posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by Darkpr0
After a read through of the relatively short Have Drill/Have Ferry
The USAF and USN tested the MiG-17 in an almost identical fashion to that of the MiG-21 in Have Doughnut. It was primarily compared against the F-4
variants, the F105, and the F-5 with some minor investigations on the side in terms of defensive tactics.
The most important takeaway is that this aircraft was incredibly maneuverable. Despite its rudimentary nature, the MiG-17 proved to have superior
turning power at the 350 KIA (M=0.6) flight regime. This was in complete deference to the American ideology of the time against training pilots for
close-range air combat maneuvers. Perhaps the most telling quote from the entire article:
"Every Navy pilot engaged in the project lost his first engagement with the Fresco C"
It is no coincidence that this information and the creation of the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, aka Top Gun, were in
such close proximity. The article emphasizes the use of the extra acceleration power of American airframes over the MiG-17 as their principal
advantage. Many of the tactics presented in response to the MiG-17 utilize high speeds and low altitudes to avoid disadvantageous turning fights. It
even goes so far as to say "If you get away, don't go back unless it's on your terms!". The respect for this aircraft as a threat must have gone very
One other thing which I neglected to mention in the MiG-21 document summary was the lack of engine smoke, and this has popped up again in the MiG-17's
file. The US forces noted that neither of the Soviet aircraft produced engine smoke which made visual tracking very difficult. It was found that the
MiG-17 pilots could identify and track American aircraft by their smoke trails for several miles before they were ever noticed. This, and some other
factors led to some of the most influential conclusions in US combat aviation history.
"Elimination of exhaust trails should be a primary engine design consideration for all future US fighters" (Page 26, Main Article)
"All future US fighter developments include a gun as well as missiles" (Page 42, Main Article)
If you have to read only two slides, both Page 26 and 42 of the Main Article are very informative. I do recommend reading all of both documents as
they are relatively short and condensed.
edit on 11/5/2013 by Darkpr0 because: (no reason given)