F-86E

[Heck 496]

I keep reading in various books, and some web pages that the F-86E has 600lbs more thrust than an F-86A, but all the statistical information I can find states that the E model had the 5200lb thrust engine that the A had. Does anyone have any information as to why the 86E would have 600lbs more thrust with the same engine? Is there something about the E's engine that made it different?

[Fubar512 1,350]

It depends on the block number.  F-86E-15's used the J47-GE-13 & GE-17B mills, while earlier E-variants and most A-models (A-5s) used the J47-GE-7. To further confuse the issue, many E-models were field-modded with GE-25s , and eventually, most later models Es were eventually retrofitted with the full "F" package, 6-3 wings, J47-GE-27s, and all.

[Do335 382]

For early years in Korea I think it's safe to assume they're the same engine... the E should be bit of a pig. Unless it's diving.

[Fubar512 1,350]

For early years in Korea I think it's safe to assume they're the same engine... the E should be bit of a pig. Unless it's diving.

 

Not if it's an E-15 or later, which covers most of the E-models that served during the Korean war. All of the E's that left the factory with leading edge slats were at least block-15s.

[Do335 382]

Not if it's an E-15 or later, which covers most of the E-models that served during the Korean war. All of the E's that left the factory with leading edge slats were at least block-15s.

Per your previous post, I assume you possess some deep source, Fubar512. As the net generally states GE-17/GE-25 engines are either for D/K Sabres or bombers. So I then assume the GE-17/-25 engine installations happened in later years state side.

And if GE-13 is the usual engine, it has the same nominal 5200lbs as GE-7 on the A, but obviously E is (10%?) heavier and it has to fight Mig-15Bis.

 

I want to see source.

[Fubar512 1,350]

 

 

I want to see source.

 

Then do your homework.

 

Because of the unique tailpipe fitted to all Sabres, the J-47-GE-13 is rated at 6,000 lbs thrust in that airframe. 

[Do335 382]

Sure.

 

T.O. -1 of F-86A. Mil power climb chart. Note the listed engine: GE-7/-13. There is no difference between the 2.

 

T.O. -1 of F-86E. GE-13 engine. Note the reduced climb rate, and lengthened climb time.

 

As for retrofitting Sabre Dog and B-47 engines to the 86E, I'm almost calling it. I'm thankful for your FMs, but it doesn't mean you can make stuff up.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Check the date of that chart. It pre-dates the in-service dates of slatted E-models (the Block-10s and the Block-15s).

[Fubar512 1,350]

Those figures you posted are also not accurate.  Let's compare them to actual figures from an F-86F-1, taken in 1959 during a flight test. NOTE: this is with the J-47-GE-27, which we all agree has greater thrust:

 

 

  

[Do335 382]

All of the E's that left the factory with leading edge slats were at least block-15s.

Check the date of that chart. It pre-dates the in-service dates of slatted E-models (the Block-10s and the Block-15s).

I am confused. Are you saying the E initially used un-slatted hard wing and where would that come from? Isn't it commonly known the Es initially had slats just as the As did.

 

Also I fail to see the relevance of 86F's data. It is ofc faster just as the chart shows. But that TO doesn't include data for the earlier A/Es. OTOH the A's TO doesn't note a single difference between the GE-7 and GE-13 in all the performance charts. It is probably safe to assume the improvements are non-performance related.

[Heck 496]

Thanks for the info, folks. I appreciate it. You read so much contradictory stuff when it comes to the Korean War. I read a website the other day put up by Lt. Col. Joseph R Clark that started me thinking about the era again, and some of the things he claimed on the Website. I wish the Air Force hadn't classified the 2008 Rand study. I know they released the summary of their findings, but the summary doesn't tell us the methodology they used, or the sources they used. I know the Air Force probably didn't want to burn sources, but it is a radical revision of what has been "history" up to now. Oh well. It took me thirty years of casual reading to find the words, "Jabara! You're shooting at me!"

[Do335 382]

Thanks for the info, folks. I appreciate it. You read so much contradictory stuff when it comes to the Korean War. I read a website the other day put up by Lt. Col. Joseph R Clark that started me thinking about the era again, and some of the things he claimed on the Website. I wish the Air Force hadn't classified the 2008 Rand study. I know they released the summary of their findings, but the summary doesn't tell us the methodology they used, or the sources they used. I know the Air Force probably didn't want to burn sources, but it is a radical revision of what has been "history" up to now. Oh well. It took me thirty years of casual reading to find the words, "Jabara! You're shooting at me!"

It is indeed so long ago that even vivid memories become hazy I reckon. I've read some accounts of sabre pilots association and some of their descriptions are plainly off vs historical/RL documents. But, they're not historians nor armchair hobbyists, just young men fighting for war and their lives. They don't need to remember or care about minute technical details.

 

And apparently there're still korean war claim debates here and there it probably will never settle... tttsk. Tech wise the Sabre and Mig are very very equal with strength and weaknesses imo. However I do believe the USAF claim of superior pilots. The Chinese and NK pilots are mostly utter crap. They were peasants. The ruskies are on par with americans but rotation on a unit basis disrupted the inheritance of combat experience. In comparison the 4th and 51st arrived and stayed, new pilots can be brought up by vets so all the better, and they're offensive/aggressive which is the right way to use air power. What I get from this, is that doctrine and big sky mentality isn't built with a few good techs.

Entirely my own opinion, ofc.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Do335

[Fubar512 1,350]

The early A's did not have slats.  They were added starting with block A-5. The E-models had slats unless they were later converted to 6-3 wings (so I stand corrected on that one),  The F-86Fs started with slats, then went to the 6-3 wing, and then were later modified with slats yet again (post-war F-40s).

 

The F-86E started with the J-47-GE-13, and ended their run with the J-47-GE-27 (planned for E-10s and up).  To further confuse the matter, the first 93 F-86Fs were re-designated F-86E-15s due to production shortages of the GE-27. So there were F-86E-10s running around with GE-27s, while the first batch of "Fs" left the factory with GE-13s.

[Heck 496]

My interest in this topic will never end. These are two of my favorite airplanes. For much of my life I have believed that the Mig 15 got a bad rap from the fact that, "History is the propaganda of the victors." We (Americans) only heard our side of this conflict. But, there were always those little whispers in the wind that things were actually quite a bit different. I read early in my readings that some F-86 pilots actually thought the Mig was a better airplane. They were, of course, shouted down by a very large and vitriolic crowd. Finally, the "evil" Russians opened up and I heard old fighter jocks reminiscences about an airplane they loved to fly. The bad, dangerous, spinning monster was transformed into the "Soldier's Airplane." One Eastern Bloc country nicknamed it, "the Swallow," although they might have been referring to African Swallows carrying very large Coconuts. And the UTI trainer was known in another country as "Momma." I can only imagine the horror of those Eastern Bloc children being put to bed by "Momma" in her spiked heels, leather, and carrying her nitey-nite whip. I'm so glad I was born in America, land of truth, justice, and airplanes with appropriate nicknames... 

[Do335 382]

...

 

eh... The modern day fighters' specs and designations like the F-16 etc are just as confusing. They're many times modded complex systems and can't be easily summed up for sure.

 

What's been confusing me lately are what squadrons used what. For example I've seen 8th FBW (35/36/80FS) Sabres, all designated F, but some with slats and some without, in the same time frame of summer '53. Is it due to 6-3 conversion kits logistics. But more importantly Is it that some squads operated the slat wing, while others used un-slatted wing, or is it that the slatted and un-slatted are inter mixed within the same squad (less likely but still)

But I digress, as this still needs further research...

 

 

...

On the Chinese side the propaganda is stronger for sure. Few years ago a military magazine published a documentary article on battle of Cho'sin reservoir, which included astonishing casualties of the PVA, and was subsequently banned. Praises have repeatedly went to the "hero pilots" who fought the imperialist Yankees over the Yalu river via movies, mags articles and festivals. There were tons of propaganda stunts over the years, nowadays I can only laugh. The Chinese ace Wang Hai have since risen through the ranks, went on to be chief of the PLAAF and pushed the Flanker deal with the ruskies in the 90s, and ofc, extremely corrupt. Oh right, he's undertook a rather famous flight simmer under his wing as well, who produced a korean jets mod called "sonic age" for IL2 which, actually, was just a copy-paste of Ultra Pack.

 

It is fair to say that truth is impossible to find. But I believe if one searches for it, it becomes closer. You are in these respects indeed fortunate to be a 1st worlder, Heck, for democracy is fought for and won, and truth is easier to find. However, I'm still curious to find who shot Kennedy. The state of Texas was supposed to de-class the files in 2013, and cheekily postponed it(?)!

Edited June 15, 2015 by Do335