, see below,

SBLim-2A t 7, PLS, Polish Navy, Lim-2R?2004 Red 1A 02-004 Lim-1 Ex-004 Red? Converted to, see below, 107 Red 1B001-07 Lim-2 Polish Navy,

SBLim-2A t 7, PLS, Polish Navy, Preserved in Polish 117 Red 1B001-17? Lim-2 Converted to, see below,museum, location unknown, SBLim-2A Converted to, see below,

2005 Red 1A 02-005 Lim-1 Ex-005 Red? Converted to, see below, SBLim-2M 45, PLM-B, white overall.SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner as N687, 201 Red 1B002-01 Lim-2

2032 Red 1A 02-032 Lim-1 Ex-032 Red? Converted to, see below, 202 Red 18002-02 Lim-2SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner as N5557B, 203 Red (c)? 18002-03 Lim-2 Converted to, see below,

5007 Red"

1A 05-007 Lim-1 Ex-007 Red? Converted to, see below, SBLim-2A Converted to, see below,SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner 7-93 as SBLim-2M Photo caption states c/n as 27003 (ie,

N157GL. Khar'kov-built UTI-MiG-15) but acft has6008 Red 1A 06-008 Lim-1 Ex-008 Red? Converted to, see below, MiG,15bis-style airbrakes never fitted to

SBLim-2A t Polish Navy, 7, PLS, camouflaged, WFU UTI-MiG-15s, See UTI-MiG-15 section above,Siemirowice AB; later to L6dz Museum, 204 Red 18002-04 Lim-2

6010 Red 1A 06-010 Lim-1 Ex-01O Red? Converted to, see below, 205 Red 1B002-05 Lim-2 Converted to, see below,S8Lim-2A t Preserved Muzeum Katynskie, SBLim-2

6012 Red 1A 06-012 Lim-1 Ex-012 Red? Converted to, see below, 206 Red 18002-06 Lim-2SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner, registration 207 Red 18002-07 Lim-2

unknown, 208 Red 18002-08 Lim-26021 Red 1A 06-021 Lim-1 Ex-021 Red? Converted to, see below, 209 Red 18002-09 Lim-2

SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner, registration 210 Red 1B002-10 Lim-2unknown, 211 Red 1B002-11 Lim-2

6032 Red 1A 06-032 Lim-1 Ex-032 Red? Converted to, see below, 212 Red 1B002-12 Lim-2SBLim-2A Under restoration in Warsaw, 213 Red 18002-13 Lim-2

MiG-15 101

214 Red 18002-14 Lim-2 506 Red 18005-06 Lim-2215 Red 18002-15 Lim-2 507 Red 18005-07 Lim-2216 Red 18002-16 Lim-2R 508 Red 18005-08 Lim-2301 Red 18003-01 Lim-2 Converted to, see below, 509 Red 18005-09 Lim-2

S8Lim-2A Cln quoted in Euromil as 1A00301 but this 510 Red 18005-10 Lim-2does not make sense, PreselVed 511 Red 18005-11 Lim-2Flugausstellung LeotPeter Junior, 512 Red 18005-12 Lim-2R Preserved L6dz Museum,Hermeskeil, Germany, 543 Red 18005-43 Lim-2 Converted to, see below,

302 Red 18003-02 Lim-2 Converted to, see below, S8Lim-2 Reported in Euromil but cln doubtful (numberS8Lim-2A Cln quoted in Euromil as 1A00302 but this of aircraft in batch too high!) Possibly CS-102,

does not make sense, Sold to the 597 Red 18005-977 Lim-2? Cln as reported in Euromil but doubtfulUSA/private owner as N1705U, (number of aircraft in batch too high!),

303 Red 18003-03 Lim-2 Converted to, see below,304 Red 18003-04 Lim-2 S8Lim-2? Reported as such in Polish book but probably305 Red 18003-05 Lim-2 Converted to, see below, UTI-MiG-15 (or CS-1 02 cln 522597),

S8Lim-2A 45.LED, trials aircraft, Cln quoted in Euromil 601 Red 18006-01 Lim-2as 1A00305 but this does not make sense, 602 Red 18006-02 Lim-2R 1, PLM, First aircraft with Lis-2 engine,

306 Red 18003-06 Lim-2 Converted to, see below, PreselVed L6dz Museum,S8Lim-2A Cln quoted in Euromil as 1A00306 but this 603 Red 18006-03 Lim-2

does not make sense, Sold to the 604 Red 18006-04 Lim-2 Converted to, see below,USNprivate owner as N15HQ, S8Lim-2A Converted to, see below,

307 Red 18003-07 Lim-2R PreselVed L6dz Museum (some sources say S8Lim-2M Polish Navy,preselVed Hatzerim, Israel), 605 Red 18006-05 Lim-2

308 Red 18003-08 Lim-2 606 Red 18006-06 Lim-2309 Red 18003-09 Lim-2 Converted to, see below, 607 Red 18006-07 Lim-2

S8Lim-2A Derelict Radom, Cln quoted in Euromil as 608 Red 18006-08 Lim-21A00309 but this does not make sense, 609 Red 18006-09 Lim-2

310 Red 18003-10 Lim-2 610 Red 18006-10 Lim-2311 Red 18003-11 Lim-2 Converted to, see below, 611 Red 18006-11 Lim-2

Lim-2R 6, PLM-8, Cln quoted in Euromil as 1A00311 612 Red 18006-12 Lim-2but this does not make sense, Preserved 613 Red 18006-13 Lim-2L6dz Museum, 614 Red 18006-14 Lim-2

312 Red 18003-12 Lim-2 615 Red 18006-15 Lim-2313 Red 18003-13 Lim-2 616 Red 18006-16 Lim-2314 Red 18003-14 Lim-2 617 Red 18006-17 Lim-2315 Red 18003-15 Lim-2 618 Red 18006-18 Lim-2316 Red 18003-16 Lim-2R PreselVed L6dz Museum, 619 Red 18006-19 Lim-2317 Red 18003-17 Lim-2 PreselVed/ground instructional airframe, 620 Red 18006-20 Lim-2R318 Red 18003-18 Lim-2 634 Red 18006-34 Lim-2 Converted to, see below,319 Red 18003-19 Lim-2 S8Lim-2A320 Red 18003-20 Lim-2 635 Red 18006-35 Lim-2321 Red 18003-21 Lim-2 666 Red 18006-66 Lim-2 Cln doubtful (is this high number of322 Red 18003-22 Lim-2 aircraft in batch correct?)323 Red 1B003-23 Lim-2 701 Red 1B007-01 Lim-2324 Red 1B 003-24 Lim-2 702 Red 1B007-02 Lim-2325 Red 1B 003-25 Lim-2 703 Red 18007-03 Lim-2326 Red 1B 003-26 Lim-2 704 Red 18007-04 Lim-2327 Red 18003-27 Lim-2 705 Red 18007-05 Lim-2328 Red 1B 003-28 Lim-2 706 Red 18007-06 Lim-2329 Red 1B 003-29 Lim-2 707 Red 1B007-07 Lim-2330 Red 1B003-30 Lim-2 708 Red 1B007-08 Lim-2401 Red 1B004-01 Lim-2 709 Red 18007-09 Lim-2 Converted to, see below,402 Red 1B 004-02 Lim-2 SBLim-2 Polish Navy,403 Red 1B004-03 Lim-2 710 Red 1B007-10 Lim-2404 Red 1B004-04 Lim-2 711 Red 1B007-11 Lim-2405 Red 1B004-05 Lim-2 712 Red 1B007-12 Lim-2406 Red 1B004-06 Lim-2 713 Red 1B007-13 Lim-2407 Red 1B004-07 Lim-2 714 Red 1B007-14 Lim-2408 Red 1B004-08 Lim-2 715 Red 1B 007-15 Lim-2409 Red 1B004-09 Lim-2 716 Red 1B 007-16 Lim-2410 Red 1B004-10 Lim-2 717 Red 1B 007-17 Lim-2420 Red 1B 004-20? Lim-2? Serial known but exact version unknown, 718 Red 18007-18 Lim-2501 Red 1B 005-01 Lim-2 719 Red 18007-19 Lim-2502 Red 1B 005-02 Lim-2 720 Red 1B007-20 Lim-2503 Red 1B005-03 Lim-2 721 Red 1B007-21 Lim-2504 Red 1B 005-04 Lim-2 722 Red 1B007-22 Lim-2505 Red 1B 005-05 Lim-2 723 Red 1B007-23 Lim-2

102 MiG-15

724 Red 18007-24 Lim-2 911 Red 18009-11 Lim-2725 Red 18007-25 Lim-2 912 Red 18009-12 Lim-2726 Red 18007-26 Lim-2 913 Red 18009-13 Lim-2727 Red 18007-27 Lim-2 914 Red 18009-14 Lim-2728 Red 18007-28 Lim-2 915 Red 18009-15 Lim-2729 Red 18007-29 Lim-2 916 Red 18009-16 Lim-2730 Red 18007-30 Lim-2 917 Red 18009-17 Lim-2731 Red 18007-31 Lim-2 918 Red 18009-18 Lim-2732 Red 18007-32 Lim-2 Converted to, see below, 919 Red 18009-19 Lim-20732 Red S8Lim-2A 7, PLS/1, eskadra/2, klucz, Polish Navy, 920 Red 18009-20 Lim-2733 Red 18007-33 Lim-2 921 Red 18009-21 Lim-2734 Red 18007-34 Lim-2 922 Red 18009-22 Lim-2735 Red 18007-35 Lim-2 923 Red 18009-23 Lim-2736 Red 18007-36 Lim-2 924 Red 18009-24 Lim-2737 Red 18007-37 Lim-2 925 Red 18009-25 Lim-2738 Red 18007-38 Lim-2 926 Red 18009-26 Lim-2739 Red 18007-39 Lim-2 927 Red 18009-27 Lim-2740 Red 18007-40 Lim-2 928 Red 18009-28 Lim-2741 Red 18007-41 Lim-2 929 Red 18009-29 Lim-2 Crashed 26-6-58, mid-air collision with Lim-5742 Red 18007-42 Lim-2 '1014 Red',743 Red 18007-43 Lim-2 1001 Red 18010-01 Lim-2744 Red 18007-44 Lim-2 1002 Red 18010-02 Lim-2745 Red 18007-45 Lim-2 1003 Red 18010-03 Lim-2746 Red 18007-46 Lim-2 1004 Red 18010-04 Lim-2R747 Red 18007-47 Lim-2 1005 Red 18 010-05 Lim-2748 Red 18007-48 Lim-2 Converted to, see below, 1006 Red 18010-06 Lim-2

S8Lim-2A Sold to the USA/private owned ar N78053, 1007 Red 18010-07 Lim-2773 Red 18007-73 Lim-2? Converted to, see below, 1008 Red 18010-08 Lim-2

S8Lim-2A Reported in Euromil but c/n doubtful 1009 Red 18010-09 Lim-2(number of aircraft in batch too high!); 1010 Red 18010-10 Lim-2could be CS-1 02 c/n 722773, 1011 Red 18010-11 Lim-2

801 Red 18008-01 Lim-2 1012 Red 18010-12 Lim-2802 Red 18008-02 Lim-2 1013 Red 18010-13 Lim-2 Sold to the USA/private owner as N13KM,803 Red 18008-03 Lim-2 1014 Red 18010-14 Lim-2804 Red 18008-04 Lim-2 1015 Red 18010-15 Lim-2805 Red 18008-05 Lim-2 1016 Red 18010-16 Lim-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N15YY.806 Red 18008-06 Lim-2 1017 Red 18010-17 Lim-2807 Red 18008-07 Lim-2 1018 Red 18010-18 Lim-2808 Red 18008-08 Lim-2 1019 Red 18010-19 Lim-2809 Red 18008-09 Lim-2 1020 Red 18010-20 Lim-2810 Red 18008-10 Lim-2 1101 Red 18011-01 Lim-2811 Red 18008-11 Lim-2 1102 Red 18011-02 Lim-2812 Red 18008-12 Lim-2 1103 Red 18011-03 Lim-2813 Red 18008-13 Lim-2 1104 Red 18011-04 Lim-2814 Red 18008-14 Lim-2 1105 Red 18011-05 Lim-2815 Red 18008-15 Lim-2 1106 Red 18011-06 Lim-2816 Red 18008-16 Lim-2 1107 Red 18011-07 Lim-2817 Red 18008-17 Lim-2 1109 Red 18011-08 Lim-2818 Red 18008-18 Lim-2 1108 Red 18011-09 Lim-2819 Red 18008-19 Lim-2 1110 Red 18011-10 Lim-2820 Red 18008-20 Lim-2 1111 Red 18011-11 Lim-2821 Red 18008-21 Lim-2 1112 Red 18011-12 Lim-2822 Red 18008-22 Lim-2 C/n quoted in Euromil as 1A2822 but this 1113 Red 18011-13 Lim-2

does not make sense +. Sold to the 1114 Red 18011-14 Lim-2USNprivate owner as N822JM, 1115 Red 18011-15 Lim-2

823 Red 18008-23 Lim-2 1116 Red 1B011-16 Lim-2824 Red 18008-24 Lim-2 1117 Red 18011-17 Lim-2901 Red 18009-01 Lim-2 1118 Red 18011-18 Lim-2902 Red 18009-02 Lim-2 1119 Red 18011-19 Lim-2903 Red 18009-03 Lim-2 1120 Red 18011-20 Lim-2 Preserved RAF Museum, Hendon (1986),904 Red 18009-04 Lim-2 1121 Red 18011-21 Lim-2905 Red 18009-05 Lim-2 1122 Red 18011-22 Lim-2906 Red 18009-06 Lim-2 1123 Red 18011-23 Lim-2R907 Red 18009-07 Lim-2 1124 Red 18011-24 Lim-2908 Red 18009-08 Lim-2 1125 Red 18011-25 Lim-2909 Red 18009-09 Lim-2 1126 Red 18011-26 Lim-2910 Red 18009-10 Lim-2 1127White 18011-27 Lim-2 Camouflaged, Lim-2 smugacz prototype,

MiG-15 103

1201 Red 1B012-01 Lim-2 1412Red 1B 014-12 Lim-21202 Red 1B 012-02 Lim-2 1413 Red 1B 014-13 Lim-21203 Red 1B 012-03 Lim-2 1414 Red 1B014-14 Lim-21204 Red 1B 012-04 Lim-2 1415 Red 1B014-15 Lim-21205 Red 1B 012-05 Lim-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N205JM. 1416 Red 1B014-16 Lim-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N416JM.1206 Red 1B012-06 Lim-2 1417 Red 1B014-17 Lim-21207 Red 1B012-07 Lim-2 1418 Red 1B014-18 Lim-21208 Red 1B 012-08 Lim-2 1419 Red 1B014-19 Lim-21209 Red 1B 012-09 Lim-2 1420 Red 1B014-20 Lim-2 Sold to the UK/Aces High as G-BMZF.1210 Red 1B012-10 Lim-2 1421 Red 1B014-21 Lim-21211 Red 1B012-11 Lim-2 1422 Red 1B 014-22 Lim-21212 Red 1B012-12 Lim-2 1423 Red 1B 014-23 Lim-21213 Red 1B012-13 Lim-2 1501 Red 1B015-01 Lim-21214 Red 1B012-14 Lim-2 1502 Red 1B 015-02 Lim-21215 Red 1B012-15 Lim-2 1503 Red 1B 015-03 Lim-21216 Red 1B012-16 Lim-2 1504 Red 1B015-04 Lim-21217 Red 1B 012-17 Lim-2 1505 Red 1B015-05 Lim-21218 Red 1B 012-18 Lim-2 1506 Red 1B015-06 Lim-21219 Red 1B012-19 Lim-2 1507 Red 1B015-07 Lim-21220 Red 1B012-20 Lim-2 1508 Red 1B015-08 Lim-21221 Red 1B012-21 Lim-2 1509 Red 1B 015-09 Lim-21222 Red 1B012-22 Lim-2 1510 Red 1B 015-10 Lim-21223 Red 1B012-23 Lim-2 1511 Red 1B 015-11 Lim-21224 Red 1B012-24 Lim-2 1512 Red 1B 015-12 Lim-21225 Red 1B012-25 Lim-2 1513 Red 1B 015-13 Lim-21226 Red 1B012-26 Lim-2 1514 Red 1B015-14 Lim-21227 Red 1B012-27 Lim-2 1515 Red 1B015-15 Lim-21228 Red 1B012-28 Lim-2 1516 Red 1B015-16 Lim-21229 Red 1B012-29 Lim-2 1517 Red 1B015-17 Lim-21230 Red 1B012-30 Lim-2 Preserved Polish Air Force Museum, Krak6w. 1518 Red 1B015-18 Lim-21301 Red 1B013-01 Lim-2 Sold to the USA? 1519 Red 1B015-19 Lim-21302 Red 1B013-02 Lim-2 1520 Red 1B015-20 Lim-21303 Red 1B013-03 Lim-2 1521 Red 1B015-21 Lim-21304 Red 1B 013-04 Lim-2 1522 Red 1B015-22 Lim-21305 Red 1B 013-05 Lim-2 1523 Red 1B 015-23 Lim-21306 Red 1B 013-06 Lim-2 1524 Red 1B 015-24 Lim-21307 Red 1B 013-07 Lim-2 1525 Red 1B 015-25 Lim-21308 Red 1B 013-08 Lim-2 1526 Red 1B 015-26 Lim-2 Preserved Muzeum imieni Orla Bialego1309 Red 1B013-09 Lim-2 (White Eagle Museum), Skarzysko Kamienna.1310 Red 1B013-10 Lim-2 1527 Red 1B 015-27 Lim-2R Preserved Andrych6w.1311 Red 1B 013-11 Lim-2 1528 Red 1B015-28 Lim-21312 Red 1B 013-12 Lim-2 Preserved Muzeum Wojska Pofskiego, 1529 Red 1B015-29 Lim-2

Warsaw, 13-1-71 as '1530 Red', later as 1530 Red 1B015-30 Lim-2 'The real McCoy'; see also 1312 Red.'1132 Red'. 1601 Red 1B016-01 Lim-2

1313 Red 1B013-13 Lim-2 1602 Red 1B016-02 Lim-21314 Red 1B 013-14 Lim-2 1603 Red 1B016-03 Lim-21315 Red 1B013-15 Lim-2 1604 Red 1B 016-04 Lim-21316 Red 1B013-16 Lim-2 1605 Red 1B 016-05 Lim-21317 Red 1B013-17 Lim-2 1606 Red 1B 016-06 Lim-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N606BM1318 Red 1B013-18 Lim-2 (N606JM?)1319 Red 1B013-19 Lim-2 1607 Red 1B016-07 Lim-21320 Red 1B 013-20 Lim-2 1608 Red 1B016-08 Lim-21321 Red 1B013-21 Lim-2 1609 Red 1B016-09 Lim-21322 Red 1B013-22 Lim-2 Crashed 25-6-63, mid-air collision with Lim-5 1610 Red 1B 016-10 Lim-2

'1528 Red'. 1611 Red 1B 016-11 Lim-21323 Red 1B 013-23 Lim-2 1612 Red 1B 016-12 Lim-2 Preserved L6di Museum.1401 Red 1B014-01 Lim-2 1613 Red 1B 016-13 Lim-21402 Red 1B 014-02 Lim-2 1614 Red 1B016-14 Lim-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N614BM1403 Red 1B 014-03 Lim-2 (N614JM?)1404 Red 1B 014-04 Lim-2 1615 Red 1B016-15 Lim-21405 Red 1B 014-05 Lim-2 1616 Red 1B016-16 Lim-21406 Red 1B014-06 Lim-2 1617 Red 1B016-17 Lim-21407 Red 1B014-07 Lim-2 1618 Red 1B 016-18 Lim-21408 Red 1B 014-08 Lim-2 1619 Red 1B 016-19 Lim-21409 Red 1B 014-09 Lim-2 1620 Red 1B016-20 Lim-21410 Red 1B014-10 Lim-2 1621 Red 1B016-21 Lim-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N621 BM1411 Red 1B014-11 Lim-2 (N621JM?)

104 MiG-15

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 MilitarNational in Bucharest. Peter Davison

This very weathered UTI-MiG-15 (134 Red) isone of two preserved at the Museul MilitarNational. Peter Davison

The other Midget at the Museul Militar Nationalis in much better condition. Peter Davison

MiG-15 105

Preserved Balta Verde AB, Craiova.Camouflaged.Special colour scheme with lightning sideflash.Czech-built (S-102).Czech-built (S-1 03)7Czech-built (S-103)7Czech-built (CS-1 02)7Czech-built (S-1 03)7Czech-built (S-103)7Czech-built (CS-102)7Not CS-102 cln 522543 (see Polish section).Preserved Museul Militar National, Bucharest.Czech-built (S-103)7

Preserved Museul Militar Central, Bucharest.

RemarksSerial Cln Version

223 Red ...223 MiG-15244 Red ...244 MiG-15306 Red ...306 MiG-15311 Red ...311 MiG-15375 Red ...375 MiG-15386 Red ...386 MiG-15389 Red ...389 MiG-15392 Red ...392 MiG-15415 Red .. .415 MiG-15584 Red ...584 MiG-15611 Blue ...611 MiG-15

767 Red 231767 MiG-151129 Red 1411297 MiG-15bis1197 Red 1411977 MiG-15bis2192 Red ...2192 UTI-MiG-152404 Red ...2404 MiG-15bis2459 Red7 ...2459 MiG-15bis2506 Red 0225067 UTI-MiG-152543 Red 7 UTI-MiG-15

2546 Red ...2546 MiG-15bis

ROMANIA

In Romania, as in Bulgaria, the MiG-15 replaced the Yak-23 in the early1950s. The MiG-15bis served as a fighter-bomber in the Romanian AirForce (Fortele Aeriene ale Republicii Socialiste Rornane) until the mid­80s; more than 40 UTI-MiG-15s were still operational in Romania at thetime. 12-plus Fagot-Bs and Midgets still served in the tactical training rolein late 1991. Given Romania's obsessive and all-pervasive security, fewaircraft are known.

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 mili­

tary parade in Warsaw marking the 15th anniversary of the People'sRepublic of Poland. An even grander sight was presented at the 20thanniversary in 1964. On that occasion, 26 Lim-2s from the WOSL for­mated to create the Roman numerals 'XX'. For this performance theWOSL received the newly-established B/f?kitne Skrzydla (Blue Wings)award from the Skrzydlata Polska magazine. On 22nd July 1966, a groupof 43 Polish Navy Um-2s led by Lt Col R6zewicz participated in theparade marking 1,000 years of Polish statehood, formating to create thenumerals'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 werepainted in two- or three-tone tactical camouflage. Camouflage coloursand patterns varied widely from aircraft to aircraft. Unusually, SBLim-2'018 Red' operated by the 7. PLS was painted white overall and inevitablydubbed Biala Darna (White Lady).

In 1957 the Soviet-built MiG-15bis supplied as the pattern aircraft forLim-2 production (c/n 137086?) was transferred to the Polish Instituteof Aeronautics (Instytut Lotnictwa) as a research aircraft and registeredSP-GLZ on 18th November 1958. The aircraft retained its natural metalfinish, except for the vertical tail which was bright yellow.

SP-GLZ was used to investigate aerodynamic configurations of newPolish aircraft in 'the biggest-ever wind tunnel'; for instance, it carried ascale model of the PZL TS-11 Iskra (Spark) advanced trainer. Other usesincluded trials of location systems for finding meteorological rocketsafter use. To this end, SPD-3, SP-3bis and SPD-6 instrumented test pods(sometimes misidentified as towed gunnery targets) were carried on theregular wing hardpoints and dropped at high altitude; at the terminalstage of the trajectory they were slowed by parachutes. The aircraftserved with Instytut Lotnictwa until late 1972 (the registration was can­celled on 4th November).

Preserved Muzeum Braterstwa Brani,Drzon6w, 26-4-79 (DID; officially donated21-6-79). n 1,599hrs 9min, 2,509 landings.

Preserved Elliniki Aeraporia Moussio(Greek Air Force Museum) as '301 '.

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'.

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 1stWarsaw 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 teamflying Lim-2s had been organised, following a proposal by 1. PLM pilots.Originally the team's three fighters were flown by Captains ZygmuntDt;lbowski, Jerzy Figurski and Ryszard Grundman. On 26th August theyparticipated in the flying display at Okt;lcie, putting on a lively aerobaticsdisplay which included a spectacular formation barrel roll.

A year later, on 8th September 1957, the biggest Polish airshowto datetook place at Babice airbase. It included a formation flypast by severalhundred (!) 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 byCapt J6zef Dt;lbowski) and even a session of mock combat between a

500th and last Lim-2 built.Preserved WOSL. Cln quoted as 1B019-29which does not make sense.

1622 Red 1B 016-22 Lim-21623 Red 1B 016-23 Lim-21624 Red 1B016-24 Lim-21625 Red 1B 016-25 Lim-21626 Red 1B016-26 Lim-21627 Red 1B 016-27 Lim-21628 Red 1B016-28 Lim-21629 Red 1B016-29 Lim-2

1630 Red 1B 016-30 Lim-21701 Red 1B 017-01 Lim-21702 Red 1B017-02 Lim-21703 Red 1B 017-03 Lim-21704 Red 1B017-04 Lim-21705 Red 1B 017-05 Lim-2

1801 Red 1B 018-01 Lim-21802 Red 1B 018-02 Lim-21803 Red 1B 018-03 Lim-2

1804 Red 1B 018-04 Lim-21805 Red 1B018-05 Lim-21806 Red 1B 018-06 Lim-21807 Red 1B018-07 Lim-21808 Red 1B018-08 Lim-21809 Red 1B018-09 Lim-2R

1901 Red 1B019-01 Lim-21902 Red 1B019-02 Lim-21903 Red 1B019-03 Lim-21904 Red 1B 019-04 Lim-21905 Red 1B 019-05 Lim-21906 Red 1B019-06 Lim-21907 Red 1B 019-07 Lim-21908 Red 1B 019-08 Lim-21909 Red 1B 019-09 Lim-21910 Red 1B019-10 Lim-21911 Red 1B019-11 Lim-21912 Red 1B019-12 Lim-21913 Red 1B019-13 Lim-21914 Red 1B 019-14 Lim-2'1980 Red' 7 Lim-2

* Some aircraft which look like SBLim-2s (ie, with MiG-15bis-style airbrakes) have clns shoWingobviously 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 factaCzech-built UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) cln 022822.

106 MiG-15

SOVIET UNION

SOMALIA (SOMALI DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC)

The aircraft were either in natural metal finish or painted light grey overall, with red serials. Theoriginal star-type national insignia were replaced in 1985 by the current red/yellow/blue roundels.

Details of the WS MiG-15s are scarce; however, as noted earlier, until1955 the Soviet Air Force used three- or four-digit serials based on thec/n and allowing more or less positive identification. These were laterreplaced by two-digit tactical codes rendering identification impossible(unless the c/n is known). More or less positively identified aircraft arelisted below; post-1955 tactical codes not related to the c/n are indicatedin bold type.

24 Blue 2815311 MiG-15bis Ex-2811 Red, fighter-bomber conversionprototype, Mikoyan OKB.

27 Red 2115368 MiG-15bis ISh Ex-2168 Red. Preserved Russian Air ForceMuseum, Monino.

30 Blue 1315376 MiG-15bis Ex-1376 Red, training aircraft.36 Red 1615338 UTI-MiG-15 356th lAP PVO, Amderma.37 Red 53210337 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft.43 Red 55210434 MiG-15bisR Ex-434 Red. GSVG/294th ORAp, Altenburg

AB. Retired as target at gunnery range(Wittstock AB), scrapped Rangsdorf AB 1992,

45 Red? 53210345 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft.46 Red (a)? 53210346 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft.46 Red (b) 55210465 MiG-15bisR Ex-465 Red. GSVG/294th ORAp, Altenburg

AB. Retired as target at gunnery range(Wittstock AB), scrapped Rangsdorf AB 1992,

47 Red 53210347 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft,51 Red 922347 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).58 Yellow ? UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Rigas Aviacijas Muzejs. C/n

quoted in Euromi! as 02611 but this does notmake sense.

67 Red 0315367 MiG-15bis 106th IAD/29th GvIAP. To the PlAAF,mid-1950,

72 Red 0315372 MiG-15bis 106th lAD/29th GvIAP. To the PlAAF,mid-1950.

72 Blue 10994003 UTI-MiG-15 105th ADIS/559th APIB, wreckedFinsterwalde.

85 Red 512357 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). 4th VN239thBaranovichskaya IAD/159th NovorossiyskiyGvIAp, Kluczewo (Stargard) AB, Poland.

92 Red 0315395 MiG-15bis 106th lAD/29th GvIAP. To the PlAAF,mid-1950.

93 Red (a) ...93 MiG-15bis AV-MF/Pacific Fleet, 32nd IAD/913th lAP.To the North Korean AF.

93 Red (b) 812579 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). GSVG, preservedAllstedt AS until 1991.

014 Red ...014 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur?044 Red 134044 MiG-15bis 133rd IAD/415th lAP. To the North Korean AF.101' Blue 10101 UTI-MiG-15 (ST-10) Ejection seat testbed, L11.102' Blue 10102 UTI-MiG-15 (ST-10) Ejection seat testbed, L11.110 Red .. ,1..10 MiG-15 C/n could be 111010 or 0115310.122 Red ...1..22 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th IAP/1 st AE. To NKorean AF.125 Black 111025 MiG-15 324th IAD/176th GvlAP/2nd AE. To North

Korean Air Force.132 Red 121032 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th lAP. To the North Korean AF.138 Red 121038 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAP. To the North Korean AF.146 Red 121046 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAP. To the North Korean AF.153' Blue ...2...153? UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102).172 Blue 121072 MiG-15bis Aerodynamics research aircraft, L11.182 Red 121082 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft.183 Red 121083 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th lAP. To the North Korean AF.188 Red 121088 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF.192 Red 121092 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF.201 Red 0112 MiG-15bis Saratov-built. Nil WS, trials aircraft.201 Blue ...2...01 MiG-15bis226 Red 122026 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF.231 Red 122031 MiG-15bis To the North Korean AF.235 Blue 122035 MiG-15bis Development aircraft, Mikoyan OKB/NII WS.239 Red 53211239 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft.244 Red ...2...44 MiG-15bis271 Red 2015371 MiG-15bis 2161h IAD/518th lAP. To the North Korean AF.300 Red 123100? MiG-15bis 351st lAP; unconfirmed (drawing only).

To the North Korean AF,302 Blue ...3...02 MiG-15bis317 Red 3317 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur, Nil WS,

trials aircraft.325 Red 1...3025 MiG-15bis AV-MF. C/n is either 123025 or 133025,327 Red 123027 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF,

MiG-15 107

Czech-built (S-1 03)? Preserved Museu!Aviatiei, Bucharest-Otopeni airport.

MiG-15bis

Serial/code C/n Version Remarks

5Red 105015 MiG-15bis Prototype (converted MiG-15), Mikoyan OKB;originally no serial.

01 (Red?) 2415372 MiG-15bis Ex-2472 Red. Preserved Valeriy PChkalovMuseum (Chkalovsk, Nizhniy NovgorodRegion).

03 Red 22013 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Russian Air Force Museum,Monino; ex-zero-G trainer? Khar'kov-built.

06 Red 922272 UTI-MiG-15 DOSAAF: Czech-built (CS-102), PreservedGreat Patriotic War Museum, PoklonnayaGora, Moscow.

10 Red 722682 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Derelict Voronezh.14 Red 722679 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Preserved Rigas

Aviacijas Muzejs, Riga-Spilve.15 Blue ? 'UTI-MiG-15stk' Ejection trainer.16 Red (a) ... 16 MiG-15bis AV-MF*/Pacific Fleet, 32nd IAD/913th lAP. To

the North Korean AF.16 Red (b) 106216 UTI-MiG-15 Director aircraft for Yak-25MSh target drone.

C/n as quoted in Russian book - possiblemisquote?

16 Red (e) 212440? UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02)? C/n off poor-qualityphotograph.

17 Red ...17 MiG-15bis Hose and drogue refuelling system testbed,Mikoyan OKB.

18 Red UTI-MiG-15 DOSAAF; c/n reported as 02417 but thisdoes not make sense (possibly CS-1 02, firstdigit of c/n missing?)

21 MiG-15 Preserved Kuybyshev Aviation Institute(KuAI; now Samara State Aviation University),ground instructional airframe,

23 Blue 'UTI-MiG-15stk' Ejection trainer.

2713 Red ...2713

Starting in 1963, the Somali Democratic Republic received MiGs from theUSSR in return for letting the Soviet Air Force use its bases. The aircraftsupplied to the Somalian Aeronautical Corps (Oayuuradaha XooggaOalka Somaliyeed) included one squadron of MiG-15bis fighter-bombersbased at Hargeisa, plus seven UTI-MiG-15s. Two of the latter werereportedly still operational in the 1980s - somewhat surprisingly, con­sidering that Somalia had terminated its friendship treaty with the USSRin November 1977 because the USSR had backed Ethiopia in its 1977­78 border conflict with Somalia. Hence Soviet military aid was promptlycut 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; thisaircraft is derelict in Mogadishu. However, the aircraft carried drop tanksmarked'114', suggesting that another UTI-MiG-15 serialled CC 114 alsoexisted.

Top and below: The ex-North Korean MiG-15bis(47-0616?) at a late stage of its evaluation by theUSAF. The aircraft wears an Air Force SystemsCommand badge on the fuselage; the TC buzzcode reportedly stood for Tom Collins. YefimGordon archive

This unmarked MiG·15bis sits in a privatemuseum somewhere in California. Helmut Walther

Polish Navy 58-lim-2M '604 Red'. Waclaw Holys

MiG-15 109

none 115002 MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraft,none 120113 MiG-15none 132020 MiG-15bisR (SR)none 53210114 MiG-15bisS (SD-UPB) Prototype, Mikoyan OKB,none 53210120 MiG-15bisR (SR) Prototype, Mikoyan OKB,none 55210101 MiG-15bisR First production aircraft,none 2415398 MiG-15bis Became 2498 Red?none 3810102 MiG-15 (SA-1) Mikoyan OKB development aircraft,none 3810203 MiG-15 Mikoyan OKB development aircraft,none 3810510 MiG-15none 01246? UTI-MiG-15P (ST-7) Prototype, Mikoyan OKB, C/n read off poor-

quality photograph,not known 10444 UTI-MiG-15not known 103012 MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraft,not known 106220 UTI-MiG-15 Director aircraft for Yak-25MSh target drone,

C/n quoted in Russian book - possible error?not known 122040 MiG-15bis (SYa) Mikoyan OKB development acft/NII WS trials,not known 122058 MiG-15bis (SYa) Mikoyan OKB development acft/NII WS trials,not known 122067 MiG-15bis (SYa) Mikoyan OKB development acft/NII WS trials,not known 127035 MiG-15bis Mikoyan OKB development aircraft

(drop tank tests)?not known 3810510 MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraft,not known 0215341 MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraftnot known 0815358 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft,not known 53210434 MiG-15bis Mikoyan OKB development aircraft,not known 53210668 MiG-15bis Mikoyan OKB development acft (0,8m2

airbrake tests),not known 2301 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Nil WS,

trials aircraft.not known 31530504 MiG-15bis W/O in landing accident at Tbilisi plant 24-5-52.not known 022618 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102).not known 022712 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 armt Curiously, aMiG-15bis was used in a (possibly American) movie, painted in pre-1955 Sovietmarkings 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 totallyincongruous, 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 901from the USSR for training its MiG-17 pilots. Spares for the MiGs and ateam of Soviet instructors arrived at Katunayake (China Bay) on the sameday. The Midget was operated by the 6th Sqn. at Katunayake until 1979.

SUDAN .

After President Jaffar Nimairy came to power, the Sudan Air Force (alOuwwat al-Jawwiya as-Sudaniya) received Soviet aircraft, including UTI­MiG-15s to complement Shenyang F-5s (MiG-17Fs) supplied by China.No details are known.

SYRIA

The Syrian Air Force (al Ouwwat al Jawwiya al-Arabiya as-Suriya) orderedits 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 Egyptwhere the Syrian pilots were taking their training. Alas, all of them exceptfour Midgets were destroyed on the ground at Abu Sueir by Royal NavyWestland Wyvem attack aircraft on 1st November 1956 without everflying a single sortie.

110 MiG-15

Further deliveries came later, including UTI-MiG-15s. Syrian MiG-15stook part in all subsequent Middle Eastem conflicts with Israel, but mostof the aircraft lost in these conflicts were destroyed on the ground, not inthe air. One squadron of UTI-MiG-15s remained by early 1987; more than25 aircraft were reportedly still operational in late 1991.

Only one Syrian UTI-MiG-15 serialled 273 has been identified. Thiscamouflaged (and extremely weathered) aircraft now survives in amuseum whose location is unknown - possibly in Israel.

TANZANIA' ' ,

The Air Wing of the Tanzanian People's Defence Force was largelyequipped 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 towarbird 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 PWLcamouflage). Later it went to the Old Flying Machine Company (RAFDuxford) and was put on display at the Imperial War Museum. The air­craft is now natural metal with red trim and painted in pre-1955 Sovietmarkings as '6247 Blue'. The serial presentation is open to doubt, sinceonly Novosibirsk-built SovAF Midgets are known to have had four-digitserials; had this aircraft actually been supplied to the USSR, the serialcould just as easily have been 247' Blue.

Lim-2 '1420 Red' (c/n 1B 014-20) was acquired by Aces High Ltdwhich operates the aircraft in its original markings under the registrationG-BMZF. This aircraft gained fame in February 1987 when it was used asa backdrop for a Pilot's Pal photo session with model Susan Jane Watts;in 1993 it was repainted in North Korean markings with the absolutelynon-authentic serial 01420 Red.

Another Lim-2 (1120 Red, cln 1B 011-20) is on display at the RAFMuseum at Hendon since 1986. Finally, an SBLim-1 (ex-908 Red, c/n 1A09-008) was reportedly under restoration by Graham Hinkley at Shore­ham in 1995. It is not known if the restoration was to airworthy conditionor just as a static exhibit.

A Novosibirsk-built MiG-15bis serialled 2057 (c/n 2015337) fell intoAmerican hands when it was flown to Kimpo AB near Seoul by defectorRo Kim Suk on 21 st September 1953. Painted in USAF markings andreserialled '7616' (ie, 47-06167), the fighter was evaluated at Kadena AB(Okinawa, Japan) and later at Eglin AFB (Florida) and Wright-PattersonAFB (Dayton, Ohio) in 1954. At a late stage of the evaluation trials itreceived the buzz number TC-616 (the letters reportedly stood for TomCollins, one of the test pilots flying it), an Air Force Systems Commandbadge on the centre fuselage (on the starboard side only) and a USAF­style red caution stripe around the aft fuselage. Curiously, this stripe wasapplied immediately ahead of the fin (approximately at frame 21), not atthe fuselage break point. The aircraft is now preserved in accuratelyrestored original markings atthe USAF Museum (Wright-Patterson AFB).

Later, the Defense Test and Evaluation Support Agency (DTESA) N51MG 1961 MiG-15bis Ex-PLANAF. Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-obtained a number of MiGs from Poland in the mid-80s for use in clan- on-Amur, Owned by James EBeasleydestine research programmes and for realistic threat simulation during (Philadelphia, PA, did 3-89), later NASWexercises such as Red Flag, These included Lim-2 '822 Red' (c/n 1B 008- Foundation (Cape May, NJ), regn date 23-4-99,22) painted in a spurious sandlgreen camouflage scheme. Another N83GP 2562 UTI-MiG-15 Ex-PWL 2562, converted MiG-15bis. OwnedDTESA aircraft was SBLim-1 '038 Red' (c/n 1A 06-038)' based at Kirtland by GPanaitescu (Vintage Wings, Inc;AFB, New Mexico. This had matt white uppersurfaces, deep blue under- Anchorage, AK), registration date 3-93; soldsurfaces and a black horse's head logo on the fin; unlike some of the to Air Station, Inc (Arlington, WA) 2-9-98,other aircraft, though, it was devoid of national insignia. The aircraft was N87CN MiG-15bis Ex-PLAAF 83277 Red. Owned by Cinema Airfitted with Western communications and naVigation equipment, as evi- (Carlsbad, CA, did 14-6-91), later Air Museumdeneed by the non-standard aerials under the forward fuselage and on (Chino, CA), registration date 3-2-99. Clnthe sides of the fin. Later, 038 Red was donated to the Pima Air Museum reported as 910-51 but this doesn't make sense.(Pima County, Arizona). Another SBLim-2 operated by DTESA (possibly N90JD 1A 07-048 SBLim-1 Ex-PWL 7048. Owned by Jerry DGuffeyex-N271 JM, cln 242271) was painted in Soviet markings with the tactical (Kowloon, Hong Kong), regn date 28-9-96.code '71 Red'. N115MG 622028 'SBLim-2A'* Ex-PWL 628, converted CS-1 02. Owned by

Apart from that, numerous Polish- and Chinese-built MiGs began Brunetto Flying Services (Coolidge, AZ), didpouring into the USA in 1986 when the Iron Curtain was lifted - much to 3-94; sold to Phoenix Warbirds (Phoenix, AZ)the joy of warbird enthusiasts and collectors. Such aircraft have been 16-3-94, then to Steve Ottosi (Hidden Hills,operated in the Experimental category with a limited certificate of air- CAl 25-8-94, then to Michael ABroderickworthiness. Known civil MiG-15s operated in the United States are listed (Mansfield, OH) 14-12-98below. N115PW SBLim-2 Ex-PWL 115? Owned by Wilke &Associates,

Registration Cln Version Remarks Inc (Rocklin, CAl, registration date 12-6-92;

N13KM 1B010-13 Lim-2 Ex-PWL 1013, Classics in Aviationdisplayed at Cavanaugh Flight Museum(Dallas-Addison, TX).

(Reno, Nevada) via Middlesbrough, UK. Re-registered, see below.Later sold as, see below, NX115PN Owned by Cavanaugh Flight Museum as

N106JB War Eagles Air Museum (Santa Teresa, NM). 'PWL 115'.N15HQ 1B003-06? SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 306; cln also reported as '1 A03506' N115UT 31040 UTI-MiG-15 Khar'kov-built. Owned by Vernon Ricks

(ie, 3506, converted MiG-15bis ?). Owned by (Greenwood, MS), registration date 5-4-99,Josephs Four, Inc (Fayetteville, GA, did

N132DG 1A 07-032 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 032; cln also reported as 1A06-032!15-6-94), later Minnesota Air National Guard

Owned by Donald AGianquitto (Melrose, MT),Historical Foundation, Inc (St Paul, MN),

registration date 4-8-94.registration date 16-1-97,

N150MG 1A 07-031 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 7031 ,Owned by Fantasy FightersN15LC 1A 10-017 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 017. Owned by Raymond JWeible

(Santa Fe, NM), registration date 23-9-93.(New Kensington, PAl, regn date 4-5-95.

N15MG 1411 MiG-15bis Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on·Amur.N157GL 1A05-007 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 5007. Owned by George Lazik (Van

Owned by EAA Aviation Center (Oshkosh, WI),Nuys, CA, did 21-7-93), later Laurie Rollings

registration date 2-2-93; later sold to Combat(Tesuque, NM), registration date 13-4-96.

Jets Flying Museum (Houston, TX).N205JM 1B 012-05 Lim-2 Ex-PWL 1205. Owned by John McGuire

Ex-PLAAF, painted in Chinese markings as (Santa Teresa, NM, did 23-1-87), then AI

'4115 White', red aft fuselage &tail. Reddick (Classics in Aviation, Reno, NV, did

N15MU 1A 06-025 SBLim-1 Ex-PWL 625? Owned by MiG, Inc (Pittsford, 6-87). To DTESA 1988; WFU 10-89, stored

Ny), registration date 4-5-1998. AMARC 1990-93, to be shipped to the UK,

N15UT 522546 'SBLim-2' Converted Czech-built CS-1 02. Owned by N215MG 522555 'SBLim-2' Ex-PWL 555; converted Czech-built CS-1 02.

Phoenix Warbirds (Phoenix, AZ), registration Owned by James CGood (Casper, WY),

date 15-3-96; sold to Richard AFowler registration date 7-7-99.

(Park City, UT). N271JM 242271 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). Ex-PWL 2271, Classics

N15VY 1B010-16 Lim-2 Ex-PWL 1016. Owned by Donald RYoung in Aviation via Middlesbrough. To DTESA as

(Santa Barbara, CA, did 8-88), then Stephen 'Soviet AF 71 Red'? Later sold to Evergreen

JCraig (Lawrence, KS, did 10-93), then Vintage Aircraft, Inc (McMinnville, OR),

Combat Air Museum, Inc (Topeka, KS), registration date 23-4-99.

registration date 28-7-97, N302LA 613302? 'SBLim-2A' Ex-PWL3302; converted CS-102? (c/n

N17KM 1A 08-017 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 8017. Owned by John McGuire reported as 1A3302 but this does not make

(Santa Teresa, NM, did 2-87), then AI sense). Owned by Krzysztof Kulinski

Reddick (Classics in Aviation, Reno, NV, (did 12-93), later CDavid Austin (Derry, PA),

did 6-87). Sold to Howard Torman (Aviation registration date 1-6-94.

Classics Ltd, Reno, NV, did 1991), then N304SB 3504 'SBLim-2M' Ex-PWL 304; converted MiG-15bis, Owned

Tacair Systems (Reno, NV) as 'Soviet AF 17 by George Lazik (Van Nuys,CA, did 21-7-93),

Red', registration date 29-6-91. later Laurie Rollings (Tesuque, NM),

N38BM 1A 06-038 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 638. Owned by John McGuire registration date 13-4-96, as 'PWL 304'.

(Santa Teresa, NM, did 23-1-87), then AI N416JM 1B014-16 Lim-2 Ex-PWL 1416, Classics in Aviation via

Reddick (Classics in Aviation, Reno, NV, Middlesbrough. To John McGuire/War

did 6-87). To DTESA as 038 Red; WFU 10-89, Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87).stored AMARC 1992-93, to Pima Air Museum N515MG 3508 'SBLim-2' Ex-PWL 308; converted MiG-15bis (c/nas 'PWL 038' 1993, reported as 1A03508 but this does not make

N40BM 1A 06-040 SBLim-1? Ex-PWL 640. Owned by John McGuire as sense). Owned by Richard Sugden (Wilson,'Soviet AF 640 Red'. WY), registration date 21-8-98.

MiG-15 111

N606JM 1B 016-06 Lim-2 Ex-PWL 1606, Owned by John McGuirel ReesmaniYak Attack Airshows, Inc (did 5-92),War Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87), painted as Soviet AF '577'; badly damagedAlso reported as N606BM! by in-flight fire at Aurora, CO, 1-3-94,

N614JM 1B016-14 Lim-2 Ex·PWL 1614, Owned by John McGuirel N90601 122073 MiG-15bis Ex-PLANAF. Painted in Soviet Air ForceWar Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87), markings as '15 White', twin red stripes onAlso reported as N614BM! nose, Later sold as, see below,

N621JM 1B016-21 Lim-2 Ex-PWL 1621, Owned by John McGuirel N15PE Owned by Paul Entrekin (Pensacola, FL),War Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87), registration date 5-6-87,Also reported as N621 BM! not known 621524 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02), Ex-PWL 1524, stored

N629JM 1B016-29 Lim-2 Ex-PWL 1629, Owned by John McGuirel AMARC,War Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87), not known 622022 'SBLim-2A'* Ex-PWL 622, converted CS-102, Owned byAlso reported as N629BM! Brunetto Flying Services,

N678 27003 UTI-MiG-15 Khar'kov-built. Ex-PWL 203, Owned by not known 1A01-005 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL. Owned by Phoenix WarbirdsSteven GPenning (Windsor, CAl, registration (Phoenix, ALj, did 7-93,date 8-8-95, not known 1A 06-012 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 6012,

N687 1A 02-005 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 2005, Owned by Steven GPenning not known 1A 06-021 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 6021, Owned by Brunetto Flying(Windsor, CAl, registration date 3-2-94, Services, did 3-94,

N710DW 1A07-010 SBLim-1 Ex-PWL 710, Owned by Dan AWesley not known 1A 06-026 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 026, Owned by Phoenix Warbirds,(Pleasanton, CAl, registration date 15-8-95, did 7-93,

N822JM 1B008-22 Lim-2 Ex-PWL 0822; registration sometimes not known 1A 09-017 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 917, stored AMARC,reported in error as N822LM, Owned by John not known 3506 'SBLim-2A'* Ex-PWL 306, converted MiG·15bis, OwnedMcGuire (did 1-87), then AI Reddick (as by Brunetto Flying Services,'Soviet AF 822 Red', did 6-87), To DTESA; not known 137077 MiG-15bis Ex-PLANAF, Owned by Unlimited Aircraft LtdWFU 1990, std AMARC 1990-92, to Pima Air (Chino, CA), did 3-87.Museum (rolled out as 'North Korean AF 822 not known 137085 MiG-15bis Ex-PLANAF. Owned by the Champlin FighterRed' 22-6·92), Museum (Mesa, ALj, did 1986; loaned to

N996 122071 MiG-15bis Ex-PLANAF. Owned by Terence GKlingele San Diego Aerospace Museum (San Diego,(Belleville, IL), registration date 23-3-93, CA) as 'PLANAF 70201 "

N1383L 1A 09-016 SBLim-2 Ex-PWL 9016, Owned by Donald AGianquitto not known JJ-2 Ex-PLAAF 83238, Stored Phoenix-Deer(Melrose, MT), registration date 3-9-97, Valley, AZ,

N1705U 1B 003-02 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 302,N2069 2238 UTI-MiG-15 Chinese-built (JJ-2)? Owned by Earl JCurtis The Chinese MiG-15s and other aircraft, hundreds of which had been in

(Phoenix, AZ), registration date 15-11-95, storage there, started arriving Stateside in 1986, The initial batch wasN2276H 813277 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02), ex-PWL 277. restored by Unlimited Aircraft ltd at Chino, California, a well-known war-N5557B 1A02-032 SBLim-2A Ex·PWL 2032; based Reno, NV. Cln also bird rebuilder, whereupon the aircraft were offered for sale, Prices ranged

reported as 1A512032 which does not make from US$100,000 (Ro Kim Suk's thirty pieces of silver? - Auth,) tosense (ie, converted CS-102 cln 512032?) US$250,000, depending on condition, total time etc, Classics in Aviation

N7013L MiG-15bis Ex-PLAAF 81072; cln reported as 81072 but at Stead Airport, Reno, Nevada, became another MiG rebuilder, acquir-this does not make sense, Owned by Warren ing former Polish aircraft, (Classics in Aviation abbreviates as CIA. Neat.)Sessler (China Technologies, Inc, Chino, The biggest challenge was to get the aircraft registered because theCAl, registration date 6-88, Later to Planes of flight manuals needed to be translated for the Federal Aviation Adminis-Fame Museum as PLAAF 81072; loaned to tration (FAA), However, getting the aircraft into the country wasn't alwaysUS Navy Air Museum, MCAS EI Toro, easy either, China enjoyed most-favoured nation status until the 1989

N7013N JJ-2 Ex-PLAAF 81676; cln reported as 81676 but student protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing which were crushed bythis does not make sense, Owned by Warren the government. Hungary and Poland, however, were not on such a sta-Sessler (China Technologies, Inc, Chino, CAl, tus and Cold War-era laws forbade the importation of former combat jetsregistration date 6-88, from these countries,

N9012 1A09-012 SBLim-2A Ex·PWL 012 (9012?), Owned by Robert L This resulted in an all-out fight with the US Bureau of Alcohol, TobaccoReid/Lusso Service (Mesa, ALj, stored and Firearms (ATF) in mid-1989 when the Planes of Fame Museum pur-Duiven (Holland) 1992-93 in airworthy chased a MiG-15, a MiG-17 and an Antonov An-2T Colt utility biplanecondition, delivered to the USA 15-1-94, (HA-AND, to N90400) in Hungary and Poland, The ATF raised hell, forc-

N41125 242266 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102), Ex-PWL 266, overall ing the US Customs to admit they had made a 'mistake' by allowing thegolden colour scheme, Owned by Thomas M planes to enter the country - even though the aircraft had been dulySmith (Granada Hills, CA), registration date cleared through Customs, Then the ATF demanded that the aircraft be1-5-96, given to the US government at no cost or immediately scrapped on site!

N76584 1A07-056 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 056, Owned by Jack's Air Service of Incensed by this idiocy, the museum drew up a petition to save the air-Florida, Inc (Daytona Beach, FL), registration craft, signed by more than 7,000 aviation enthusiasts, but the ATF stuckdate 22·4-97, rigidly to its position, It was not until a special bill was passed through

N78053 1B 007-48 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 748, Owned by Michael FBauman Congress that the danger was past. Classics in Aviation apparently avoid-(Olney, IL), registration date 3-95, ed trouble with the ATF by 'donating' a few aircraft to DTESA. (There may

N90589 3292 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur; cln also be more than mere coincidence about that 'CIA' abbreviation.,,)reported as 2292, Ex-PLAAF, Owned by First Typical modifications during restoration included removal of the gunsCity Ai rCharter Ltd (Los Angeles, CA, flf 29- or changes to them so as to make them inoperable (a demand of the7-87), then James KWickersham (Danville, ATF) and the installation of modern Western communications and navi-CA, registration date 31-1-92), painted as gation equipment identifiable by the non-standard blade and whipSoviet Air Force '1170 White' to suggest cln aerials on the underside whose type and location varies. Some aircraft1115370; twin red stripes on nose, To Bill have part of the flight instruments replaced with Western equivalents,

112 MiG-15

(NORTH) VIETNAM

YEMEN (NORTH YEMEN/YEMEN ARAB REPUBLICAND SOUTH YEMEN/PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATICREPUBLIC OF YEMEN)

The Vietnamese People's Air Force (VPAF) received weapons from boththe 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-Bsare listed below.

Privately-owned MiGs often make spectacular appearances at thenumerous 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 paintedin spurious green/sand camouflage with oversized Iraqi Air Forceinsignia.

One SBL..!rn-2A resides in a US museum wearing applique (!) Sovietmarkings. GL1ripusly, the number and location of the stars is pre-1955style but the aircraft sports a post-1955 tactical code (11 Red).

Speaking of which, a natural metal MiG-15bis is on display at the PimaAir Museum, wearing North Korean markings and the serial 822 Red. Therather angular serial style suggests Gor'kiy production and hence c/n53210822.8 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 photoof the real North Korean Air Force '822 Red' as a reference." The Koreaninsignia are inaccurate, having a white background (quasi-North Koreanaircraft flown by Soviet pilots had no white background to the insigniaunless painted in a camouflage scheme).

Similarly, a MiG-15bis is preserved at Cal-Aero Field in California asSoviet 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).

Serial

2013 Red2014 Red2018 Red2110 Red2310 Red2410 Red2537 Red

Version Remarks

20153137 Unconfirmed (drawing only); pictured as Fagot-A!201531472015318721153107231531072415310725153377

Decode for US StatesOccasional 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 IL = IllinoisAK = Alaska IN = IndianaAR = Arkansas KS = KansasAZ = Arizona KY = KentuckyCA = California LA = LouisianaCO = Colorado MA = MassachusettsCT = Connecticut MO = MarylandDC = Dist of Columbia ME = MaineDE = Delaware MI = MichiganFL =Florida MN = MinnesotaGA = Georgia MO = MissouriHI = Hawaii MS =MississippiIA = Iowa MT = Montana10 = Idaho NB = Nebraska

NC = North Carolina SO = South DakotaNO = North Dakota TN = TennesseeNH = New Hampshire TX = TexasNJ = New Jersey UT = UtahNM = New Mexico VA =VirginiaNV = Nevada VI = Virgin IslandsNY =New York VT =VermontOH = Ohio WA = WashingtonOK =Oklahoma WI =WisconsinOR = Oregon WV = West VirginiaPA =Pennsylvania WY =WyomingPR = Puerto RicoRI = Rhode IslandSC = South Carolina

Both countries, allies of the USSR, received MiGs, including an unknownnumber of bises and UTI-MiG-15s (the latter were used for training MiG­17F pilots). Four and three UTI-MiG-15s respectively were reported toremain in service in the North and South by 1979. In passing, the sup­plier never imagined that the aircraft of these brother nations would meetin combat when the YAR and the PDRY clashed a border conflict in 1972.

According to Interavia, in early 1987 the YARAF was withdrawing itsfour Midgets while the PDRYAF was still keeping its three aircraft. How­ever, Flight International states that when the two Yemens finally mergedin 1990, the new united Yemen Air Force still had four UTI-MiG-15s! Onlyone YARAF MiG-15bis serialled 72 has been identified to date.

A technician performs maintenance on a UTI·MiG·15 with access panels inthe canopy fairing open. Yefim Gordon Archive

MiG-15 113

Chapter Six

The MiG·15bis in Detail

The following structural description applies tothe late-production standard MiG-15bis.

TypeSingle-engined tactical fighter with limitedstrike capability designed for day and nightoperation in visual meteorological conditions(VMC) and instrument meteorological condi­tions (IMG).

FuselageSemi-monocoque all-metal stressed-skinstructure with frames, longerons and stringers.The riveted fuselage structure is made mainlyof 0-16 duraiumin. Type 30KhGSA steel is usedfor most of the joints, except the frame/longeron fittings which are made of Type 20steel. Fuselage length is 8.08m (26ft 6in), fuse­lage diameter 1.45m (4ft 9in), and air intakediameter 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 isdetachable for engine maintenance andremoval; the two fuselage sections are heldtogether 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 aftavionics/equipment bay located under it, andthe No 1 fuel tank (frames 9 to 13). The circularair intake located at frame No 1 has a verticalsplitter which divides it into two elliptical-sec­tion air ducts passing along the fuselage sides,flanking the cockpit, nosewheel well, No 1 fueltank and avionics bays.

The forward fuselage has 13 frames (includ­ing four mainframes absorbing the main struc­tural loads, Nos 4, 5A, 9 and 13) and threeauxiliary frames. Mainframes Nos 4 and 5AseNe as attachment points for the nose gearunit and weapons tray respectively; wing sparattachment fittings are installed at frames Nos9 and 13. The latter also carries the enginebearer with. ten attachment points for theengine. Frame 1 has a flanged cutout on top forthe S-13 gun camera; the nose fairing with theintake splitter is attached to this frame.

There are four forward longerons (two upperand two lower) running from frame 1 to frame 9and four rear longerons (between frames 9 to13), plus an auxiliary central upper longeronbetween frames 11 to 13. The longerons are

114 MiG-15

attached to each frame by welded gussetplates made of Type 20 steel. Finally, the cock­pit floor also adds structural stiffness. Fuselageskin thickness varies from 0.6 to 1.2mm (0.023to 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 enclosedby a bubble canopy. The fixed windshield con­sists oftwo cUNed triangular Perspex sidelights8mm (0.31 in) thick and an elliptical optically-flatbUlletproof glass 64mm (2.5in) thick; thestamped duralumin windshield frame is her­metically riveted to the forward fuselage struc­ture. The aft-sliding canopy moves on guiderails and can be jettisoned manually orpyrotechnically in an emergency. The blownPerspex glazing held by inner and outer framesis likewise 8mm thick. The cockpit features anejection seat (with guide rails attached to therear pressure bUlkhead), an instrument paneland side control consoles.

The rear fuselage (frames 14 to 28) housesthe engine with its accessories and jetpipe, thetwo-section rear fuel tank and control linkages.The engine jetpipe is attached to frame 28 by aspecial flexible fitting. The rear fuselage struc­ture consists of 15 frames, ten longerons and anumber of stringers supporting the skin.

Two lateral airbrakes with a total area of0.5m2 (5.37ft2) are incorporated betweenframes 26 and 28; late production bises have0.8m2 (8.6ft2

) airbrakes. The airbrakes are elec­trohydraulically-actuated and deflected 55°. Asystem of mechanical linkages ensures simul­taneous operation.

WingsCantilever mid-wing monoplane. Leading­edge sweep 37°, sweepback at quarter-chord35°, anhedral 2°, incidence 1°, aspect ratio4.85, taper 1.61. The wings utilise TsAGI S-1 OSairfoil at the root and TsAGI SR-3 airfoil at thetip; mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) is 2.12m(6ft 11.46in) and mean thickness/chord ratio10.3%. Wingspan is 10.18m (33ft 2.4in) andwing area 20.6m2 (221.5ft2

).

The wings are of all-metal, three-sparstressed-skin construction, with forward spar,main spar and auxiliary rear spar; they are one­piece structures joined to the fuselage at theroot rib. Each wing has 20 ribs and two beamswhich, together with the main spar, form themainwheel well. Skin thickness varies from 1.0to 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 andanchor nuts. The wing/fuselage joint is coveredby 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, withpneumatic extension in emergency. These aresingle-spar structures with one tip stringer, oneauxiliary stringer, 19 ribs and duralumin skin.The flaps are powered by separate actuatorslinked by cables to ensure simultaneous oper­ation; there are three flap settings (fUlly retract­ed, take-off and landing).

Each wing has two boundary layer fences onthe upper surface and a ground-adjustable trimtab riveted to the trailing edge. A pitot tube isinstalled on the starboard wing between ribs 15and 16.

Tail unitCantilever cruciform tail surfaces of all-metalstressed-skin construction. Fin leading-edgesweep 55° 41', sweepback at quarter-chord45°, aspect ratio 1.21, taper 2.67, mean thick­ness/chord ratio 9.0%. Stabilizer leading-edgesweep 40°, incidence _0° 30', aspect ratio 3.52,taper 2.49, mean thickness/chord ratio 8.7%.Total vertical tail area is 4.0m2 (43.0ft2

) and totalhorizontal tail area 3.0m2 (32.25ft2

). Both hori­zontal and vertical tail utilise symmetricalNACA-0009 section.

For technological reasons the fin is made upof two sections (upper and lower); the lower finis built integrally with the rear fuselage. Theupper section is bolted to the lower and can beeasily detached - eg, for removing the horizon­tal tail if the aircraft is to be crated, overhauledetc. The fin is a single-spar structure with a frontfalse spar, 11 ribs in the lower section and fiveribs 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 symmetricalhalves joined at the reinforced central ribs byduralumin plates and fittings; each half is a sin­gle-spar structure with a rear false spar, ribsand duralumin skin 0.8mm (0.0314in) thick.The horizontal tail is attached by means of onefitting at the front and two at the rear; the for­ward fitting is adjustable, allowing stabilizerincidence to be varied.

Landing gearHydraulically-retractable tricycle type, withpneumatic extension in emergency; wheeltrack 3.81 m (12ft 6in), wheelbase 3.475m (11 ft

---------------.._._._-----------------------------------------------

5in). Nose unit retracts forward, main unitsinward into wings so that the wheels lie in thewing roots ahead of the main spar. In theretracted position the landing gear is securedby uplocks, in the extended position by shutoffvalves trapping hydraulic fluid in the retractionjacks which double as downlocks.

All three landing gear struts have oleo-pneu­matic shock absorbers. The main units havesingle 600 x 160mm (23.6 x 6.3in) wheels withexpander-tube brakes; some aircraft manufac­tured by the Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1 in1952 have a UA-11 anti-skid unit. The nose unithas a single 480 x 200mm (18.9 x 7.87in) non­braking wheel and is equipped with a shimmydamper. The castoring nosewheel can turn±50° for taxying; steering on the ground is bydifferential 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 lateraldoors, the mainwheel wells by triple doors (onesegment is hinged to the front spar, one to theroot rib and a third segment attached to theoleo leg). All doors remain open when the gearis down. Landing gear position is indicated bywarning lamps on the instrument panel and bymechanical indicators (popularly known assoldahtik - little soldier) on the wing and for­ward fuselage upper surfaces.

A sprung tail bumper is provided to protectthe rear fuselage and jetpipe in a tail-downlanding. Some aircraft built in Kuybyshev in1952 (izdeliye SD-P) are equipped with a 15m'(161.29ft') PT-2165-51 brake parachute housedin a special bay under the jetpipe. The dual baydoors and the parachute release lock are actu­ated pneumatically.

PowerplantOne 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-stagecentrifugal compressor (with dual inlet ducts),nine straight-flow combustion chambers, a sin­gle-stage axial turbine, a subsonic fixed-areanozzle and an extension jetpipe. The latter isattached flexibly. The engine features an acces­sory gearbox for driving fuel, oil and hydraulicpumps and electrical equipment. Starting iselectrical by means of an ST2 or ST2-48 starter.

The engine is mounted on a bearer via fourattachment points: two trunnions on the rightand left sides of the compressor casing belowthe axis of the engine and two mounting lugs inthe upper part of the engine. The engine isattached to fuselage frame 13; when the rearfuselage is detached, the engine is completelyexposed.

Control systemThe MiG-15bis has a conventional mechanicalflight 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 hydraulicactuator mounted on the front spar of the star­board wing to reduce stick forces. The portaileron has a trim tab. Total aileron area isi.01m' (1 0.86ft') , including 0.39m' (4.19ft') forthe aerodynamic balances and 0.02m' (0.21ft')for the trim tab. Relative aileron chord is 18.6%,ai leron deflection ± 15° and trim tab deflectionlikewise ± 15°.

Directional control is provided by a rudderwhich, like the fin, is built in two sections; theupper and lower sections are connected by auniversal joint. Each section is a single-sparstructure with duralumin skin 1.2 to 1.5mm(0.047 to 0.059in) thick; the upper and lowersections are suspended on two and threebrackets respectively. The rudder is aerody­namically balanced; additionally, both sectionshave mass balances - 3.12kg (6.87Ib) for theupper section and 5.8kg (12.78Ib) for the lowersection.

The rudder is controlled manually (in a man­ner of speaking) by means of pedals and push­pull rods, cranks and levers. The lower sectionis equipped with a ground-adjustable trim tab.Rudder area is 1m' (10.75ft'), including 0.19m'(2.04ft') for the aerodynamic balance; rudderdeflection is ±20°.

The elevators are symmetrical single-sparstructures with seven ribs and duralumin skin0.8mm (0.0314in) thick. They have both aero­dynamic and mass balances, with 1kg (2.2Ib)weights at the tips and a 3kg (6.6Ib) weight inthe middle. Each elevator is suspended onthree brackets.

The elevators are manually-controlled bymeans of push-pull rods, cranks and levers; theport elevator features a trim tab. Elevator areais 0.853m' (9.17ft'); elevator deflection is ­32/+16° and trim tab deflection ±10°. Aileronand elevator trim tabs are remotely controlledby UT-6D electric motors transmitting torquethrough a system of levers and rods.

Fuel systemApart from its obvious purpose, the fuel systemmaintains 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 (bagtank) housed in the forward fuselage betweenframes 9 and 13 holds 1,250 litres (275 Imperi­al gallons). An integral tank of 160 litres (35.2Imperial gallons) capacity is located in the rearfuselage between frames 21 and 25 and isdivided into left and right halves with an avion­ics bay between them.

To maintain CG position the fuel is used asfollows: 345 litres (75.9 Imperial gallons) fromthe main fuel cell, then all fuel from the rear tankand finally the remaining fuel from the main fuelcell. A gauge in the main fuel cell monitors fuelquantity, illuminating a red warning light whenthe aircraft is down to 'bingo fuel' (emergencyreserve) - 300 litres (66 Imperial gallons).

A PTsR-1 electric centrifugal transfer pumplocated below the engine between frames 20

and 21, with associated SD-3 sensor, deliversfuel 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 themain fuel cell bay and is fed via a rubber hoseto 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 cockinstalled ahead of the low-pressure filter servesfor 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 Westernequivalent, JP-4. Refuelling is by gravity via twofiller caps immediately aft of the cockpit (offsetto port) and on the port side of the aft fuselage.

Two 'wet' wing hardpoints provide for thecarriage of 250 litre (55 Imperial gallon), 300litre (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 arepressurized by engine bleed air at 0.4 bars(5.7psi). With drop tanks fitted, the fuel burnsequence is changed: 100 litres (22 Imperialgallons) from the main fuel cell, followed by allexternal fuel, then 250 Iitres (55 Imperial gal­lons) from the main fuel cell, then all fuel fromthe aft integral tank and finally the remainingfuel from the main fuel cell. A warning light inthe cockpit tells the pilot that the drop tanks areempty.

HydraulicsThe hydraulic system works the landing gear,flaps, airbrakes and the aileron actuator. Itincludes a hydraulic fluid tank, low-pressurereduction gear, a pump installed on the engineaccessory gearbox, a hydraulic accumulator, afilter, safety and return valves, a manometer,hydraulic lines etc. Hydraulic pressure is 140bars (2,000psi) or, on late versions, 125 bars(1,785psi). Unusually, the system uses a mix­ture of alcohol and glycerin rather that the usualoil-type hydraulic fluid.

Electrics28.5 V DC main electrical system with a 3kWGSR-3000 generator as the main powersource. Backup DC power is provided by a12A-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; ACpower for other systems is supplied by MA-1 00and MA-250 AC converters. There are 13 majorwiring circuits, the total length of wiring being38km (23.6 miles). Electrical system switchesare arranged on the side control consoles inthe cockpit.

Pneumatic systemTwo subsystems (main and emergency). Themain pneumatic system actuates the wheelbrakes, cannon recharging mechanisms and isresponsible for cockpit pressurization. Theemergency system is responsible for landing

MiG-15 115

gear and flap emergency extension (in theevent of hydraulics failure) and emergencybraking. The main pneumatic system has twohigh-pressure air bottles charged at 110 bars(1,571 psi); the emergency system has one bot­tle charged at 50 bars (714psi). The pneumaticsystem includes shutoff and reduction valves,cocks, pipelines and flexible hoses.

ArmamentBuilt-in armament comprises one 37mm (1.45calibre) Nudel'man N-37 cannon on the star­board side with 40 rounds and two staggered23mm (.90 calibre) Nudel'man/Rikhter NR-23cannons on the port side with 80 rounds pergun. Both models utilise recharging by recoilaction, 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-23weighs 39kg (86Ib) and fires 200-gram (7.06­oz.) projectiles; rate ottire is 800 to 950rpm andmuzzle velocity 680m/sec (207.2ft/sec).'

Initial charging is done by a pneumaticmechanism operating at 30 bars (428.5psi); thecharging buttons are located on a special panelto the left of the gunsight. Firing is controlledelectrically; the N-37 is fired by pushing aguarded button on top of the control stick andboth NR-23s by pushing a common button onthe upper forward part of the stick. The N-37uses 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 thesmaller cannons in 5.3 seconds. All cannonsare belt-fed; belt links and ammunition casesare discarded during firing.

All three cannons are mounted on a com­mon tray under the forward fuselage which canbe lowered qUickly by means of a built-in winchfor reloading and maintenance. Gun barrel fair­ings have to be removed and retaining screwsloosened before the tray is lowered. The trayalso carries the ammunition boxes and pneu­matic charging mechanisms.

In the strike role the standard MiG-15bis cancarry two 50kg (110 Ib) or 100kg (220Ib)bombs on the wing hardpoints. Bomb releaseis electrically-actuated.

The aircraft is equipped with an ASP-3Nautomatic gunsight. An S-13 gun cameramounted on the air intake upper lip records theshooting and bombing results. The gun cam­era can operate independently from the can­nons or in conjunction with them. Film capacityis 150 exposures; at a speed of 8 frames persecond, the S-13 can shoot continuously for 19seconds.

A 50kg (110 Ib) bomb suspended under the wingof a MiG-15; unusually, bombs were carriedwithout any pylons. Yefim Gordon archive

Oxygen systemFor operations above 9,000m (29,257ft), oxy­gen bottles are installed in the forward avion­ics/equipment bay.

Air conditioning and pressurization systemThe MiG-15bis has a ventilation-type cockpitpressurized by engine bleed air to a pressuredifferential of 0.3 bars (4.28psi). Cockpit airpressure is governed by an RO-2IM pressureregulator. The canopy is sealed by an inflatablerubber hose pressurized to 3 bars (42.8psi).

Fire suppression systemTwo 3 litre (0.66 Imperial gallon) fire extinguish­er bottles charged with carbon dioxide installedvertically on fuselage frame 13. System opera­tion is manual. In the event of engine fire sever­al flame sensors trigger a fire warning light inthe cockpit and the pilot pushes a button, acti­vating pyrotechnic valves and letting out thecarbon dioxide into a manifold around theengine.

Crew escape systemThe MiG-15bis is equipped with a cartridge­fired ejection seat. A Czech source quotes themodel as 'production code SO 7505' but it isnot known if this was a Soviet or a Czech des­ignation. The seat pan is dished to take a rib­bon-type parachute. Ejection is accomplishedby pulling a canopy jettison handle located onthe right side of the seat (or on both sides onaircraft built from 1st July 1952 onwards).

Avionics and equipmenta) navigation equipment: OSP-48 instrumentlanding system comprising ARK-5 Amur auto­matic direction finder (ADF) with omnidirec­tional aerial and loop aerial, RV-2 Kristall radioaltimeter with two dipole aerials under the portwing and the lower forward fuselage, and MRP­48 Oyatel marker beacon receiver. The RV-2,MRP-48 and its antenna and AOF loop aerialare located in the aft avionics bay in the lowerrear fuselage. A OGMK-3 remote gyromagneticcompass is installed in the starboard wing.

b) communications equipment: RSIU-3 Klyontwo-way VHF radio (RSI-6M receiver and RSI­6K transmitter) in the forward avionics/equip­ment bay with whip aerial installed on the rightside aft of the cockpit.c) flight instrumentation: KUS-1200 airspeedindicator (ASI, kombineerovannw ookazahtel'SkOrostl), VO-17 altimeter, RV-2 radio altimeterindicator, AGK-476 artificial horizon, EUP-46electric turn and bank indicator (elektreech­eskiy ookazahtel' povorota), VAR-75 verticalspeed indicator (VSI, variometr) , OGMK-3 gyro­magnetic. compass indicator, M-0,95 Machmeter and ARK-5 AOF indicator.d) IFF equipment: SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transpon­der with dorsal or ventral blade aerial on the aftfuselage.e) electronic support measures (ESM) equip­ment: Sirena-2 radar homing and warning sys­tem (RHAWS) with aerials on the fin, wingleading edges and wingtips.f) exterior lighting: BANO-45 port and starboardnavigation lights. Originally FS-155 landing/taxilight in air intake splitter; later aircraft had aretractable LFSV-45 landing light in the portwing 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 cameraon 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 andUTI·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

116 MiG-15 L~====~;;;;;::==:======:;;;;;;;~~=---====~_-----l

MiG-15 117

Chapter Seven

Production TotalsFamily 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 determinedby the Soviet state planning authorities) for the respective years.

Notes: 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.

881 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total

5 6. Komsomol'sk-on-Amur aircraft factory No 126 named afterthe Lenin Young Communist League

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total

813 MiG-15bis 225

Total Tbilisi production 225

35 190(35) (190)

1(0)

MiG-15

5. Tbilisi aircraft factory No 31 named after Gheorgi Dimitrov

Total

1,681

Total Kuybyshev production 3,380

1. Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1named after losif VStalin

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

MiG-15 510' 301" 2(550) (300) (0)

MiG-15bis 4W 820 460(350) (792) (425)

MiG-15bisP 5(5)

UTI-MIG-15 50" 371'" 333 127(50) (365) (315) (0)

2. Novosibirsk aircraft factory No 153 named after Valeriy PChkalovMiG-15bis 42 362 428

(250) (337) (400)832

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Totat Total Komsomol'sk-on-Amur production 833

MiG-15 144 308 1(550) (300) (0)

4537. Saratov aircraft factory No 292

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Totat

MiG-15bis 360 1,196 863 1(500) (1,173) (840) (0)

UTI-MIG-15 209 715(200) (700)

3. Moscow aircraft factory No 381

924

Total Novosibirsk production 3,979

MiG-15

MiG-15bis

MiG-15bisS

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total

2 2(0)

131 509 354 994(275) (457) (350)

49 49(100)

Total Saratov production 1,045

MiG-15 75(n/a)

758. 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 Total

4. Gor'kiy aircraft factory N021 named after Sergo OrdzhonikidzeUTI-MiG-15 6 50 85 158 212

(25) (50) (150) (150) (200)511

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total Total Khar'kov production 511

MiG-15bis(izdeliye 53)

367 992 425(350) (937) (395)

1,7849. Ulan·Ude aircraft factory No 99

MiG-15bisR(izdeliye 55)

64 300(60) (300)

364

Total Gor'kiy production 2,148UTI-MiG-15

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total

O' 29 53 127 206 245 173 113 106 65 1,117(25) (75) (125) (150) (200) (225) (0) (0) (0) (0)

Total Ulan-Ude production 511

GRAND TOTAL 13,131

118 MiG-15

From 10444 onwardsFrom 10990401 onwards0213501 through 0213510 and from0313501 onwardsAll aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)

LFSV-45 landing light in port wing (new-build)

No 1 From 11240 onwardsNo 99 10990301 and from 10990404 onwardsNo 135 Starting in 1952No 153 All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)

BU-1 hydraulic actuator in the aileron control circuit

No 1 All aircraft (from 10101 onwards)No 99 All aircraft (from 10990101 onwards)No 135 All aircraft (from 0013501 onwards)No 153 All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)

No153

OSP-48ILS

No1No99No 135

From 121004 onwardsStarting 1st June 1950From 31530101 onwardsStarting 1st June 1950From 0615378 onwardsFrom 0603 onwards

BU-1 hydraulic actuator in the aileron control circuit

No 1 From 121004 onwardsNo21 All aircraft (from 53210101 and 55210101

onwards)All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards)From 1201 onwards0415399,0515345,0515367,0515381,0615336 through 0615338, 0615345, 0615360,0615363 and from 0615378 onwards

No 292 From 0102 onwards

N031N0126N0153

OSP-48ILS

No1No21No31No126No153No292

New instrument panel with rearranged instruments

No 1 From 109031 onwardsNo 153 From 0215327 onwardsN0381 From 3810306 onwards

MiG-15

The main changes introduced on the produc­tion lines and in service (as mid-life updates)are detailed below.

Modification:Instrument panel with 6instruments on centre section(mounted on rubber shock absorbers)

Plant: Incorporated (aircraft clns):No 1 101001 through 109030No 153 0115300 through 0215326N0381 3810101 through 3810305

N021

N031N0126N0153N0292

N031N0126N0153N0292

PS-2 engine starting panel

No 1 108021 and from 108031 onwardsNo 153 All aircraft (from 0115300 onwards)No 381 From 3810306 onwards

Improved in-flight engine starting capability (as built)

No 1 109032, 110001,110017 and 110021N0153N0381

Improved in-flight engine starting capability (upgrade)

No 1 All aircraft except 109032, 110001, 110017and 110021

No 153 All aircraft (from 0115300 onwards)N0381 All aircraft (from 3810101 onwards)

BU-1 hydraulic actuator in the aileron control circuit

N01 120101 through 120131N0153N0381

MiG-15bis, MiG-15bisR, MiG-15bisS

Modification:SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder (as built)

Plant: Incorporated (aircraft clns):No 1 From 128080 onwardsN021 MiG-15bis -from 53211001 onwards

All MiG-15bisRs (from 55210101 onwards)N031 All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards)No 126 1202,1709,2303,2319,2320 and from

. 2521 onwardsN0153 1315351 through 1315355 and from

1415365 0nwardsNo 292 3508 through 3808, 4608, 1110through 1310,

2110 through 2310 and from 3110 onwards

LFSV-45 landing light in port wing

No 1 134001 and from 134050 onwardsNo 21 MiG-15bis - from 53211626 onwards

MiG-15bisR from 55210651 onwardsAll aircraft (from 31530101 onwards)From 5425 onwards0815321,0815371 and from 2515375 onwardsFrom 1506 onwards

NR-23 cannons

No 1 122035,126094,126100 and from128051 onwardsMiG-15bis from 53211001 onwardsMiG-15bisR - all aircraft (from 55210101 onwards)All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards)2301 and from 2901 onwardsFrom 1515351 onwards4907 and from 1210 (2610?) onwards

Eccentric adjustable wing/fuselage fittings(for eliminating wing drop)

No 1 From 134041 onwardsNo 21 From 53211905 onwardsN031 From 31530701 onwardsNo 126 From 5601 onwardsNo 153 From 2615301 onwardsNo 292 From 3218 onwards

Additional cockpit armour (as built)

No 1 March 1952 (armoured seat back on 133051through 135050, plus armoured headrestfrom 135051 onwards)

Additional cockpit armour (retrofit)

No 1 121004 through 135050 (armoured headrestonly on 133051 through 135050)

LFSV-45 landing light in port wing (retrofit)

No 1 10444 through 11239No99 10990101 through 10990403

(except 10990301 )No135No153

Modifications to stop the ADF aerial on the aftavionics bay cover from being damaged byspent cases and belt links when the cannonswere fired were introduced on the productionlines on 15th November 1950. All Fagot-AlBsmanufactured before this date were upgradedaccordingly. Additional cockpit armour (armour­ed seat back and headrest) was retrofitted to allMiG-15s, as well as all bises, MiG-15bisR recceaircraft and MiG-15bisS escort fighters manu­factured before March 1952.

The RSIU-3 radio replacing the RSI-6 wasintroduced in production on the single-seatersin August 1952 and on the UTI-MiG-15 on 1stJanuary 1953. Prior to that, it had been fitted to12 new Gor'kiy-built bises in 1951 and 60 newNovosibirsk-built bises from batches 23 and 24in February 1952. All bises, MiG-15bisR recceaircraft and MiG-15bisS escort fighters built bythen were retrofitted with the new radio set.

In April 1953 all bises received equipmentassociated with the PPK-1 G-suit. The ASP-3Ngunsight was replaced by the improved ASP­3NM - first on 64th Fighter Corps aircraft fight­ing in Korea (in November 1952) and, startingin May 1953, on all other aircraft. From August1953 onwards all MiG-15s were fitted withexternal 'gear down' indicator lights.

Modification:SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder

Plant: Incorporated (aircraft clns):No 1 From 10501 onwardsNo 99 From 10990907 onwardsNo 135 From 09009 onwardsNo 153 All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)

UTi-MiG-15

1004 through 2520 (except 1202,1709,2303,2319 and 2320)0615378 through 1315350 and 1315356 through14153640201 through 3010 (except 3508 through 3808,4608, 1110 through 1310 and 2110 through 2310)

N0153

No 292

SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder (retrofit)

No 1 121004 through 128079No 21 53210226 through 53211001N031No126

MiG-15 119

MiG-15 Family specifications

51 53 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15 MiG-15(no serial) (no serial) '616 Red'

Construction number 103012 3810510 115002 0215341 0615316

Manufacturer (plant number) N0155 N0155 N01 N0381 Nol''; .

N0153 N0153

Manufacture date Dec 1947 Mar 1948 Apr 1949 Oct 1949 Nov 1949 Nov 1949 May 1950

Powerplant RR Nene I RR Nene II RD-45F RD-45F RD-45F RD-45F RD-45F

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) 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 905 (489.18) 1,047 (565.94) 1 1,052 (568.64) 1,044 (564.32) 3 1,042 (563.24) 1,038 (561.08) 1,040 (562.16) 4

at 5,000m (16,4041t) 1,028 (555.67) 1,031 (557.29) 1,020 (551.35) 1,024 (553.51) 1,021 (551.89) 1,017 (549.73) 1,027 (555.13)at 10,000m (32,8081t) 972 (525.4) 983 (531.35) 976 (527.56) 976 (527.56) 974 (526.48) 968 (523.24) 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) 2,3 2,3 2.75' 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.6to 10,000m (32,8081t) 6.1 6,1 7.172 7.6 6,8 6.4 6.7

Rate of climb, m/sec (It/min):atS/L 42,0 (8,267) 42.0 (8,267) 36.0 (7,086) , 40.0 (7,874) 41.0 (8,070) 41.4 (8,149) 38.0 (7,480)at 5,000m (16,4041t) 30.0 (5,905) 30.0 (5,905) 25,2 (4,960) , 27.28 (5,370) 28.0 (5,511) 28.7 (5,650) 27.5 (5,413)at 10,000m (32,8081t) 17.8 (3,504) 17.8 (3,504) 13.5 (2,657) , 14.55 (2,864) 16.1 (3,169) 16.9 (3,326) 17.1 (3,366)

Turning time, sec:at 2,000m (6,561It) 32' 32' n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aat 5,000m (16,4041t) 40' 40' 40' n/a 40' n/a n/aat 10,000m (32,8081t) 71 ' 71 ' n/a n/a 71 ' n/a n/a

Turn radius, m(It):at 2,000m (6,5611t) 700 (2,296) , 700 (2,296) , n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aat 5,000m (16,4041t) 1,050 (3,444) , 1,050 (3,444) , 1,050 (3,444) , n/a 1,050 (3,444) , n/a n/aat 10,000m (32,8081t) 2,000 (6,561) , 2,000 (6,561) , n/a n/a 2,000 (6,561) , n/a n/a

Altitude gained in ayo-yo manoeuvre, m(It):at 2,000m (6,561 It) n/a 2,750 (9,022) 3,300 (10,826) n/a n/a n/a n/aat 5,000m (16,4041t) 2,340 (7,677) 2,340 (7,677) 2,340 (7,677) n/a 2,340 (7,677) n/a n/aat 10,000m (32,8081t) 1,280 (4,199) 1,280 (4,199) n/a n/a 1,280 (4,199) 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 1,395 (754) 1,310 (708) 1,335 (721) 1,295 (700) 1,335 (721) 1,245 (673) 1,305 (705)with drop tanks n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,920 (1,038) n/a . 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 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN·37 1xN-37 1xN-372xNS-23KM 2xNS·23KM 2xNS·23KM 2xNS·23KM 2x NS-23KM 2xNS-23KM 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 UTI-MiG-15 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis(ST-I) (ST-2) '5 Red' '5 Red' '182 Red' '37 Red' '497 Red'

Construction number 104015 105015 105015 121082 53210337 53210497

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 VK-1 VK-1 VK-1 VK-1c/n 94-291 c/n F-0143

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 1,010 (545.94) 6 1,015 (548.64) 6 1,076 (581.62) 1,055 (570.27) 1,068 (577.29) 1,075 (581.08) 1,059 (572.43)at 5,000m (16,404ft) 1,004 (5842.7) 1,010 (545.94) 1,045 (564.86) 1,035 (559.46) 1,040 (562.16) 1,044 (564.32) 1,033 (558.37)at 10,000m (32,808ft) 958 (517.83) 963 (520.54) 987 (533.51) 985 (532.43) 992 (536.21) 988 (534.05) 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) 2.75 2.6 1.95 2.0 2.13 2.1 2.0to 10,000m (32,808ft) 7.1 6.8 4.9 5.3 5.51 5.3 5.2

Rate of climb, m/sec (It/min):atS/L n/a 38.5 (7,578) 50.0 (9,842) 46.4 (9,133) 46.5 (9,153) 47.8 (9,409) 51.2 (10,078)at 5,000m (16,404ft) n/a 26.4 (5,196) 35.2 (6,929) 33.2 (6,535) 32.4 (6,378) 33.6 (6,614) 36.2 (7,126)at 10,000m (32,8081t) n/a 14.5 (2,854) 20.8 (4,094) 20.0 (3,937) 1~.3 (3,602) 19.6 (3,858) 21.0 (4,133)

Turning time, sec:at 2,000m (6,561ft) n/a 32.0' 20.7 ' 20.7' n/a n/a n/aat 5,000m (16,404ft) n/a n/a 34.0 34.0 n/a n/a 44.0at 10,000m (32,808ft) n/a 71.5' 63.7 63.7 n/a n/a 65.0

Turn radius, m(ft):at 2,000m (6,561 ft) n/a 715 (2,345) , 460 (1,509) , 460 (1,509) , n/a n/a n/aat 5,000m (16,404ft) n/a n/a 845 (2,772) 845 (2,772) n/a n/a n/aat 10,000m (32,808ft) n/a n/a 1,840 (6,036) 1,840 (6,036) n/a n/a n/a

Altitude gained in ayo-yo manoeuvre, m(ft):at 2,000m (6,561 ft) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aat 5,000m (16,404ft) n/a n/a 3,090 (10,137) 3,090 (10,137) 3,020 (9,908) n/a 3,050 (10,006)at 10,000m (32:8081t) n/a n/a 1,450 (4,757) 7 1,450 (4,757) 7 n/a n/a 1,300 (4,265)

Service ceiling, m(ft) 14,150 (46,428) 14,625 (14,625) 15,500 (50,853) 15,500 (50,853) 15,825 (15,825) 15,500 (50,853) 15,500 (50,853)

Range at 10,000m, km (nm): i; ~::.:1,

:.,1"';"

1,2~0 (670)on internal fuel 950 (513) 950 (513) 1,200 (648) 1,200 (64~) 1,180 (637) 1,W5 (640)with drop tanks 1,340 (724) 1,424 (769) 'i ,976 (1p68) 1,~(6 (1",068) n/a 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 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-371xUBK-E 2x NR-23 2xNR-23 2x NS-23KM 2x NS-23KM 2x NS-23KM

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 MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-i5bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis'570 Red' '421 Red' (no serial) '588 Red' '1141 Red' '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/.')

Wing span, m(It) 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' (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) 3,662 (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 1,078 (582.7) 1,036 (560.0) 8 1,058 (571.89) 8 1,064 (575.13) 10 1,072 (579.46) 1,066 (576.21) 10 1,075 (581.08)at 5,000m (16,404It) 1,048 (566.48) 1,028 (555.67) 1,044 (564.32) 1,042 (563.24) 1,037 (560.54) 1,048 (566.48) 1,045 (564.86)at 10,000m (32,8081t) 986 (532.97) 979 (529.19) 982 (530.81) 988 (534.05) 992 (536.21) 989 (534.59) 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) 2.2 2.5 2.0 2.15 2.15 2,1 2.15to 10,000m (32,8081t) 5.4 6.3 5.3 5.55 5.63 5.45 5.5

Rate of climb, m/sec (It/min):atS/L 47.0 (9,252) 39.8 (7,834) 47.0 (9,252) 46.0 (9,055) 47.0 (9,252) 47.0 (9,252) 46.0 (9,055)at 5,000m (16,4041t) 33.0 (6,496) 28.2 (5,551) 33.1 (6,515) 31.8 (6,260) 32.3 (6,358) 32.3 (6,358) 32.2 (6,338)at 10,000m (32,8081t) 19.0 (3,740) 16.6 (3,267) 19.4 (3,819) 17.8 (3,504) 17.5 (3,444) 17.6 (3,464) 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 n/a n/a not measured during checkout trialsat 5,000m (16,4041t) n/a n/a 3,150 (10,334) not measured during checkout trialsat 10,000m (32,8081t) n/a n/a n/a not measured during checkout trials

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 n/a 1,210 (654) n/a 1,195 (646) 1,220 (659) 1,210 (654) 1,200 (648)with drop tanks n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,749 (945) n/a 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 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-372x NS-23KM 2xNS-23KM 2xNS-23KM 2xNS-23KM 2x NS-23KM 2x NS-23KM 2xNS-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

MiG-15 Family specifications (continued)

MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis'341 Red' '341 Red' '239 Red' '317 Red' '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 3rd quarter of 1951 3rd qrtr of 1951 3rd qrtr of 1951 3rd qrtr of 1951

Powerplant VK-l VK-1 c/n F121847 VK-l c/n V123264 12 VK-l VK-l VK-l

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(11) 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(11) 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/.')

Wing span, m(11) 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' (112) 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 1,088 (588.1) 1,052 (568.64) 1,062 (574.05) 1,074 (580.54) 1,072 (579.46) 1,074 (580.54)at 5,000m (16,40411) 1,043 (563.78) 1,023 (552.97) 1,030 (556.75) 1,040 (562.16) 1,038 (561.08) 1,041 (562.7)at 10,000m (32,80811) 987 (533.51) 963 (520.54) 970 (524.32) 984 (531.89) 984 (531.89) 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) 2.25 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.04 2.1to 10,000m (32,80811) 5.6 6.5 5.3 5.45 5.1 5.4

Rate of climb, m/sec (ft/min):atS/L 45.0 (8,858) 40.0 (7,874) 47.0 (9,252) 47.2 (9,291) 48.0 (9,448) 47.0 (9,252)at 5,000m (16,40411) 31.8 (6,260) 27.5 (5,413) 33.2 (6,535) 32.8 (6,546) 34.4 (6,771) 32.6 (6,417)at 10,000m (32,80811) 18.5 (3,641) 15.1 (2,972) 19.3 (3,800) 18.6 (3,661) 20.8 (4,094) 18.4 (3,622)

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

jService ceiling, m(11) 15,600 (51,181) 15,050 (49,376) 15,700 (51,509) 15,400 (50,525) 16,000 (52,493) 15,650 (51,345)

Range at 10,000m, km (nm):on internal fuel 1,159 (626) 1,205 (651) 1,205 (651) 1,200 (648) 1,180 (637) 1,190 (643)with drop tanks n/a n/a n/a 1,510 (816) n/a n/a

Take-off run, m(11) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Landing run, m(11) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Armament 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37

2xNR-23 2x NR-23 2xNR-23 2xNR-23 2x NR-23 2xNR-23

Notes:12 VK-1 c/n V123264 was taken from MiG-15bis '201 Red' (c/n 0112)

MiG-15 123

MIG-15 Family specifications (continued)

MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bis MiG-15bisP MiG-15bisS MiG-15bisR'201 Red' '417 Red' '440 Red' (SP-I) (SO-UPS)" (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 span 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 1,075 (581.08) 1,076 (581.62) 1,062 (574.05) 1,015 (548.64) 800 (432.43) 800 (432.43)at 5,DOOm (16,404ft) 1,045 (564.86) 1,046 (565.4) 1,036 (560.0) 1,022 (1,022) 990 (535.13) 990 (535.13)at 10,000m (32,808ft) 984 (531.89) 992 (536.21) 979 (529.19) 979 (529.19) 918 (496.21) 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) 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.15 2.7 2.7to 10,000m (32,808ft) 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.35 7.2 7.2

Rate of climb, m/sec (ft/min):atS/L 47.1 (9,271) 48.0 (9,448) 47.0 (9,252) 45.4 (7,827) 36.2 (7,126) 36.2 (7,126)at 5,000m (16,404ft) 33.2 (6,535) 33.3 (6,555) 32.4 (6,378) 32.8 (6,546) 25.7 (5,059) 25.7 (5,059)at 10,000m (32,80Bft) 19.4 (3,819) 18.8 (3,700) 17.8 (3,504) 20.1 (3,956) 12.4 (2,440) 12.4 (2,440)

Turning time, sec:at 2,000m (6,561 ft) not measured n/a n/a n/a 26.4 13 26.4 14

at 5,000m (16,404ft) during checkout n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aat 10,DOOm (32,80Bft) trials 54.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Turn radius, m(ft):at 2,000m (6,561ft) not measured n/a n/a n/a 585 (1,919) 13 585 (1,919) 14

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

Altitude gained in ayo-yo manoeuvre, m(ft):at 2,DOOm (6,561 ft) not measured n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

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)

with drop tanks nJa n/a n/a n/a 2,220 (1,200) 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 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-37 1xN-372xNR-23 2xNR-23 2xNR·23 2xNR-23 2xNR-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

Introduction1 LL = letayuschchaya laboratoriya - lit. 'ilying laborato­ry'. The Russian term is used indiscriminately and candenote any engine/avionics/weapons etc testbed orresearch/survey aircraft.2 A division oi the Ministry of Aircraft Industry. UI is nownamed after test pilot Mikhail M Gromov.3 F = forseerovannw - uprated. The designation usuallyapplied to afterburning turbojets at the time, but not in thisinstance, as the RD-45F was non-afterburning.4 The first aircraft to have this designation (1948); not tobe confused with the Yak-3D Magnum jet trainer of 1960.5 OKB = opytno-konstrooktorskoye byuro - experimentaldesign bureau; there were no 'companies' as such in theUSSR. 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 forcoding Soviet military hardware items.8 The first aircraft to have these designations before theSukhoi OKB was deactivated in 1949; not to be confusedwith the single-engined Su-9 Fishpot-A (T-43) of 1957 andthe 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 tobe designated by the 1- prefix, just as in the pre-war days. A'personalized' designation using the first two letters of theOKB leader's last name - eg, 'Yak' for Yakovlev - was usu­ally allocated only when the aircraft entered service (thoughthis practice was already being relinquished, as illustratedby 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 alsoreferred 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 threeSuper/ortresses interned by the Soviets in the Far East (inJuly 1944) and used for launching production olthe reverse­engineered Tu-4 Bull. After being converted for the mothership role at the Kazan' aircraft factory No 22 in April 1948(when the Tu-4 was already in production) the bomberreceived a new TU-4-style construction number, 230503.Upon completion of the 346's trials the B-29 was briefly usedin 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 OneThe 'MiG Menace' is Born1 The designations S-01, S-02 and S-03 have also beenquoted for the original MiG-15 prototypes in Russian docu­ments, but S-1, S-2 and S-3 is more correct and in line withother 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 Zhdoes not stand for zhidkoye toplivo (liquid fuel) - it is just aproduct 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 experimentaldelta-wing STOL fighter which had little in common with theFlogger, and the MiG-23-31 (izdeliye 92) STOL technologydemonstrator - actually a heavily modified MiG-21 PFMFishbed-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-

End Notes

nated Khrizantema (Chrysanthemum) in some sources.8 The UI air/ield is now referred to as the one inZhukovskiy; this town was built later around the air/ield andis much closerto itthan the town of Ramenskoye. Still, manyin 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 theVolga River (near Astrakhan' in southern Russia), leavingonly a branch of the institute responsible for transport air­craft trials at Chkalovskoye. In the early 1990s, Nil WS wasrenamed GUTs (Gosoodahrstvennyy /yotno-ispytahtel'nyytsentr - the State Flight Test Centre named after ValeriyChkalov).11 This term applies to additional trials held after the aircrafthas passed State acceptance trials and has been recom­mended for service.

Chapter TwoThe Aluminium Rabbit: MiG-15 Version Briefing1 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 acronymTAPO was already in use by factory No 84 in Tashkent.Factory No 99 is now called U-UAPO, Oo/ahn-oodenskoyeaviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye obyedineniye - Ulan­Ude aviation production association.Factory No126 is now called KnAAPO, Komsomol'skoye­na-Amoore aviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye obyedi­neniye - Komsomol'sk-on-Amur aviation productionassociation named after Yuriy A Gagarin.Factory No 135 is now called KhGAPP, Khar'kovskoyegosoodahrstvennoye aviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoyepredpreeyahtiye - Khar'kov state-owned aviation produc­tion enterprise (formerly KhAPO).Factory No 153 is now called NAPO, Novoseebeerskoyeaviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye obyedineniye - Novosi­birsk aviation production association named after Valeriy PChkalov.Factory No381 merged with MMZ N030 'Znamya Trooda'(Banner of Labour) in 1949. The latter plant is now part of theMAPO association (Moskovskoye aviatseeonnoyeproizvodstvennoye 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 theMiG-15bis during Nil WS trials.5 D = delZhahtel' -lit. 'holder', in this case, weapons rack6 BD = bah/ochnW delZhahtel' - 'beam-type weaponsrack', ie, pylon7 Also called SR-1 in some documents (ie, izdeliye SR,version 1); see by comparison, a reconnaissance derivativeof the MiG-17 Fresco-A was called izdeliye SR-2. The sameprinciple 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 = aviatseeonnayapooskovaya oostanovka, odinochnaya, [dlya snaryadovkalibra] 212 millimetrov - aircraft-mounted launcher, single,for 212mm HVARs; also called PU-21.11 ORO = odinochnoye reaktivnoye oroodiye - lit. 'singlejet gun' (by analogy with recoilless guns).12 OF = osk%chno-foogahsnyy - high-explosive/frag­mentation [warhead]13 The strategic bomber arm of the WS14 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'nayaaviadiveeziya -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 incombat, thus being an indication that this is a Second WorldWar-vintage unit. The Smo/ensko-Berlinskiy honorary appel­lation was given forthe unit's part in liberating Smolensk andtaking Berlin. The 57th TBAD and the 171 st GvTBAP alsobore the Krasnoznamyonnaya (Krasnoznamyonnyy) titlerespectively, ie, they had been awarded the Order of theRed 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) andsynchronised (UBS) versions were also available.17 The designations MiG-15UTI and UTMiG-15 quotedsometimes are incorrect.18 DOSAAF = Dobrovol'noye obschchestvo sodeystviyaarmii, aviahtsii i flotu - the Voluntary Society for the Supportof the Army, Aviation (read: Air Force) and Navy. In post­Soviet times the organization was renamed ROSTO(Rosseeyskoye oboronnoye sporl/vno-te!<hneecheskdyeobschchestvo - Russian Defence (ie,"paramilitary) Sportsand Technical Society).19 MSh = mishen' - target. A two-letter suffix (cf. MiG-15M)was used to avoid confusion with the Yak-25M (Yak-120)where M stood for modifitseerovannyy (modified, in thiscase implying upgraded avionics).20 Until 1955, Soviet Air Force trainers usualiy receivedserials suffixed by a Cyrillic letter U in underlined super­script, denoting oochebnyy samo/yot - trainer. The presen­tation of '101" is used in this book (and elsewhere) forconvenience, but actually the serial looked like this: 101'

Chapter ThreeForeign Production1 As with other aircraft produced in Czechoslovakia, thelicence-built MiG-15s et a/. had six-digit construction num­bers. The usual Czech c/n systems ('year of manufacture ­batch no. - no. of aircraft in batch' or 'year - product code­batch no. - no. of aircraft in batch') do not seem to work withthe MiG-15s and the system remains unexplained. OnCzech-built MiG-15s the c/n is usually stencilled all over theplace (on gun barrel fairings, access panels, airbrakes, geardoors etc.)2 LR and SR are Czech abbreviations the meaning ofwhich is unknown, though R obviously stands for raketa.The last two letters of the CCP abbreviation stand for cvi -cnapuma - practice bomb. FAB, OFAB and RBK are Russiandesignations (FAB = foogahsnaya aviabomba - high-explo­sive bomb; OFAB = osk%chno-foogahsnaya aviabomba- HE/fragmentation bomb; RBK = rahzovaya bombovayakasseta - lit. 'disposable bomb casselle', ie, cluster bomb)3 As with the MiG-15/S-102, the Czechs reverted to theSoviet designation in 1956 but began adding their own suf­fix letters.4 Also referred to as 'MiG-15UTI-P' in some sources.5 Aircraft manufactured by WSK Mielec have constructionnumbers as follows, eg, 1A 01-006, where:

1 = a WSK PZL division code signifying WSK Mielec(plant No 1);

A = product code (Lim-1/MiG-15). Each type built atMielec is designated by up to three lellers - eg,G =PZL (Antonov) An-2 Colt, AH =PZL M-20Mewa, AJE = PZL M-28 Skytruck etc;

01 = batch number;006 = number of aircraft in batch (up to 70 with some types).

In the case of the Lim-1 the batch number has two digits,plus three digits for the number of the aircraft in the batch;usually, however, it is vice versa (three digits for the batchnumber plus two for the number in the batch; see Lim-2).The c/n is stencilled all over the aircraft (on the forward andaft fuselage, fin, control surfaces, gear doors etc.) The splitpresentation used here is given for the sake of convenienceonly; actually the number is stencilled all 'lumped together'-for example, 1A01 006.

MiG-15 125

Chapter FourThe MiG-15 in Action, orThe Aluminium Rabbit Goes to War1 Another play on Harry Harrison: another one of his nov­els is titled The Steel Rat Goes to War2 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 unitbecame the 42nd IBAP (istrebitel'no-bombardeerovochnyyaviapolk - fighter-bomber regiment) in 1960 and re­equipped with MiG-21 PFs in 1972, ultimately becoming the149th BAD/42nd GvBAP in 1983.4 The honorary appellation Baranovichskaya was givenlor the 239th lAD's part in iiberating the Beiorussian town ofBaranovichi during the Great Patriotic War. Likewise, theappellation Novorossiyskiy was given for the 159th lAP'spart in liberating the city of Novorossiysk.5 Grooppa sovetskikh voysk v Ghermahnii - Group ofSoviet Forces in Germany; renamed ZGV (Zahpadnayagrooppa voysk - Western Group of Forces) in 1989.6 NATO and the Soviet comman\! often used differentnames for the same East German airbases. In such casesthe Soviet name comes first with the NATO name followingin 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'sthem 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 theUSAF but also by the British Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Aus­tralian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force and theSouth African Air Force.10 At first the Soviet Air Force MiG-15s in Korea wore Chi­nese markings but these quickly gave way to North Koreanones.11 The spelling mayor may not match the Western spellingof Korean locations. These names were translated directlyfrom the Russian spelling in the Soviet documents. Andthere 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 1stLieutenant) .13 Korean War Aces (Robert F Dorr, Jon Lake, Warren

Thompson, Osprey Publishing, London, 1995, p. 16) is theonly Western publication mentioning this fact.14 According to US sources, the first F-86 shootdown ofthe Korean War took place on 22nd December when CaptNikolay Ye Vorob'yov (177th lAP/50th lAD) shot downLawrence 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 amidSouth Korean positions - or so he thought. He fought backuntil he was out of ammunition, then shot himself with hislast bullet. Tragically, it turned out these were North Kore­ans..18 There is considerable confusion as to the spelling of hisname; some sources call him No Kum Suk.19 MiG-15 ace V A Nazarkin recalled that in high-Gmanoeuvres the MiG-15 would warn of an impending stallby making 'a din like an iron roof in a hurricane. Holy s**t, Inever imagined a plane could do anything iike that.'20 This 'Sabre-stealing Kondrat'yev' is not to be confusedwith Vyacheslav P Kondrat'yev who is responsible for theYakovlev Yak-18T cabin monoplane, the Sukhoi Su-26championship aerobatic aircraft and the SM-92 Finist iightutility 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 shotdown and killed in a dogfight with nine Sabres.22 MTAP = minno-torpednyy aviapolk - aerial minelayerand torpedo-bomber regiment.23 Pronounced 'Kheb'.24 The second-ranking Soviet ace of the Second WorldWar with 59 'kills', triple HSU.25 GvORAP = gvardeyskiy otdel'nyy razvedyvatel'nyyaviapolk - 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 196227 Again, there is considerable confusion as to the spellingof this name; some sources call the place Bir Gifgafa or evenBir Gilgafa.28 The Syrian MiGs did not take part in the fighting. Theirpresence at Abu Sueir is explained by the fact that Syrianpilots were taking their training there; hence the aircraft weredelivered to and assembled at Abu Sueir so that the Syrianscould depart in their new jets after completing the trainingcourse.

Chapter FiveMiG-15 Operators Worldwide1 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 numberas JBG 37. However, the fleet list section in the same bookuses JBG 31 throughout and this is corroborated by otherGerman publications.5 JG 2 was named after the famous Soviet cosmonautwho was the first man in space; JG 3 after another Sovietcosmonaut who died on 24th April 1967 when his space­craft's heat shield failed during reentry; JG 7 after the EastGerman president of the early 1950s; FAG 25 after a colonelof the East German Armed Forces; and JBG 31 after the firstCzech president.6 Formerly Flugzeugwerke Dresden (Dresden AircraftFactory), a manufacturer of VEB-14s (licence-built IlyushinIL-14P Crates). The East German aircraft industry was killedoff by the government in 1961 as 'uneconomical'.7 The Polish serial prior to delivery to the USA has alsobeen quoted as 6038 Red.8 The style of the serial's digits varied perceptibly fromfactory to factory, allowing an educa1ed guess as to wherethe aircraft was built. For example, Novosibirsk used thinand angular digits, usually outlined in white; Kuybyshev andSaratov normally used narrow and very rounded digits,again outlined in white, while Gor'kiy had something inbetween (bold and rather angular) and with no white outline.9 This aircraft was earlier flown by DTESA as 822 Red (ex­N822JM, see table).

Chapter SixThe MiG-15bis in Detail1 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 trainingexercises. The explosion is to simulate a nucleardetonation. Yelim Gordon Archive

126 MiG-15

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

128 MiG-15

Production MIG·15 (SV)

S·3 prototype

First series production MIG·15 (SV)

Modified MiG·15 No 101003

=

Modified MiG·15 No 105015The first SO prototype

_.._~---_.

Modified MiG·15 No3810102 (SA·1)

~·o·

<D 0

00

MiG-15 129

130 MiG-15

Production MiG·15bis (SD)

Production MiG·15bis (SO)

oI

-<OrI

@I

oIo

jJT13-.2bO 0;<' ITg-30 o.feuL fC/A/RS

oFAg--(tJCJI1 0/1 'FOTA.8--(OO

"/I. FAg -$"O 011 Ao-50-.(&tJl'f ""M.4~

Ol~=~o

oI

-<OrI

@)IoI

G

MiG-15 131

132 MiG-15

MiG·15 No 109035 (SU)

Production MiG·15bis (SO)

MiG·15bis with NS·23KM guns and OSP·48,Barii-M, RSIU·6 equipment

Late production MiG-.15bis

MiG·15bis No 122035

o

o

o 0

o 0

The first SR prototype(MiG-15bis No53210120)

Production MiG-15Rbis (SR) No53210101with 600L fuel tanks

MiG·15bisR Czechoslovakian Air Force

o

MiG-15 133

134 MiG-15

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)

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

136 MiG-15

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 andmodified speed brakes

Production UTi-MiG-15 series No 1-5

MiG-15 137

138 MiG-15

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---.------.--

SP-1 prototype

SP-5 prototype

Modified SP-5 prototype(State tests)

o

<= 0

o 0

o

o

o

ST-7 (UTI-MiG-15P) prototype

MiG-15 139

Lim·1

Lim·1,5

o

o

140 MiG-15

Lim-2

Lim-2R

Modified SBLim·1

SBLim-2A

SBLim-2M

MiG-15 141

Czech-built MiG-15SB

Czech-built MiG-15bis SB with 400L tanksand AA·2 rockets

o 0

142 MiG-15

MiG·15T

MiG·15bis T

o

o

MiG·15bis with PPZ-1 ILS

Czech·built S·102 (c/n V-15)

Czech-built S-103

MiG·15bis R with 600L tanks

o

MiG-15 143

144 MiG-15

Modified UTI·MiG·15

o·

Czech·built CS·102

Chinese·built JJ·2 (FT·2)

o·

CS·102 with PPZ·1 ILS

UTI·MiG·15P No 2626

(;) 0

o

CD 0

Appendix Two

MiG·15 in Colour

Above: The MiG·15bis (ISh) at the Russian AirForce Museum, Monino. Yefim Gordon

Below left: Another view of the MiG·15bis (ISh) inMonino. 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 theGreat Patriotic War Museum, Poklonnaya Gora,Moscow. The damaged rear canopy glazing hasbeen substituted by sheet metal. Yefim Gordon

UTI·MiG·15 '03 Red' (c/n 22013) at the RussianAir 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-15sdelivered to Poland, in the Poznan CityLiberation 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 MuzeumWojska Po/skiego in Warsaw. Its origin isunclear; it could be a Soviet-built example or aLim-2 (c/n 1B 011-32). Yefim Gordon

((

MiG-15 149

150 MiG-15

Former Polish air force Lim-2 N822JM seen atStead Airport, Reno, Nevada painted in spuriousmarkings 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 tothe museum's second location at Speyer.Yefim Gordon

A privately-owned British Midget, G-OMIG,at ILA-94 in Berlin, painted in Soviet markingsas 6247 Blue. Originally a Czech-built CS·102(c/n 622047), this aircraft flew with the PolishAir Force and has been upgraded to SBLim·2Astandard. Yefim Gordon

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

152 MiG-15

The first MiG-15 prototype wasdesignated 1-310 (S-Ol)

MiG-15bis with OSP-48 blind landing systemand detachable external fuel tanks

A Soviet MiG-15 in an early 1950s paint schemethat soon appeared in the Korean sky

UTI-MiG-15 that was operated by the Voluntary Society for Supportof the Soviet Army, Air Force and Navy (DOSAAF) in 1970s

UTI-MiG-15P (ST-7) two-seat trainer equippedwith the RP-1 Izumrud radar

UTi-MiG-15 intended for the SK ejectionseat development program

A Czech Air Force MiG-15 SBwith PPZ-1 landing system

MiG-15bis of the Czech Air Forceaerobatic team

A MiG-15bis from Czech Air ForceOstrava-based fighter bomber regiment

A Czech Air Force MiG-15Rbis that was used asan adversary aircraft during tactical exercises(note blue stripes on the fuselage sides and fin)

MiG-15 153

MiG-15 of the Czech Air Forceaerobatic team of the early 1950s

The only Czech Air Force UTI-MiG-15equipped with RP-1 Izumrud radar

----­~----------"-"--

o o o

154 MiG-15

A Polish-built Lim-2R reconnaissance aircraft withphotographic equipment. The Lim-2 was the Polish ..--------version of the later production series MiG-15bis .._____-----

.--------------

Another Polish-built Lim-2R reconnaissanceaircraft with photographic equipment.

The SBLim·2 is the two-seat combat trainerversion of the Lim-2 single-seater

li I:J

-,-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A North Korean MiG·15bis of the 64th Fighter AirCorps (FAC), painted in a camouflage schemewas 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 equippedwith OSP·48 system and RSIU-3 radio stationof the Chinese Air Force

A later production series MiG-15bis equippedwith OSP-48 system and RSIU-3 radio stationof the Chinese Air Force

MiG-15 155

156 MiG-15

A Czech-built UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102)of the East German Air Force

An East German Air Force MiG-15bis

A Hungarian Air Force MiG-15bis

MiG-15bis, manufacturer's No 2015337, that was flown to KimpoAir Base near Seoul on 21st September 1953 by Korean pilotRo Kim Suk. The aircraft was evaluated on Okinawa and atWright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, in 1954

The stolen MiG-15bis at KadenaAir Base, Okinawa

o

A Finnish Air Foce UTI-MiG-15, one of fouraircraft exported to Finland

An Indonesian Air Force UTI·MiG-15, exported inearly 1960s, was used for training of Indonesianpilots for the MiG-17

An Iraqi Air Force MiG-15 two-seater as seen in Prague,Czechoslavakia, in 1963, several days before deliveryto the Middle East

o

A Hungarian Air Force MiG-15bis equippedwith the OSP-48 blind landing system

MiG-15 157

158 MiG-15

An early production series MiG-15bis with OSP-48blind landing system. It was used in the HungarianAir Force as a fighter-bomber

A Cuban Air Force MiG-15bis equipped withthe OSP-48 blind landing system

A former Polish SBLim·2 (manufacturer's code 1A·06-038) thatwas imported to the US and was used by the Defense Test andEvaluation 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 registrationnumber N205JM), used in Steal the Sky, a TV movie

Advertisement BRITISH SECRET PROJECTS ­JET FIGHTERS SINCE 1950

Tony Buttler

SOVIET X-PLANES

Yefim Gordon & Bill Gunston

THE X·PLANES X-1 to X-45New, totally revised third edition

Jay Miller

We hope you enjoyedthis book, . ,

Aerofax and Midland Publishing titlesare edited and designed by anexperienced and enthusiastic trans­Atlantic team of specialists.

Further titles are in preparation but wealways welcome ideas from authors orreaders for books they would like to seepublished.

In addition, our associate company,Midland Counties Publications,offers an exceptionally wide rangeof aviation, spaceflight, astronomy,military, naval and transport books andvideos for sale by mail-order around theworld.

For acopy of the appropriate catalogue,or to order further copies of this book,and any of the titles mentioned on thisor the facing page, please write,telephone, fax or e-mail to:

Midland Counties Publications4Watling Drive, Hinckley,Leics, LE10 3EY, England

Tel: (+44) 01455 254450Fax: (+44) 01455 233 737E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com

US distribution by Specialty Press ­see page 2.

BRITISHSECRET PROJECTSJET RGHTERS SINCE 1950

TONY BUTTLER

Ahuge number of fighter projects havebeen drawn by British companies overthe last 50 years, in particular prior tothe 1957 White Paper, but with fewturned into hardware, little has beenpublished about these fascinating'might-have-beens'. Emphasis isplaced on some of the events which ledto certain aircraft either being cancelledor produced. Some of the varied typesincluded are the Hawker P.11 03/P.1136/P.1121 series, and the Fairey 'Delta III'

Hbk, 282 x 213 mm, 176 pages130 b/w photos; 140 three-views,and an 8 page colour section1 85780 095 8 £24,95/US $39,95

Adetailed review of Soviet experimentalaircraft from the early 1900s through tothe latest Russian prototypes of today.

The book is the first to collect thestories of the more important Sovietexperimental aircraft into one volume.Working from original sources theauthors have produced an outstandingreference which although concentratingon hardware also includes manyunflown projects. About 150 types aredescribed, each with relevant data, andincluding many three-view drawings.

Hardback, 282 x 213mm, 240 pages355 b/w, 50 colour photos; 200 dwgs1 85780 099 0 £29,95/US $44,95

This new, totally revised and updatedversion of 'The X-Planes' contains adetailed and authoritative account ofevery single X-designated aircraft.There is considerable new, and newly­declassified information on all X-Planes.

Each aircraft is described fully withcoverage of history, specifications,propulsion systems and disposition.Included are rare cockpit illustrations.Each X-Plane is also illustrated by adetailed multi-view drawing.

Hardback, 280 x 216mm, 440 pagesc850 b/w, 52 colour photographs,approximately 110 drawings1 85780 109 1 £39.95/US $59,95

SOVIET COMBAT AIRCRAFTOF THE SECOND WORLD WARVolume One: Single-Engined Fighters

Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov

SOVIET COMBAT AIRCRAFTOF THE SECOND WORLD WARTwin Eng Fighters, Attack Acft &Bombers

Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov

VIETNAM AIR LOSSESUSAF, Navy and Marine Corps Fixed-WingAircraft Losses in SE Asia 1961-1973

Chris Hobson

US AIR FORCEThe New Century. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. ...

Bob Archer

Volumcr",o:rwin-Enpned FlPJtcrs. Atuc.k Airel' oJ

an.d60mben 4;; ,

Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazancjwith Alexandu Medved'

Arranged by manufacturer, this includesthe prototype and operational productsof famous designers such asLavochkin, Mikoyan and Yakovlev aswell as the lesser known, such as theBereznyak-Isaev rocket propelled fighter.

Rich Russian sources includingmanufacturers, flight test establish­ments and Soviet air force and navalaviation records provide awealth ofnew material, much of which rewritespreViously held Western views.

Hardback, 282 x 213 mm, 184 pages358 b/w photos; 28 layout diagrams,16 full colour side views1 85780 083 4 £24.95/US $39,95

Arranged by designer, this includes theproducts of famous names such asIlyushin, Petlyakov and Tupolev as wellas lesser known types.

In his introduction, Bill Gunstonexplains the unique nature of Sovietaviation, the politics and strategies andthe problems created by the vastness ofthe country - and confirms that the twovolumes of Soviet Combat Aircraft areset to become the premier reference onthis facet of aviation history.

Hardback, 282 x 213 mm, 176 pages285 b/w photos; 27 layout diagrams;17 full colour side views1 85780 084 2 £24,95/US $39.95

Amost thorough review of all the fixedwing losses suffered over atwelve yearperiod. The information is basically achronological recording of each aircraftloss including information on unit,personnel, location and cause of loss.Information is also provided on thebackground or future career of some ofthe aircrew involved.

There are extensive orders of battle,plus an index of personnel, as well asstatistics of the war, list of abbreviations,glossary of codenames and bibliography.

Softback, 280 x 215 mm, c1 92 pagesc1 00 b/w photographs1 85780 115 6 c£1 9,95/US $29,95

Covers current active duty flying wingsand autonomous groups, with fulldetails of formation and changes ofdesignation, home stations, aircrafttypes, years assigned, and a history ofeach unit with its emblem in colour.

Almost 50 aircraft types currently inservice or planned for the USAF aredetailed including development, unitassignments, serial batches and anexplanation of the role of eachvariant.Bases are examined, and a list ofcurrent tail codes is presented.

Softback, 280 x 216mm, 176 pages190 colour photos,127 unit emblems1 85780 1024 £18.95/US $29.95

I~IILYUSHIN 1L-76Russia's Versatile Jet Freighter

Yefim Gordon & Dmitriy Komissarov

AerofaxTUPOLEV Tu-95/Tu-142'BEAR'

Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant

AerofaxMIG-25 'FOXBAT' andMIG·31 'FOXHOUND'

Yefim Gordon

In 1982, American author Jay Millerpublished his first major book, the'AeroGraph' on the F-16. Since thenthere has been asteady flow of widelyacclaimed books from the Aerofax line.

After many years acting as Europeandistributors, Midland Publishing Limitedacquired the rights to the Aerofax nameand have since commissioned manynew titles for the series. Some willcontinue to be produced for Midland byJay Miller in the USA, others will beoriginated by atalented team ofinternationally known authors.

The previous categories of AeroGraph,DataGraph, MiniGraph, and Extra are nolonger used; all new titles are simplypublished as 'Aerofax' books.

These softback volumes are full ofauthoritative text, detailed photographs,plus line drawings. They also containsome colour, and cockpits, controlpanels and other interior detail are wellillustrated in most instances.

Some of the more recent titles areoutlined alongside, whilst a listing of theothers in the series that are still in print,plus details of newly announced titles, isavailable upon request.

IlyushinIL-76

Russla'sVersatlleJet Fretghter

Dmllriy Komlssarov and YClfim Gordon

i====~====i

The Soviet Union's answer to the Lock­heed Starlifter first flew in 1971 and hasbecome familiar both in its intendedmilitary guise and as acommercialfreighter. It has also been developed asthe IL-78 for aerial refuelling, and inAEW and other versions.

There is not only afull developmenthistory and technical description, butextensive tables detailing each aircraftbuilt, with c/n, serial and so on, anddetailed notes on every operator, bothcivil and military, and their fleets.

Softback, 280 x 215 mm, 160 pagesc250 b/w and colour photos, drawings1857801067 £19.95/US $34.95

TupolevTu-95/-142 'Bear'

Ruula'slnlen:onlinentl'·RtllliIG Hnvy Bomba,

V.lim Gordon Bnd Vladimir Rillmant

F====~====i

During the 'Cold War' Tupolev's Tu-95'Bear' strategic bomber provided an awe­some spectacle. It was the mainstay ofthe USSR's strike force, areliable andadaptable weapons platform. Additionalroles included electronic/photographicreconnaissance and maritime patrol,AEW and command and control.

The author has had unparalleledaccess to the Tupolev OKB archives,taking the lid off astory previously fullof speculation to produce the mostcomprehensive study to date.

Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 128 pages236 b/w, 24 col photos, 12 diagrams1 85780046 X £14.95/US $24.95

MiG-25 'Foxbat'MiG·31 'Foxhound'

Russla'Sdelenslvofronllino

YCllmGordon

F====~====I

This book takes adetailed, informedand dispassionate view of an awesomeaeronautical achievement - the titaniumand steel MiG-25 - which became thebackbone of the USSR defensivestructure. Its follow-on was the similar­looking MiG-31 'Foxhound', very muchanew aircraft designed to counter UScruise missiles and in production from1979. Includes a large amount ofpreviously unpublished material plusextensive and lavish illustrations.

Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 96 pages110 b/w and colour photos plus 91 lineand colour airbrush illustrations1 85780 064 8 £13.95/ US $21.95

AerofaxBOEING KC-135More Than Just aTanker

Robert SHoskins III

AerofaxCONVAIR B·58 HUSTLERThe World's First Supersonic Bomber

Jay Miller

AerofaxMcDONNELL DOUGLASDC-10 AND KC-10 EXTENDER

Arthur ACSteffen

AerofaxMcDONNELL DOUGLASMD·11

Arthur ACSteffen

Boeing KC-135Stratotanker

Convair B-58Hustler

McDonnell DouglasDC·10and KC·10 Extender

McDonnell DouglasMD·11

Along Bench SWllnsongWlde.OodyWorkhorSeIIThe World's First Supersonic BomberMore thtlnjust a Tanker

Robert S Hopkins III Jay Miller

F====~====1 F====~====1

This book, written by aformer USAFRC-135 crew commander, follows thedevelopment and service use of thisglobe-trotting aircraft and its many andvaried tasks. Every variant, and sub­variant is charted, the histories of eachand every aircraft are to be fou ndwithin; details of the hundreds of units,past and present, that have flown theStratotanker are given. This profuselyillustrated work will interest those whohave flown and serviced them as well asthe historian and enthusiast community.

Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 224 pages210 b/w and 46 colour photos1 857800699 £24.95/US $39.95

Instantly recognisable with its delta wingand 'coke bottle' area-ruled fuselage theB-58 was put into production for the USAir Force in the 1950s.

First published, in 1985, this is arevised edition, which takes aretro­spective in-depth look at this significantaircraft, from design studies, throughits development and comparativelyshort service life, to and beyond retire­ment. It includes yet more amazingmaterial and 80 new illustrations,bringing the story up to date.

Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 152 pages462 b/w, 15 colour, 100 line i1lusts.1 857800583 £16.95/US $27.95

From 1970 to 1988 McDonnell Douglasbuilt 446 DC-1 Os of all models and theyare at work around the clock carryingpassengers and freight. The central partof this book gives details of each DC-10operator, including illustrations of allmajor colour schemes. The UnitedStates Air Force has 60 of the KC-10AExtender tanker/transport version, avery capable addition to the inventory.

The illustrations are almost totally fullcolour, to show to best advantage thewide range of schemes and operators.

Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 128 pages276 colour, 14 b/w photos, 11 line dwgs1 85780051 6 £19.95/US $34.95

McDonnell Douglas' follow-on to theDC-10 proved less successful in termsof numbers produced and has fallencasualty to the Boeing takeover.However it has seen service with manyairlines worldwide and is entering asecond phase of existence as apurefreighter conversion.

Again, this book details each andevery aircraft and operator. Theillustrations are almost totally fullcolour, to show to best advantage thewide range of schemes and operators.

Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 112 pagesc230 mostly colour photos, 19 drawings1857801172 £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 operatedby the State Flight Test Centre (GUTs) in Akhtoobinskaround 1994.

, Front cover illustration:

Four MiG-15bis of the Soviet Air Force's first jet displayteam, unofficially known as 'T,he Red Five', formed atKubinka AB in 1950. All Yefim Gordon archive

ISBN 1-85780-105-9

1111111 11119 781857 801057

USA $29.95 UK £17.95