MiG-19 versus F-100 Super Sabre?

Well known aviation writer Yefim Gordon claims that the MiG-19 was superiour to the F-100 in his book about the Soviet fighter. Do we agree with him?

The Soviet Unions first supersonic fighter versus the first American supersonic fighter.

 

How does he define superior?

 

No.

 

MIG-19 superior to the F-100 Super Sabre? I don't think that's very possible.

 

The F-100 weighed 21,000 lb empty, 35,000 fully-loaded, with a 17,000 lb thrust engine and a wing area of 385 square feet.

The MiG-19 weights were 12,700 lb to 20,000 lb, with a total of 14,550 lb thrust and a wing area of 269 square feet.

So if we take half-way between the empty and max loaded weights as typical, the F-100 had a thrust/weight ratio of 0.61:1, the MiG 0.89:1 - a huge advantage to the MiG, giving it much better acceleration and climb rates. The F-100 wing loading was 73 lb per square foot, the MiG's 61 lb - which gives the MiG a manouvrability advantage as well.

Gun armament is harder to call. The F-100 had four high-velocity 20mm revolver cannon, total rate of fire of 6,800 rpm and throwing a total of about 25 lb weight of shells per second. The MiG had three medium-velocity 30mm NR-30, firing at about 2,700 rpm but pushing out a total of 40 lbs per second. So although the F-100 would have found it easier to score hits, the MiG hit a lot harder.

What these figures don't reveal is the quality: what were the two planes' handling qualities like? How did their fire control systems and avionics compare? I really don't know the answer to that, but I suspect that in avionics the F-100 would have been better. All the same, the MiG has a big "paper advantage" for the F-100 to overcome.


Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

My understanding of the F-100 is that it was a problem child from day one, with more being lost in accidents than to enemy fire during vietnam, made a decent ground attack plane, and little else. At least the Mig was successful at what it was designed to do, I dont believe the same can be said of the F-100.

 

Willy:
My readings on the subject seem to confirm your impression of the F-100D concerning developmental bugs and related-issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"By the early 'sixties, the F-100D had been subjected to so many in-service modifications to correct its obvious deficiencies that no two F-100Ds were alike, making for a maintenance and spare parts nightmare. Beginning in 1962, about 700 F-100Ds and Fs were subjected to a series of modifications under *Project High Wire*, a major standardization and upgrading program. The goal of this program was to extend the variety of non-nuclear weapons that could be carried, to eliminate excess weight, and to standardize the cockpit and rewire it completely. Perhaps the most readily noticeable modification produced by the *High Wire* program was the addition of a spring-steel tailhook underneath the rear fuselage. This tailhook was NOT meant for carrier-based operations, but was intended to engage wires at the end of runways to prevent overshooting during bad landings. Aircraft so modified were distinguished by adding one to their production block numbers--for example, the F-100D-25-NA became F-100D-26-NA after modification. These modifications were completed in 1965."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

In all fairness to "The Hun" at this point in time the USAF was obsessed with multi-role aircraft, and the F-100 was never designed as a pure dogfighter... unlike the Mig19.
On the other hand, the design specs of the Mig19 made it an agile dogfighter, but not much of a fighter-bomber platform. (Score one for the Hun.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, USAF F-100Ds began to fly missions over North Vietnam. These missions were generally of two types--MiG-CAP patrols to protect strike aircraft from attack by marauding North Vietnamese fighters and fighter-bomber strikes carried out with iron bombs against ground targets. On April 1, 1965, F-100Ds flew MiG combat air patrol for a strike force of F-105s that were hitting the Thanh Hoa Bridge in North Vietnam.

During these strikes, the MiGs would try to sneak up on these packages from the rear, make just one firing pass, and then flee. It was assumed that the F-100D would probably not be an effective fighter in air-to-air combat, since it lacked a powerful radar set and could not carry advanced air-to-air weapons. However, every time the MiGs tried to interfere with these strikes they immediately fled as soon as the F-100s turned toward them. Encounters between F-100s and MiGs were very few and far between, and I think that the F-100 fired its guns and missiles against enemy fighters only on one or two occasions, with inconclusive results.

By June of 1967, only five squadrons of F-100s remained at home in the USA, most of the rest having been transferred to Vietnam to fight in the rapidly-escalating war. Although it encountered some maintenance difficulties, the F-100D proved remarkably adaptable to rough-field operations in the tropical heat and rain of Southeast Asia. For a time, F-100s enjoyed the best maintenance record of any aircraft in the Vietnam combat zone. However, as a tactical bomber, the F-100D was inferior to the F-105 and the F-4. The F-105 could carry a larger bomb load further and faster. In addition, the F-105 was built to take the extreme structural loads of low-level, high-speed flight, whereas the F-100 was not. Consequently, from mid-1965 onward, F-100D fighter bombers generally operated only in the South, leaving the North for the F-4 and the F-105. Down South, the F-100 turned out to be a very effective ground support aircraft, and beat back many enemy attacks."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All quotes from home.att.net
History of the NA F-100 Super Sabre

 

I was hopoing to tease Varyag into what he meant by superior, I shouldn't have tried to be so cute, but JC got no response either.

As a short range, gun armed interceptor, the Mig-19 was probably better. Thrust to weight, rate of climb, ceiling and wing loading all in favor of the Mig-19S over F-100D.
But the F-100D had greater range and load carrying ability and the US Sidewinder was a much better air to air weapon, especially when compared to early Soviet efforts.
Hoosier's post points out the reliability of the F-100, whatever the early teething problems it may have had. Quality probably goes to the F-100, although Soviet military products could be quite good, they could also be quite bad in the rush to meet produciton figures.

 

But the Mig's guns have lower velocity. Or is this like an M16 round vs AK47 round type of thing, where mass gains the advantage in stopping power over velocity. But the expertise of the pilot is still what matters most.

PS Anyone have a pic of a 'revolver cannon'?

 

It's different, in that the primary advantage of velocity in an aircraft gun is to improve hit probability - it does nothing to increase effectiveness. That depends on the destructive effect of the shells when they explode; and the NR-30's 30mm shells weighed four times as much as the M61's 20mm.

Certainly. But we're discussing planes, here, not pilots. And the agile MiG should have been able to fly rings around the lumbering F-100, given pilots of equal ability.

HERE: http://www.hill.af.mil/museum/photos/dawnjet/m39.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

other things

its much harder to qualitify which aircraft is better that by just looking at thrust to weight , weapons, and wing loading. you have to get into stuff like pilot position, controls, visability both from and to, range, maintance, toughness, short and rough field capabilty, and other factors. then you need to relate such factors to the style of fighting envisioned. then fold in the tatics of both sides. example Bf 109 vs Spitfire, had the roles been reversed in 41 we would read of how the 109 was perhaps the best early WWII fighter. many of the early Migs suffered control stiffing at high mach numbers and a reduction of control effectivness at high attitude. not something that will show up on most comparisions but something very important to pilots involved. something as seemingly minor as cockpit heating and defrosting can make or break a fighter, there were more that a few P-38s lost because of just those problems in europe. using the same main points either the Mig 15 or 17 are better fighters than the F-4 and for much of the war it proved to be but explain please how the USN ran up ratios of something like 9 or 10 to one in the same matchup. how many US F-4s went down because of LBJs insane ROEs or because of the inherent advantages that war gave the defending Migs? siiming small things can count for as much or more than wing loading or guns carried.

 

lynn:
History offers little help as there was no real combat between the two aircraft in question in which to draw conclusionsof any meaningful value.

Our best guideline--or mine at least--is the fact the Mig19 was designed as an interceptor while the NA F100-D was clearly a result of the USAF's obsession with multi-role aircraft. The F-100D is a fighter-bomber.

The F-4 Phantom also suffers from the same mandate in being a fighter as well as a bomber, but without the 20mm cannon of the F-100 and F-105. Our kill ratio was actually much lower than you state... more like 2-1 if memory serves, and this poor kill-ratio resulted in the Top-Gun school for fighter pilots in the Post Vietnam-era. The fact the F-4 fared as well as it did is a credit to the design and the flexibility of the airframe, it's aircrews... and the sidewinder/sparrow AA missles.

Let also not forget--as you mention--the insane rules of engagement--where Mig bases were off-limits to attack, and NVAF Migs were able to pick their fights when they enjoyed a high probablity of success. The fact USAF pilots enjoyed ANY success is a marvel to me. Has there ever been such a "war" when such limitations were put on attackers? Incredibly stupid to put your pilots and aircraft at risk in such a venture.
I've also read stories where in order to maintain the number of sorties "required" by higher-ups... Navy pilots went "downtown" over Hanoi and North Vietnam without bomb-loads to drop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How very sporting.

Tim

 

Hoosier, you keep talking about the Mig-17 but it's the MiG-19 that's under discussion - and that was a completely different aircaft.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Re: other things

Quite so. That's why I said in my first post:

"What these figures don't reveal is the quality: what were the two planes' handling qualities like? How did their fire control systems and avionics compare? I really don't know the answer to that, but I suspect that in avionics the F-100 would have been better. All the same, the MiG has a big "paper advantage" for the F-100 to overcome."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Tony:
Typo. I understand the aircraft, but obviously can't find the "nine" on my keyboard these days... thanks for correcting me.
I'll edit my posts.

Tim

 

Is there any documented facts as to what happens to all of the bullets and missiles that are fired in air-to-air caombet that do not strike the enemy aircraft.

I can only imagine what happens on the ground where all that stuff lands. Or how about all the AAA fire when it it comes down.

 

Re: other things

Very good summation. That's why it's important to frame the question. If you're looking at a WWI style dog-fight the MiG-19 might be considered superior. In a real war, I'd put money on the F-100 missiles, fire-control and pilots to be at least as good.

 

Not sure but I think AAA shells are designed to explode after a certain distance or time, whether or not they hit the target, so that the fragments are less harmful when they fall to the ground... Then again, there are always the few odd 'duds' which might fail to do so, and I doubt aircraft cannons will do that. At any rate the probability of being hit by a stray shell is very very small...

 

Thanks to it's complete superiority in every area to it's nothing-but-garbage excuse for a compeititor, the plane that prevails is...obviously the Mig 19. Someone should have really gotten a better plane on the drawing board to give at least a shred of dignity to the USAF in it's debate against the Russians during that era. And now too, seeing that the Flanker is superior in almost every way to the Raptor.

 

Based on what? That doesn't even begin to consider avionics in the 19/100 debate or regarding the Flanker/Raptor, stealth, avionics or weaponary. Modern air power is about so much more than just numbers in tables.