MIKoyan-Gurevich

MiG·15
The Soviet Union's Long-lived Korean War Fighter

Yefim Gordon
Mikoyan-Gurevich
MiG-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
Contents
© 2001 Yefim Gordon
ISBN 1 85780 105 9
Introduction 3

Chapters
Published by Midland Publishing 1 The 'MiG Menace' is Born 7
4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, LE10 3EY, England
2 The Aluminium Rabbit:
Tel: 01455254490 Fax: 01455254495
MiG-15 Version Briefing 12
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com
Design concept and layout 3 Foreign Production 47
Midland Publishing is an imprint of © 2001 Midland Publishing and 4 The MiG-15 in Action or
Ian Allan Publishing Ltd Stephen Thompson Associates The Aluminium Rabbit Goes to War. 54
5 MiG-15 Operators Worldwide 79
Worldwide distribution (except North America): Printed in England by
Midland Counties Publications Ian Allan Printing Ltd 6 The MiG-15bis in Detail 114
4 Watling Drive, Hinckley, LE10 3EY, England Riverdene Business Park, Molesey Road, 7 Production Totals and
Telephone: 01455254450 Fax: 01455233737 Hersham, Surrey, KT12 4RG Family Specification tables ..... 118
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com
www.midlandcountiessuperstore.com All rights reserved. No part of this End notes 125
publication may be reproduced,
North American trade distribution: stored in a retrieval system, transmitted
Appendices
Specialty Press Publishers & Wholesalers Inc. in any form or by any means, electronic,
11605 Kost Dam Road, North Branch, MN 55056 mechanical or photo-copied, recorded 1 MiG-15 Family Drawings 127
Tel: 651 5833239 Fax: 651 5832023 or otherwise, without the written 2 MiG-15 in Colour 145
Toll free telephone: 8008954585 permission of the publishers.

Title page: The ST-1 during State acceptance

trials. See page 41.

Below: A pair of Polish Air Force SBLim-2As

at dispersal. 6010 Red is in the foreground;
note the ubiquitous Antonov An-2 to the rear.
Both Yefim Gordon

2 MiG-15

The Second World War brought about major
changes in aircraft design. The piston engine
had reached the limit of its development poten-
tial; a new aircraft powerplant was required.
Hence the first experimental jet engines of the
prewar period quickly paved the way for proto-
type and production jet-powered combat air-
craft. The Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe
(Swallow)/Sturmvogel (Storm Petrel), the Arado
Ar 234 Blitz (Lightning) and the Gloster Meteor
became the first jets to see actual combat.
Thus, progress that might have taken decades
was crammed into just a few years.
In the postwar years, achievements in aero-
dynamics, engine design and manufacturing
technologies led to the development of
sweptwing jet aircraft. Predictably, the first of
these were fighters. The first-generation jet
fighters which entered service in 1945-1952
featured swept or thin straight wings and were
capable of near-sonic speeds of 900 to
1,200km/h (486 to 648kts). The most success-
ful and popular of these are the Mikoyan/Gure-
vich MiG-15 and the North American F-86
Sabre. Both flew for the first time in 1947, went
through similar development stages and
served operationally in their own countries and
those of allies. Though differing somewhat in
configuration, avionics, equipment and arma-
ment, the F-86 and MiG-15 were more or less
equivalent in flight performance. When flown
by equally skilled and experienced pilots, the
two aircraft were quite a match for each other.
The MiG-15 was to have a long service
career. It was built in huge numbers both in and
outside the Soviet Union, evolving into many
versions, and paved the way for Soviet fighter
design for the next decade. Many are active
even now, albeit mostly as privately-owned
warbirds; in passing, it should be noted that the
MiG-15 has undoubtedly earned the warbird
title!
As a result of the Cold War and all its impli-
cations, for decades Soviet aircraft have been
developed in total secrecy. For this reason,
myths have taken hold concerning the creation
of the MiG-15 which need to be put to rest.
Myth number one: the MiG-15 was not a new
aircraft but a major rework of the projected
Focke-WulfTa183 developed by Kurt Tank.
Myth number two, which arose as a conse-
quence of the first: Soviet aircraft designers
were incapable of producing something worth-
while and the MiG-15 would never have
appeared without the use of captured German
research data and 'captive brains'. However,
Introduction
the use of captured materials in advanced
technology development was not an unusual
practice, and the USSR was not alone in doing
this. The United States, Great Britain, and other
nations made good use of German projects
after the war.
By the end of the Second World War the
Soviet aircraft industry was fUlly capable of
developing and producing jet aircraft on its own.
Indisputably, the USSR could have quickly cre-
ated powerful turbojets and transonic fighters
without resorting to captured research, but,
given the pressures of the incipient Cold War,
Soviet engineers had very little time to produce
an 'answer to the West' - months, sometimes
literally days. Under the regime of losif V Stalin,
failure to meet the objective could mean
prompt execution. This is why Soviet engineers
sometimes preferred to play safe by using
'imported' technologies.
The capabilities of the MiG-15 were derived
from what Russians called three 'whales', or
ground rules: a turbojet rated at over 2,000kgp
(4,409Ibst), a new configuration with swept
wing and empennage, and new pilot survival
aids, including an ejection seat. These, togeth-
er with heavy armament and ease of manufac-
ture and operation, turned the MiG-15 into a
superb technical product.
Engine development
Turbojet development in the USSR dated back
to the early 1920s. In 1923 V Bazarov received
a patent for the world's first turboprop engine
layout. Three years later a special gas turbine
engine research group led by Nikolay
Romanovich Brilling was organized at the Sci-
entific Automobile and Engine Institute (NAMI-
Naoochnyy avtomotornyy institoot) in
Moscow; the main focus of this group was the
turboprop engine. After 1930, the group was
headed by V Oovarov, a famous scientist and
engineer in the field of turbine engine design. In
1936 NAM I developed the 1,150eshp GTU-3
turboprop for Andrey Nikolayevich Tupolev's
TB-3 bomber. Two prototype engines were built
and tested in 1938-40, but the TB-3 flew with
piston engines only.
The next step in Soviet jet engine develop-
ment came when Arkhip Mikhailovich Lyul'ka
designed the RD-1 turbojet (reaktivnyy dvee-
gate!' - jet engine) at the Khar'kov Aviation Insti-
tute. This first Soviet turbojet was rated at
500kgp (1,1 02Ibst); development was 75%
complete when the Great Patriotic War began
on 22nd June 1941. The Oovarov group at
NAMI also designed an engine rated at
2,000kgp (4,409Ibst).
The war with Germany caused turbojet
development in the USSR to be put on hold.
The work resumed only in 1944 when the out-
come of the war could be foreseen and it
appeared possible to spare some efforts for the
development of new advanced engines. A M
Lyul'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 four-
engine bomber of 1947. Shortly afterwards the
design bureau led by Aleksandr Aleksan-
drovich Mikulin also started work on a similar
engine.
By then, however, jet engines and aircraft
were in production in the West. The USSR
risked falling far behind. To save time, the Sovi-
et government chose the only realistic option -
to launch production of German axial-flow tur-
bojets: the 900kgp (1 ,984Ibst) Junkers Jumo
004 Orkan (Hurricane) and the 800kgp
(1,763Ibst) BMW 003 Sturm (Storm). The
reverse-engineered versions were designated
RD-10 and RD-20 respectively. These turbojets
(and the Yakovlev Yak-15 and Mikoyan/Gure-
vich MiG-9 fighters they powered) gave the
Soviet aircraft industry its first taste of jet tech-
nology. At the same time, it was decided to buy
the most advanced Western turbojets with cen-
trifugal-flow compressors - the Rolls-Royce
Nene and RR Derwent - and build them under
licence in the USSR.
Soviet engine designers needed two to three
more years for prototype and full-scale devel-
opment of newer, more powerful axial-flow tur-
bojets. This time was used effectively: several
turbojets with thrust ratings from 3,000kgp to
9,000kgp (6,613 to 19,841 Ibst) entered pro-
duction in the early 1950s. All were based on
indigenous Soviet prototypes.
In 1946 the Soviet Minister of Aircraft Indus-
try Mikhail V Khroonichev and aircraft designer
Aleksandr Sergeyevich Yakovlev approached
Stalin, reporting their intention to buy state-of-
the-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 the
time, and Stalin's 'fools' abounded at Rolls-
Royce and in the British Labour Government.
Hence, aircraft designer Artyom Ivanovich
Mikoyan, engine designerVladimirYakovlevich
Klimov and metallurgical engineer S Kishkin
were sentto England to negotiate acquisition of
MiG-15 3
the turbojets. They purchased 30 Derwent V
and 25 Nene 1/11 engines which were carefully
studied at the Central Institute of Aero Engines
(TsIAM - Tsentrahl'nw institoot aviatseeonno-
vo motorostroyeniya). Both types were tested
on a Tupolev converted into the Tu-2LL engine
testbed, 1 a converted Tu-2 Bat twin-engine
bomber operated by the Flight Test Institute (L11
- Lyotno-ispytahtel'nw institoot) in Zhukovskiy
near Moscow! Later the Nene-1 powered the
Tu-72 and Tu-73 bomber prototypes which
evolved into the well-known Tu-14 Bosun. The
Derwent-5 was considered a fighter engine and
used for projects developed by the design
bureaux under AS Yakovlev and Semyon Alek-
seyevich Lavochkin.
Concurrently, licence production of the
British turbojets began in Moscow. The Der-
went V was manufactured under the local des-
ignation RD-500, while the Nene I and Nene II
became the RD-45 and RD-45F respectively.'
The numbers 500 and 45 were the numbers of
the engine plants producing the respective
models (plant No 500 was located in the Tushi-
no district not far from the well-known airfield).
Vladimir Ya Klimov was head of production and
was also busy modernizing and further devel-
oping 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, made
their maiden flights in 1947-48. The heavier
RD-45 was intended for the Tu-14 and IL-28
Beagle tactical bombers.
In choosing the RD-45 for its new fighter, the
Mikoyan/Gurevich design bureau, aka OKB-
1555 or MMZ· 'Zenit' (Zenith), took a calculated
risk - just as it had done in 1939 with the MiG-1
powered by the brand-new Mikulin AM-35
engine. The risk paid off; the MiG-15 powered
by the RD-45 and (and the MiG-15bis powered
by the RD-45F) became the mainstay of the
Soviet fighter force. Although the competing
Yakovlev fighters were more agile, the MiG was
faster and more heavily armed.
Typically of the Soviet aircraft industry
(alas!), early RD-45s and RD-45Fs had a short
service life (only some 100 hours, less than the
original Nene) because poor-quality indige-
nous materials had to be used. Later, Soviet
designers developed the RD-45FA which intro-
duced new materials and structural improve-
ments doubling the engine's service life.
Building on experience gained with the
RD-500 and RD-45 (and benefiting from TslAM
research into centrifugal compressors), the
Klimov OKB developed more powerful and fuel-
efficient centrifugal-flow turbojets. The 2,700kgp
(5,952Ibst) VK-1 turbojet emerged in 1949; the
VK initials stood for Vladimir Klimov, suggesting
that enough Soviet research had gone into the
engine to qualify it as an indigenous design. It
was a refined derivative of the RD-45 and a
stepping stone to the afterburning VK-1 F rated
at 3,380kgp (7,451Ibst). Structural and manu-
facturing improvements produced the VK-1 A
version with a 150 to 200 hour service life.
4 MiG-15
In due course, the VK-1 engine was fitted
to the MiG-15bis, an upgraded version of the
MiG-15. It also powered the IL-28 bomber and
the 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 11,560
Dry 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 reliable
than early axial-flow turbojets. As speeds
increased, however, centrifugal-flow power-
plants proved too thirsty. Higher speeds
required greater thrust and hence greater mass
flow. A centrifugal-flow engine offered less
thrust than an axial-flow engine having the
same frontal area. Also, the centrifugal-flow tur-
bojet was limited by its single-stage compres-
sor offering a pressure ratio of 4.2 to 4.4. Since
no multi-stage compressors were developed,
the centrifugal-flow turbojet reached its peak of
development with thrust ratings of 3,000 to
4,000kgp (6,613 to 8,818Ibst) between the end
of the Second World War and the early 1950s.
Jet airframe design
Early jet aircraft were designed along the same
lines as their piston-engined forebears. As tur-
bojets were improved, however, it became
clear that changes had to be made to a typical
airplane's aerodynamics and general arrange-
ment.
It is well known that obtaining the correct
centre of gravity (CG) position is one of the
major challenges in aircraft design. For con-
ventional designs the CG must be located at 25
to 33% mean aerodynamic chord (MAC). With
a piston engine, this meant positioning the
engine at the front of the aircraft, ahead of the
CG and the wings. The fuel tanks were in the
CG zone to minimise CG travel caused by fuel
burnoff, and the crew behind the CG. The
weight of the engine and propeller was bal-
anced by the weight of the rear fuselage and
empennage.
If a turbojet were mounted in similar fashion
in the aircraft's nose, the exhaust gases would
have to exit under the fuselage. Placing
engines on or under the wings eliminated this
problem, and this configuration was utilised by
the Heinkel He 280, the Messerschmitt Me 262
and the Gloster Meteor. Soviet fighters thus
configured were the Sukhoi Su-9 (manufactur-
er's designation 'izdeliye K')' of 1946 and Su-11
(izdeliye LK) of 1947,' as well as the 1-211 and
1-215 designed by Semyon Mikhailovich Alek-
seyev (I = istrebitel' - fighter).-
However, most of the early Soviet jet fighters
were developed hastily. The designers select-
ed a configuration identical to that of piston-
engined aircraft, with the engine up front and
exhausting under the fuselage, which inevitably
resulted in a helicopter-style pod-and-boom
fuselage. This configuration was called redahn-
naya komponovka (lit. 'step arrangement') in
the USSR because of the similarity to the step
on a speedboat's planing bottom. Perhaps the
ultimate example of this 'quick fix' design
approach was the Yak-15, a straightforward
conversion of the Yak-3U fighter. It was basical-
ly a standard Yak-3U airframe with the Klimov
VK-105PF liquid-cooled Vee-12 engine sup-
planted by an RD-10 (Jumo 004) turbojet in the
nose, underslung so as to direct the exhaust
gases under the fuselage.
This 'tadpole' configuration was not a Soviet
invention, having been employed on the Ger-
man Messerschmitt P 1101 (which was com-
pleted but never flown) and the projected
Messerschmitt P 1106, Blohm & Voss P 210
and Heinkel P 1078. Yet many Soviet postwar
jet fighters used it, including the Yak-15, Yak-17
Feather, Yak-23, MiG-9 Fargo and the experi-
mental 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 to
improve the pilot's forward and downward
view. Since there was no propeller demanding
large ground clearance, the landing gear could
be shortened. A tricycle landing gear eliminat-
ed the need to locate a tail wheel in the jet
exhaust, as had been the case with the Yak-15.
Another option was to mount the engine over
the fuselage. Even though this freed up fuse-
lage space for armament, equipment and fuel,
this configuration was impractical because the
engine nacelle created considerable drag and
complicated pilot escape in an emergency.
Only two aircraft actually utilised this config-
uration - the prototype Fieseler Fi 103 (the
manned version of the V-1 'buzz bomb') and
the production He162 Volksjager (People's
Fighter).
The next logical step in jet fighter develop-
ment was to move the relatively lightweight tur-
bojet backwards, placing it in the fuselage aft of
the cockpit. This resulted in an cigar-shaped
fuselage with the nozzle located at the aft
extremity, which was much more aerodynami-
cally efficient than the 'tadpole' arrangement.
With the engine(s) buried in the aft fuselage,
two air intake types were possible: nose and
lateral inlets. Both types had advantages and
shortcomings. A nose intake made it necessary
to increase forward and centre fuselage cross-
section, since the airflow had to be routed
around the cockpit. Lateral intakes increased
fuselage width ahead of the wings. With the
advent of powerfUl but bulky radars the air-
intake arrangement issue was largely settled
because the radar would have to be placed in
the nose, making nose intakes impractical.
Swept wings
By the end of the Second World War pilots
flying high-performance piston fighters (for
instance, the North American P-51 Mustang)
would sometimes approach the speed of
sound in a dive. In this situation the controls
became steadily heavier as airspeed increased;
the nose would try to drop, and sometimes the
controls would reverse. It took a lot of effort
from the pilot to recover from this dangerous
mode known as Mach tuck.
With jet aircraft, level flight speeds increased
into the sonic range. Mach tuck which pilots of
prop-driven aircraft had encountered briefly
now became routine. At times, uncontrollable
aircraft dived into the ground, taking with them
not only the luckless pilots but the secrets
of transonic flight. Test pilot Gheorgiy Ya
Bakhchivandzhi was one of the first, losing his
life in the Bereznyak/lsayev BI-1 rocket-pow-
ered interceptor on 27th March 1943 during a
high-speed run. The message was clear: an in-
depth study of transonic aerodynamics was
needed.
Wind tunnel tests showed that a thin sym-
metrical wing section and swept wings could
resolve the 'shock-wave crisis'. As early as
1935, the German aerodynamicist Dr. Alfred
Busemann came up with the swept-wing con-
cept. He continued his research during the war
and the Germans used wings with 30 to 38° A full-scale mockup of the 1-310 covered with extreme nose, the pilot lying prone. The cock-
leading-edge sweep on several fighters (the wool tufts in the TsAGI T-102 wind tunnel. pit was attached by explosive bolts, with a cat-
Yefim Gordon archive
Me262 and Me163 Kamet). A spate of swept- apult that ejected the pilot after it was detached.
wing aircraft, including the Ta 183 which bore a The Walther HWK 509-109 twin-chamber liq-
passing resemblance to the future MiG-15, was uid-fuel rocket engine provided 4,000kgp
on the drawing boards or at the prototype con- Initially swept wings were tested on gliding (8,818Ibst) thrust. Total fuel and oxidizer
struction stage by the end of the war. models dropped from a Tu-2 mother ship. How- capacity was 1,900kg (4,188Ib), permitting 2
The main peculiarity of the swept wing was ever, during 1945-48 Pavel Vladimirovich minutes of engine operation. The aircraft could
that airflow was divided into two components; Tsybin designed the LL-1 , LL-2 and LL-3 gliders. accelerate to approximately Mach 2.0 - in the-
one flowed from the leading edge to the trailing As the designations imply, these were research ory at least.
edge and the other spanwise. The spanwise aircraft for studying transonic aerodynamics at Flight tests began in 1948 at an airbase in
component caused boundary layer movement about 1,150km/h (621kts). The LL-1 had Tyoplyy Stan (now a residential district in the
from wing root to wingtip, resulting in tip stall; it straight wings and the LL-2 had forward-swept south-western part of Moscow) and later at the
also reduced the efficiency of the wing's control wings; the LL-3, which was never completed, new factory airfield in Lookhovitsy, some
surfaces. To prevent this, many Soviet aircraft was to have 30° sweepback. The gliders had 100km (62 miles) south-east of Moscow. A
featured boundary layer fences on the wing water ballast and a solid rocket booster. The modified B-29-5-BW operated by L11 (serialled
upper surface; these generated vortices, experiment was conducted in a dive with the 256 Black) served as a mother ship;12 the 346
reducing spanwise flow and preventing early booster operating for maximum speed. was suspended on a pylon between the
airflow separation. After the end of the Second World War, Ger- bomber's Nos 3 and 4 engines. Three proto-
It is an open secret that scientists and engi- man aircraft designers in Soviet-occupied terri- types - the 346-P glider (P for plahner) , the 346-
neers in different countries faced with the same tory were deported to the USSR to develop 1 with a mockup engine and the fully-equipped
objective often come up with similar solutions. new-generation aircraft. Two new design 346-3 - participated in the programme, piloted
In the USSR the swept wing idea was devised bureaux were established in the Podberez'ye by Wolfgang Ziese and P A Kaz'min.
by V Stroominsky of TsAGI (Tsentrahl'nwaero- settlement near the town of Doobna. One of The 346-3 made its first powered flight on
i ghidrodinameecheskiy institoot - Central them (OKB-2 headed by Hans Rossing, with 15th August 1951. However, the programme
Aerodynamics & Hydrodynamics Institute the Soviet engineer Aleksandr Yakovlevich was plagued by accidents. In its third powered
named after Nikolay V Zhukovskiy) in 1946. Bereznyak as his deputy)'· continued work on flight on 2nd September the aircraft exceeded
Assisted by G BOschgens and other scientists, the DFS 346 rocket-powered Mach 2.5 900km/h (486kts) indicated airspeed (lAS) but
he conducted research on swept-wing aerody- research aircraft, which was almost complete then became uncontrollable and Ziese was
namics. Basic concepts for swept-wing aircraft by the end of the war." The aircraft (referred to ordered to eject.
stability and controllability analysis were for- in Soviet documents as 346) was transported to Concurrently, Matus Ruvimovich Bisnovat
mulated. TsAGI embarked on a major pro- TsAGI in 194q for full,scale aerodynamic tests continued work on his B-5 transonic speed
gramme to study a wing swept 35°. This was in the T-1 01 wind tunnel. research aircraft, also with 45° wing sweep. The
exactly the wing later recommended for the The 346 was an all-metal, mid-wing mono- B-5 was powered by a Dooshkin liquid-fuel
La-160 (the first Soviet swept-wing aircraft) and plane with 45° wing sweep, an unswept Hail rocket engine. Test flights began in 1948 with a
the Mikoyan/Gurevich 1-310 (the MiG-15 proto- and retractable skid landing gear. To reduce Petlyakov Pe-8 bomber acting as the mother
type). drag the pressurized cockpit was placed in the ship; the two prototypes made about ten flights.

MiG-15 5
 Meanwhile, Lavochkin built the La-160 fight-
er, a derivative of the earlier 'tadpole' designs.
It differed from the earlier fighter prototypes in
featuring 35° swept wings with a thin airfoil
already validated in theory; hence the aircraft
was dubbed Strelka (Arrow). Initial stability and
handling trials were held from June to Septem-
ber 1947. Wing fences were fitted in the course
of the flight test programme; these became a
standard feature of Soviet designs - the higher
the wing sweep, the larger the number of wing
fences. The La-160 reached 1,050km/h (567kts)
or Mach 0.92 in a dive. At the same time, Lav-
ochkin tested the La-174TK with a thin, straight
wing (hence the TK suffix standing for tonkoye
krylo) and a more powerful RR Derwent
engine." Despite the extra thrust, the La-174TK
was slower than the swept-wing La-160, prov-
ing that swept wings were the way to go for
high-speed aircraft.
Gradually, experience with swept wing was
accumulated. This experience was of great help
in designing the MiG-15, La-15, and Yak-30
fighters.
Ejection seats
With the advent of jet aircraft capable of tran-
sonic speeds, bailing out in the old-fashioned
way became sheer suicide. New crew rescue
methods, such as ejection, were required.
The first attempts to facilitate bailing out were
undertaken in Germany in the late 1920s and
early 1930s, but these did not progress beyond
the ground test stage. Ejection systems were
used for the first time during the Second World
War in German high-speed piston-engined and
jet aircraft. Two ejection systems were devel-
oped in Germany: a cartridge system and one
using compressed air. The former system was
used by Heinkel in the He162 fighter which had
its engine atop the fuselage. Ejection time at a
maximum 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 sys-
tem were its low weight and structural simplici-
ty; dependence on the powder charge (which
might or might not function properly) was a
shortcoming.
The compressed air ejection system was
used on the Heinkel He 280 jet fighter (which
never entered production) and the He 219 two-
seat piston-engined night fighter. This system
was heavier and more complex and required
air bottles, a fast-acting valve and piping. The
He 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 designers
was the object of close scrutiny by the Allies.
Many German documents and prototypes
were captured by the British, and German work
was carefully analysed in the USSR and the
United States.
The first Soviet attempts to design an ejec-
tion seat date back to 1940. In the course of
new fighter development, designers lI'ya Flo-
rent'yevich Florov and Aleksey Andreyevich
Borovkov addressed the problem of pilot sur-
6 MiG-15
vival at speeds of 528 to 850km/h (285 to Acknowledgements
459kts) and altitudes up to 6,000m (19,685ft). The author wishes to express his gratitude to
The fighter they designed was similar in config- the following persons who have contributed to
uration to the Saab J-21 , with a pusher pro- the making of this book:
peller and twin booms supporting the tail unit First of all, as usual, I would like to thank the
but with ramjet boosters incorporated into the translator, Dmitriy S Komissarov, without whose
tailbooms. It featured an escape system of work and assistance the book would never
Florovand Borovkov's own design which rotat- have appeared.
ed the seat and ejected it downwards pneu- Also, my thanks go to Nigel Eastaway, one of
matically. The war interrupted the development the leaders of the Russian Aviation Research
of this aircraft and hence of the first Soviet ejec- Trust, who provided a lot of valuable informa-
tion system. tion on Chinese licence-built MiGs, and Helmut
It was not until the end of the war that work Walther and Keith Dexter who supplied photos
on crew escape systems resumed in the USSR. which would otherwise hardly be obtainable.
The Mikoyan OKB teamed with TsAGI, L11 and
the Aviation Medicine Institute to become a Yefim Gordon
leader in ejection seat development. Trials were Moscow
performed at L11, at first using a test rig with a
trolley that moved along a vertical guide rail; March 2001
the trolley was accelerated by an explosive
charge and then slowed by powerful brakes. L11
engineers determined the size of the charge
required to get the necessary G load. After tests
with dummies and animals it was decided to
carry out the first manned test. Six strong men
were 'ejected' in the rig with the maximum G load.
Flight tests came next. The engineers pro-
ceeded cautiously, using a dummy for the first
actual ejections. A converted Petlyakov Pe-2
Buck dive bomber was used; its twin tails made
it ideal for ejection seat trials, reducing the dan-
ger of the seat striking the vertical tail in the
event of a failed ejection. The seat was installed
in the former gunner's compartment immedi-
ately behind the pilot; initially, it was not stabi-
lized and tumbled head over heels in the
slipstream as it parted company with the air-
craft. The ejection sequence and the seat's tra-
jectory were recorded by a cine camera aboard
the Pe-2. Modifications were made to the seat
after the first ejections had been analysed, and
by July 1947 manned tests could begin.
Gavriil Kondrashov, an experienced para-
chutist with more than 700 parachute jumps to
his credit, was chosen. On 24th July 1947, he Russian Language and Transliteration
successfully performed the first ejection in the The Russian language is phonetic - pronounced as
USSR. written, or 'as seen'. Translating into English gives rise
The first ejection seat was of cartridge-fired to many problems and the vast majority of these arise
because English is not a straightforward language, with
design; the ejection gun and the seat pan were
many pitfalls of pronunciation!
attached to the seat's frame. The pilot sat on his Accordingly, Russian words must be translated
parachute which lay in the seat pan. There was through into a phonetic form of English and this can
no provision for automatic parachute opening; lead to different ways of helping the reader pronounce
the parachute's static line was attached to the what he sees. Every effort has been made to standard-
ise this, but inevitably variations will occur. While read-
seat, which meant the pilot had to push the seat
ing from source to source this might seem confusing
away forcibly after ejection in order for the para- and/or inaccurate but it is the name as pronounced that
chute to open. is the constancy, not the spelling of that pronunciation!
This was clearly a shortcoming, reducing the The 20th letter of the Russian (Cyrillic) alphabet looks
pilot's chances of survival if he was wounded. very much like a 'Y' but is pronounced as a 'U' as in the
word'rule'.
The minimum safe ejection altitude was 200 to
Another example is the train of thought that Russian
300m (656 to 984ft). At speeds over 700km/h words ending in 'y' are perhaps better spell out as 'yi' to
(378kts), the procedure often resulted in underline the pronunciation, but it is felt that most West-
injuries because the seat offered no protection ern speakers would have problems getting their
for the pilot's face or limbs. tongues around this!
This is a good example of the sort of problem that
This first-generation Soviet ejection seat
some Western sources have suffered from in the past
was fitted to the MiG-15, MiG-15bis, MiG-17, (and occasionally even today) when they make the
and La-15. It was to save a lot of lives when the mental leap about what they see approximating to an
MiG-15 and MiG-15bis saw action in Korea. English letter.

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 the
development of second-generation jet fighters.
On 11th March 1947, the Soviet government
(Council of Ministers) approved the experimen-
tal aircraft construction plan for the year. Soon
afterwards, on 15th April, the Ministry of Aircraft
Industry (MAP - Ministerstvo aviatseeonnoy
promyshlennosti) issued directive No 21 0
ordering the Mikoyan/Gurevich OKB to dev-
elop a jet fighter with a pressurized cockpit
and to build two prototypes. A G Broonov was
appointed chief project engineer for the new
fighter, with A A Andreyev as the 'next in com-
mand'.
The specific operational requirement (SOR)
was quite tough. Maximum speed was to be
1,000km/h (540kts) at sea level and 1,020km/h
(551 kts) at 5,000m (16,404ft). The fighter was
required to climb to this altitude in 3.2 minutes
and 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 armament
and avionics to cope with US and British war-
planes of the era (since the Cold War was
already brewing and the US and Great Britain
were already regarded as potential adver-
saries). Initially, one 45mm (1.77 calibre) can-
non and two 23mm (.90 calibre) cannons were
envisaged, though the former was soon substi-
tuted by a 37mm (1.45 calibre) weapon. Provi-
sions for carrying two 100kg (220 Ib) bombs on
the regular drop tank hard points were also
demanded.
Last but not least, the new fighter was
required to be easily maintainable. The Soviet
Air Force (WS - Voyenno-vozdooshnyye seely)
knew all too well that in a future war, combat air-
craft would almost certainly have to operate
from improvised tactical airstrips with little or no
maintenance facilities. Finally, the aircraft was
to present no insurmountable difficulties for the
average pilot.
Success hinged on fulfilling these often con-
flicting requirements. The powerplant issue
had already been decided; the fighter was to be
designed around the Rolls-Royce Nene which
had entered licence production in the USSR.
Development of the ejection system in 1946-47
also went successfully. However, as per usual,
rigid convention came into conflict with pio-
neering concepts. Sometimes the convention-
Chapter One
alists prevailed, but, on the whole, progress
triumphed over orthodox solutions. Thus, the
Mikoyan/Gurevich OKB chose swept wings for
its new fighter.
It so happened that the Mikoyan/Gurevich
OKB was not tasked with mass production dur-
ing the Great Patriotic War (production of the
MiG-3 interceptor ended in late 1941). Its efforts
at the time were devoted to research and devel-
opment work. This resulted in some advanced
fighters, including the izdeliye A series (1-220/
1-225) which exceeded 700km/h (387kts) in
level flight. Though none of these aircraft was
to see production, they became stepping
stones towards the early post-war jets.
Mikoyan engineers got their first swept-wing
experience with the Ootka experimental tail-first
aircraft' (often called MiG-8). Development,
testing and production of the 1-250/MiG-13
(izdeliye N) mixed-power fighter and the pure-
jet straight-wing MiG-9 gave them experience
with turbojet-powered fighters. The straight-
wing, rocket-powered 1-270 (izdeliye Zh)3
experimental interceptor became the first Sovi-
et aircraft to reach 1,000km/h (540kts) lAS in
1947. Still, combining all this (swept wings, jet
propulsion and high speed) in a single aircraft
called for a lot of effort on the part of both
Mikoyan and the numerous other research and
production establishments involved.
The MiG-15's road to becoming a produc-
tion aircraft was long and winding. The aircraft
which was eventually to fly was preceded by
several preliminary development. (PD) pro-
jects. The first of these envisaged a twin-
engined fighter which was promptly dropped
when it became obvious that Soviet engine
plants could not provide enough engines for
mass production.
In 1947, after A I Mikoyan had returned from
his visit to England and 25 Nene-1 engines had
been delivered, the OKB started work on the
1-320 (izdeliye FN) - the first aircraft to bear this
designation - as an insurance policy in case
the swept-wing fighter should fail. The 1-320
'Mk l' was a straightforward modification of the
MiG-9 (izdeliye FS) with the two side-by-side
RD-20 axial-flow turbojets replaced by a single
Nene - hence the N in the manufacturer's des-
ignation. However, work on the more promising
swept-wing design seemed to progress quite
nicely and izdeliye FN was abandoned at the
prototype construction stage 4
For a while, Mikoyan engineers also consid-
ered a twin-boom arrangement reminiscent of
the de Havilland Vampire. However, a layout
with a single fuselage, swept wings and con-
ventional swept empennage seemed simplest
and most aerodynamically efficient and was
eventually selected for the new fighter desig-
nated 1-310 in official documents. The aircraft's
in-house designation was 'izdeliye S', said to
be derived from strelovidnoye kry/o (swept
wings).
The wings proposed by TsAGI, featuring 35°
sweep at quarter-chord and 2° anhedral, turned
out to have an extremely poor lift/drag ratio in
take-off and landing mode, which meant the
aircraft would not meet VVS field performance
requirements. To cope with the problem the
OKB contemplated variable geometry (VG) for
a while. This was in 1947, thirty years before the
'swing wing' izdeliye 23-11 (the 'true' MiG-23S
Flogger-A prototype) flew for the first time.'
Though Mikoyan engineers had very probably
studied German VG research, the time for a
'swing wing' aircraft had not yet come (VG
wings were then considered too complex and
rather unreliable), so the engineers selected
another solution, reducing wing loading. This
made for acceptable landing speeds even with
a poor LID ratio.
It has to be said here that the Soviet aircraft
industry had a few quirks. The all-pervasive
secrecy wrapped around the industry by the
notorious KGB (Komitet gosoodahrstvennoy
bezopahsnosti - State Security Committee)
sometimes proved detrimental. Soviet experts
were well-versed on American advanced devel-
opment projects but knew almost nothing
about what their colleagues in other Soviet
OKBs were doing. For this reason, designers
often wasted time and state money, duplicating
each other's efforts. This problem got worse
when high-tech systems and avionics came on
the scene.
In developing the 1-310, the designers found
that providing the required CG position was
quite a problem. With the engine in the aft fuse-
lage, the CG was too far aft, impairing stability
and handling. The problem was partly cured by
slightly increasing wing area aft of the rear false
spar, resulting in a kinked trailing edge right (its
innermost portion was unswept). The final solu-
tion was to move the engine forward so that it
was located immediately aft of the main spar
and use a long extension jetpipe. This created
a bonus in the form of a fuselage made up of
two sections (forward and rear); the entire aft
fuselage could be easily detached, leaVing the
engine completely exposed for maintenance or
removal.
MiG-15 7
 A lot of problems were caused by the
engine's inlet duct. It had a complex shape
because of the numerous obstructions it had to
bypass, including cockpit and fuel cells. Out-
side air entered a subsonic intake with a centre
splitter. Here, it separated into two flows pass-
ing along narrow ducts on either side of the
front avionics bay, nosewheel well, cockpit and
main fuel cell; the two flows met at the engine's
compressor face.
Maximizing thrust and preventing the aft
fuselage from being overheated by exhaust
gases were two of the conflicting requirements
facing Mikoyan engineers. The problem was
solved in the course of the first prototype's
flight tests. TslAM engineers proposed short-
ening the aft fuselage and extension pipe,
reducing thrust losses at full military power by
7to 9%.
Another challenge with the 1-310 was how to
accommodate the main landing gear units in
the relatively thin wings (stowing them in the
fuselage was out of the question - these was
simply no room). The problem boiled down to
the fact that the thin, high aspect ratio wings
were of three-spar stressed-skin aluminium
construction and the structure would be exces-
sively weakened by the mainwheel wells. This
prompted studies on how to develop a light, yet
rigid structure. Eventually a stiff and lightweight
one-piece stamped main spar was introduced,
but not before the aircraft experienced lateral
stability problems caused by insufficient wing
torsional stiffness (these will be described later).
1-310 wing static testing took place at the
Moscow Aviation Institute. With the initial wing
design, skin cracks appeared at 120% of the
maximum design load, clearly indicating that
the structure was way too heavy. The OKB's
structural department considered it possible to
reduce structural weight by 180kg (396Ib) but
overdid it - the wings failed at only 70% of the
maximum load. Finally, in a compromise
between high strength and low weight, the
wings were lightened by 162kg (357Ib) versus
the original design; now the structure failed at
exactly the maximum design load.
The engineers had to proceed by trial and
error because there was no established
method of predicting structural strength char-
acteristics of a swept wing at the time. Lav-
ochkin OKB engineer I Sverdlov created this
technique while the La-160, La-168, and La-174
were under development. His work titled 'Air-
craft Structural Strength Calculation' is consid-
ered a classic work on the subject in Russia.
Since jet engines enabled fighters to climb to
15,000m (49,212ft) and higher, ordinary oxy-
gen masks were not enough; the future MiG-15
was going to need a cockpit pressurization and
heating system. The limited experience the
OKB had amassed with the wartime 1-212 and
1-214 clearly was not enough. Therefore,
Mikoyan joined forces with their competitor in
the jet fighter development programme, the
Lavochkin OKB, to develop a viable pressur-
ized cockpit.
8 MiG-15
July 1947 saw the appearance ofthe MiG-9M
(izdeliye FR), an experimental version of the
Fargo with a redesigned forward fuselage.
Apart from having a totally new weapons
arrangement, the MiG-9M had a ventilation-
type pressurized cockpit. Actually the first Sovi-
et aircraft to fly with a pressurized cockpit was
the straight-wing, single-engined Yak-25 exper-
imental fighter which flew for the first time on
31 st October 1947.' The ventilation-type cock-
pit was pressurized with engine bleed air. This
system ensured normal pressure, temperature
and humidity conditions in the cockpit and was
perhaps closer to what the future MiG-15 would
have.
The Yak-25 also a pneumatic canopy jetti-
soning system designed by Leonid L Selyakov
who went on to work at the Myasischev OKB,
participating in the development of the M-4 and
3M Bison and M-50 Bounder heavy bombers
and, later still, became chief project engineer of
the popular Tu-134 Crusty airliner. Just about all
Soviet fighter canopies, including those of the
La-15 and MiG-15, were based on Selyakov's
work with the Yak-25.
Another problem facing designers of the
1-310 was how to place the armament. As on
the MiG-9, the armament comprised one 37mm
Nudel'man N-37 cannon and two 23mm
Nudel'man/Sooranov NS-23KM cannons. Ini-
tially, these were to be mounted in similar fash-
ion to the MiG-9, with the big cannon mounted
in the intake splitter and one 23mm cannon
protruding beyond the intake lower lip on each
side. However, armament trials on the MiG-9
promptly showed that this arrangement was no
good - the engine often surged after ingesting
gun blast gases when the cannons were fired.
The problem was aggravated by the MiG-9's
powerplant, as axial-flow turbojets are extremely
sensitive to gun blast gas ingestion.
This was not too critical on the MiG-15 with
its centrifugal-flow turbojet; still, the engineers
chose to relocate the armament. To facilitate
access, engineer N I Volkov invented a simple
and ingenious solution: all three cannons and
their ammunition boxes were neatly mounted
on a single tray under the cockpit, the N-37 to
starboard and the two NS-23KMs to port. This
tray could be winched down quickly by means
of a hand crank and four pulleys for reloading
and maintenance, decreasing turnaround time
dramatically.
The avionics suite included an OSP-48
instrument landing system (ILS) for use in
instrument meteorological conditions. The
ground part of the system included two range
beacons, three marker beacons, communica-
tions radios and an HF or VHF radio direction
finder to facilitate approach, descent to land-
ing, and touchdown in bad weather. The part of
the system installed on the fighter comprised
an ARK-5 Amur (a river in the Soviet Far East;
pronounced like the French word amour) auto-
matic direction finder, an RV-2 Kristall (Crystal)
low-altitude radio altimeter and an MRP-48
Dyatel (Woodpecker) marker beacon receiver.'
The system was fairly simple and had few com-
ponents, which rendered the ground part suit-
able for use on ad hoc tactical airfields (in
truck-mounted form).
Construction of the first prototype 1-310, des-
ignated S-1 (ie, iZdeliye S No 1), began at MMZ
'Zenit' in the spring of 1947; the aircraft was
powered by a RR Nene-1 turbojet (c/n 1036)
rated at 2,230kgp (4,916Ibst). By then, a mock-
up had been reviewed and approved by a WS
commission. By 19th December the prototype
had been completed and trucked to L11's air-
field in Ramenskoye south of Moscow.· Viktor
Nikolayevich Youganov, who had worked for
Mikoyan since 1946 and had flown the 1-270,
was appointed project test pilot. He was an
excellent airman; in fact, he was often com-
pared to the famous test pilot Valeriy Pavlovich
Chkalov for his flying skills - and his devil-may-
care attitude as well, as will become apparent.
To keep to the planned schedule, the S-1 's
maiden flight had to take place by the end of
December. However, the weather was poor and
it was clearly better to alter the plan than risk
losing the only aircraft available. The OKB lead-
ers decided to postpone the first flight until the
beginning of 1948. But Youganov was short of
money (at the time, a Soviet test pilot making
the first flight of a new aircraft was paid 10,000
roubles - quite a lot of money) and insisted
that the first flight be performed before the year
was out.
On 30th December 1947 the cloud base was
at 2,000m (6,560ft), which meant the first flight
could not be performed under the rules then in
force. Still, Yuganov decided he would fly any-
way, so he nonchalantly climbed into the cock-
pit, had the aircraft towed to the holding
position to save fuel, started the engine and
took off. Retracting the landing gear, he made
two circuits of the field below the cloudbase
and landed.
Unfortunately, Artyom I Mikoyan was not
there to witness the first flight of the future MiG-
15; nobody had expected it to fly in that kind of
weather. The General Designer" congratulated
Youganov on the phone.
Manufacturer's flight tests proceeded for the
next five months and were completed on 25th
May 1948. Meanwhile, work continued on the
second prototype (S-2) which was 75% com-
plete by the time the S-1 flew. The second pro-
totype differed mainly in being powered by a
Nene-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 for-
ward fuselage skins, wing spars made of V-95
aluminium alloy instead of Type 30KhGSA
steel, increased aileron area and a simplified
canopy frame for better all-round visibility. An
ASP-1 N automatic gunsight (avtomateecheskiy
strelkovyy preetsel) , was installed, along with
an S-13 gun camera on the air intake upper lip.
The main gear units were modified in order to
increase landing gear wheelbase, internal fuel
volume was increased and provision was made
The 1·310 (also known as the 5·1), the first
prototype MiG·15, during the course of
manufacturer's flight tests in December 1947.
Yefim Gordon archive
for 250 litre (55 Imperial gallon) slipper tanks
immediately outboard of the outer wing fences.
(Some sources give the drop tank volume as
260 litres/57.2 Imperial gallons)
(It should be noted that - in the USSR, any-
way - early prototype aircraft often differed con-
siderably in avionics fit from the production
version. As a rule, some of the radio and navi-
gation equipment was omitted; if radar was
envisaged, it was not fitted at all or a tried and
tested production radar from an earlier aircraft
was temporarily fitted instead of the planned
modeL)
The S-2 was completed on 5th April and first
flew on 27th May 1948 with Sergey N Anokhin
at the controls. It was intended for State accep-
tance trials to be held by the Air Force Research
Institute (Nil WS - Naoochno-issledovatel'skiy
institoot voyenno-vozdooshnykh see0. In the
summer of 1948, both prototypes were flown to
the Nil WS facility at Chkalovskoye airbase
east of Moscow.'o Typically of the period, the
decision to launch production of the fighter was
made even before trials were completed; usu-
ally this approach paid off.
The State acceptance trials proceeded in
two stages (Stage A, 27th May to 25th August
1948; Stage B, 4th November to 3rd December
1948). In the course of the trials the 1-310
received the service designation under which it
was to make its mark in history (and make the
Mikoyan OKB world famous) - the MiG-15.
The third prototype, S-3 (which was in effect
a pre-production aircraft), was completed in
March 1948. Like the S-2, it was also ear-
marked for State acceptance trials and pow-
ered by a Nene-2. This aircraft introduced
hydraulically-powered airbrakes of almost tri-
angular shape on the rear fuselage sides, with
an area of 0.48m' (5.16ft') each. Wing anhedral
was increased from _1° to _2°, minor changes
were made to the fin and ailerons, and the ele-
vators 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 prototype
and provision was made for carrying bombs on
wing hardpoints, giving the MiG-15 a sec-
ondary attack role. An AFA-IM reconnaissance
camera (AFA = aerofotoapparaht - aerial cam-
era) covered by a hinged door was installed in
the forward fuselage. The weapons tray was
beefed up and the N-37 cannon was fitted with
a flash suppressor, receiving the designation
N-37D (dorabotannaya - revised). For techno-
logical reasons the aircraft also used different
structural materials, which resulted in a slight
increase in empty weight.
The S-3 took to the air on 17th July 1948 at
the hands of test pilot I T Ivaschchenko who
had joined the Mikoyan OKB in 1945. The man-
ufacturer's flight test programme lasted until
15th October; 48 flights were made by
Ivaschchenko and Sergey N Anokhin, in the
course of which the aircraft attained a top
speed of Mach 0.934.
On 4th November, 1948 the third prototype
was transferred to the Nil WS facility at Novo-
fyodorovka airfield (Saki, the Crimean Penin-
sula) where it underwent so-called checkout
tests" until 3rd December. Stage B of the State
acceptance trials ended on the same day. Test
pilots Yuriy A Antipov and Vasiliy G Ivanov
made 35 flights at Novofyodorovka. On 23rd
December, Air Marshal K Vershinin, Comman-
der-in-Chief of the WS, signed an order to
introduce the MiG-15 into the WS inventory.
Despite this order, Nil WS pilots were still
charged with determining whether the MiG-15
or the La-15 was better suited to the Air Force's
requirements. The La-15 was faster and more
stable at speeds approaching Mach 1, but its
main shortcoming, in the opinion ofthe air force
test pilots, was its narrow-track undercarriage
which made the aircraft difficult to control dur-
ing crosswind landings, especially in the wet.
While having a lighter structure, the La-15 rated
poorly on ease of manufacturing and maintain-
ability. Its wing manufacturing process (involv-
ing machining large components from solid
slabs of metal and mating them with complex
joints) contributed to the downfall ofthe aircraft,
as its production was very labour-intensive.
MiG-15 9

The second prototype (5-2) with spin
recovery rockets under the wings.
Mikoyan OKS
The same aircraft with drop tanks.
Mikoyan OKS
Close-up of a slipper tank under the
wing of the 5-2. Mikoyan OKS
10 MiG-15
... - .
Opposite page:
One of the first two prototypes which
had no airbrakes on the aft fuselage.
Mikoyan OKS
The third prototype (5-3) nearing completion
in the Mikoyan OKB's experimental shop
(MMZ No 155). Mikoyan OKS
It was decided to perform comparative spin-
ning trials of the MiG-15 and the La-15. By then
Nil WS had some experience with this kind of
trials, having conducted them with piston-
engined aircraft. To be certain of safe recovery
it was decided to increase spin entry altitude
from 5,000m (16,404ft) to 7,000m (22,965ft),
and anti-spin rockets were fitted under the
wings of both aircraft. Nil VVS test pilots Yuriy A
Antipov flying the MiG-15 and A Kochetkov fly-
ing the La-15 reported that the aircraft behaved
strangely at high angles of attack.
The tests demonstrated that both fighters
pitched up during spin entry. This meant the air-
craft was in danger of entering a flat spin; this
was a peculiarity of the swept-wing configura-
tion with high-set horizontal tail which the two
fighters shared. To add a further safety margin,
the spin entry altitude was increased to
10,000m (32,808ft).
During one of the test flights in the La-15
Kochetkov delayed spin recovery and had to
use the anti-spin rockets. In the pilots' opinion,
the MiG-15's spinning behaviour was uncon-
ventional: during one turn, the aircraft com-
bined two different spin modes during a single
turn. After turning through 180°, the fighter
switched from a conventional steep spin to a
flat spin, then going back to a steep spin after
the next half turn.
At an early stage of the inverted spin trials Nil
VVS test pilot Yakov Bogdanov could not recov-
er and crashed in the S-2, losing his life. His
colleague S Brovtsev who specialized in swept-
wing fighter spinning trials continued the pro-
gramme, flying the MiG-15 and the La-15 in
turn, and investigating both conventional and
inverted spin modes.
During one of the flights the MiG-15 proved
reluctant to recover from an inverted spin.
As altitude decreased, Brovtsev made repeat-
ed efforts to recover but to no avail. Finally, he
had an inspiration and applied spin-provoking
control inputs instead of typical anti-spin
inputs. That did the trick; the rotation stopped
when the aircraft was down to a dangerous
600m (1,968ft). Brovtsev brought the fighter
into straight and level flight and landed. Using
flight data recorder readouts to reconstruct
the pilot's actions, the engineers confirmed
some of the MiG-i5's handling peculiarities.
Changes were made to the flight manual and a
spin recovery procedure developed which
saved the lives of many MiG-15 pilots.
After completing the Nil WS trials both fight-
ers joined the Soviet Air Force inventory; how-
ever, the La-i5 did not last long in front-line
service because of its production complexity.
The MiG-15 was to have a far longer and more
distinguished career.
After the West got wind of the type's exis-
tence the MiG-i5 was allocated the reporting
name Falcon by the NATO's Air Standards
Co-ordinating Committee (ASCC). This was
promptly changed to Fagot because it was too
laudatory; 'knock 'em' was part of the idea with
all those reporting names!
..,

MiG-15 11

The Aluminium Rabbit
MiG·15 Version Briefing
MiG-15 (izdeliye S) production prototype
Bearing the construction number (c/n) 101003,
the first production MiG-15 was built by air-
craft factory No 1 named after losif V Stalin in
Kuybyshev (now Samara) in southern Russia.'
This was the only aircraft to have the manufac-
turer's designation 'izdeliye S'. It took to the air
on 30th December 1948 - exactly one year after
the first flight of the 1-310 (S-1) - and became
one of the 'dogships' on which various improve-
ments were tested. The production MiG-15
differed in some respects from the S-3 (mainly
in local structural reinforcement); for instance,
the airbrakes were skinned with EI-100N steel
instead of duralumin and the shiny airbrake
panels were plainly visible. Concurrently the
Nene II turbojet entered production at plant
No 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 in
June 1949 and attained initial operational capa-
bility with the WS in the same year. (No one
seems to know what the V in the manufactur-
er's designation stands for!)
Initial production MiG-15s were not yet
equipped with an automatic engine control sys-
tem, and the ailerons were still manually-con-
trolled. The earliest production batches had
push-button circuit breaker panels in the cock-
pit; these looked nice and neat but were
extremely inconvenient, promptly earning the
nickname bayahn (Russian accordion). Stan-
dard circuit breakers were introduced later,
after which early and late MiG-15s were
referred to by the pilots as the knopochnW and
neknopochnW ('push-button' and 'non-push-
button') variety respectively. The OSP-48 ILS
took some time coming, and familiarising pilots
with it took even longer. The guns' rate of fire
was inadequate, which meant a change of
armament was needed.
There were other bugs to be eliminated as
development proceeded. For example, the air-
craft's never-exceed speed (V NE) as per manu-
facturer's specifications was Mach 0.92 but
initially (based on test flight results) it was
restricted to Mach 0.88. The reason for this
restriction was the MiG-15's tendency to drop
a wing, called val'ozhka in Russian, which had
first manifested itself on the third prototype
(S-3). At 925km/h (500kts) indicated airspeed
the aircraft would start rolling; the stick force
required to counter this motion grew qUickly as
12 MiG-15
Chapter Two
speed increased, reaching 18.5kg (40.78Ib) at
960km/h (519kts), and the pilot was physically
unable to keep the aircraft 'on a straight keel'.
On one occasion it nearly caused two MiG-15s
to collide right over Red Square in Moscow dur-
ing the 1950 May Day parade!
Actually there were two variants of this phe-
nomenon: the so-called 'low-altitude val'ozhka'
appearing below 3,000m (9,842ft) and 'high-
altitude val'ozhka'. The former condition was
caused by torsional stiffness asymmetry in
the port and starboard wings and the latter by
aerodynamic asymmetry - the wings had
slightly different airfoils. This structural asym-
metry meant that the wings produced different
amounts of lift; this was not critical at low
speeds, but as airspeed increased the differ-
ence became appreciable.
The whole affair was a result of the learning
curve during initial production; on the produc-
tion line it was quite difficult to make both wings
absolutely identical due to variations in skin
thickness, riveting, inaccurate manufacturing
and so on. The Mikoyan OKB tried to eliminate
this deficiency by toughening manufacturing
discipline at aircraft factories and by adding
bendable trailing edge trim tabs (referred to as
nozhee - 'knives' - in OKB parlance) which
were adjusted indiVidually after each aircraft's
first flight. Still, the problem persisted until the
MiG-15bis entered production and structural
modifications were made as described later.
Soon after production commenced the first
production aircraft (c/n 101003) was modified
in order to correct deficiencies noted during
State acceptance trials. It featured numerous
detail improvements which were introduced
progressively and became standard in later
MiG-15 versions.
The two Nudel'man/Sooranov NS-23KM
cannons with a 550rpm rate of fire gave way to
Nudel'man/Rikhter NR-23 cannons of identical
calibre which offered a much higher rate of
fire (850 rounds per minute) for virtually no
increase in weight. A breechblock accelerator
was introduced, along with a bilateral belt feed
mechanism which enabled the NR-23 to be
mounted on either side of the fuselage. The
new guns were located closer to the fuselage
centreline, requiring some changes to frames 3
to 5a. An ASP-3N automatic gunsight replaced
the earlier ASP-i. Outwardly aircraft armed with
NR-23 cannons could be recognized by an
enlarged gun blast plate, part of which was on
the nose gear doors, and by two small teardrop
fairings around the spent case exit slots. The
fairings covered deflectors introduced to stop
spent cases and belt links from striking the air-
brakes when these were deployed.
The aircraft was carefully balanced, which
allowed the Mach 0.88 speed restriction to be
lifted. A single B-7 hydraulic actuator was intro-
duced in the aileron control circuit; it was locat-
ed in the cockpit, just aft of the ejection seat.
This was not adopted for production, but the
20th and final Kuybyshev-built batch of 'pure'
MiG-15s had an improved BU-1 actuator in the
starboard wing serving both ailerons, making
izdeliye SV the first Mikoyan aircraft with pow-
ered controls. Elevator aerodynamic balance
was increased from 18% to 22% and the slot
between the elevator and the fin was narrowed
to reduce drag.
The cockpit featured a new instrument panel
and a DGMK-3 remote gyromagnetic compass
(distantseeonnw gheeromagnitnw kompas)
replacing the earlier PDK-45 compass. The air-
brakes were actuated by a push-button control
system and the nose gear unit featured a new
shimmy damper.
The PS-2 engine starting control panel was
installed on the aircraft at the fuselage break
point (frame 13); earlier, it had been located on
the power cart (which was inconvenient, ren-
dering engine starting impossible unless the
appropriate power cart was available). BANO-
45 port and starboard navigation lights (bor-
tovoy aeronavigatseeonnw ogon') were fitted
instead of the original BO-39 model.
Initial production MiG-15s were prone to
engine flameouts above 8,000m (26,246ft)
caused by insufficient fuel pressure. The first
step to fix the problem was the introduction of
fuel tank pressurization by engine bleed air
from Kuybyshev-built Batch 6 onwards. Still,
this was a temporary measure and the problem
was ultimately cured by adding a PNV-2 fuel
transfer pump in the forward fuel cell; this
ensured stable fuel pressure throughout the
aircraft's speed and altitude range. The pump
was tested on MiG-15 cln 106017 starting on
22nd June 1949 and recommended for pro-
duction. Also, a special tank was introduced to
prevent engine flameout in inverted flight and at
negative G. The engine starting system was
modified to allow relight at up to 5,000m
(16,404ft), and a fire extinguishing system was
added.
The MiG-15 (izdeliye SV) went through a two-
stage test programme from 14th June 1949
and 7th January 1950. Shortcomings were dis-
covered during 1949. Generally the impression
The MiG-15 (SV) - the first production aircraft
(c/n 101003) - during checkout tests at Nil VVS
following an upgrade. Note the small teardrop
fairings on the forward fuselage portside
characteristic of the new NR-23 cannons; the
inner skin of the flaps is perforated to save
weight. Mikoyan OKS
was favourable; stick forces were perceptibly
decreased but this made the control system as
a whole less harmonious because the rudder
pedals were still 'heavy'. This took some get-
ting used to. (It should be noted at this point
that pilots flying early MiG-15s with manual
ailerons ran into problems immediately after
transitioning to the MiG-15bis with powered
ailerons. It was easy to lose track of airspeed in
the heat of the battle and flick into a spin
because there was no time to watch the ASI
and aileron forces told you nothing.)
The chief complaint, however, concerned
the new armament; the gun mounts were insuf-
ficiently rigid, resulting in high shell scatter and
poor accuracy. Hence the WS' Chief Engineer
Col Gen I V Markov suspended the trials on
10th August at Artyom I Mikoyan's request and
the aircraft was returned to the manufacturer for
modifications. Yet when Stage 2 began on 19th
October it capitalised on handling improve-
ments; the armament problem had not been
corrected.
In the summer of 1950 the aircraft was test-
ed with recalibrated landing gear shock
absorbers. Main gear oleo pressure was
reduced from 85kg/cm 2 (1 ,214psi) to 60kg/cm 2
(857psi) and stroke increased to 180mm (7in).
The modified shock absorbers worked well but
did not enter production for some reason. The
MiG-15 rolled off the production lines with stan-
dard main gear oleos, a reduced-pressure
nose gear oleo (23kg/cm 2 or 328.5psi instead
of 30kg/cm 2 or 428.5psi) and low-pressure
tyres (2.5kg/cm 2 or 35.7psi instead of
4.2kg/cm 2 or 60.0psi).
This major effort with shock absorbers was
brought about by complaints from the WS that
the aircraft sometimes bounced uncontrollably
during heavy landings. Hence A P Sooproon
(brother of the famous test pilot Stepan P
Sooproon) was tasked with deliberately mak-
ing all kinds of screwed-up landings with
excessive landing speed, premature flare-out
etc in order to get to the core of the problem.
The aircraft, a Novosibirsk-built MiG-15 seri-
ailed 616 Red (c/n 0615316), had the canopy
removed and a massive structure fitted imme-
diately aft of the cockpit to protect the pilot in
case the fighter rolled over.
Sooproon found that the MiG-15 forgave
even a heavy three-point landing after a pre-
mature flare-out but had a tendency to bounce
when landing too fast. On his twenty-fifth try, he
made a particularly hard landing, greatly
exceeding all limits set by the flight manual.
This time he 'succeeded' in bending the aircraft
which nearly flipped over on its back, collaps-
ing the nose and starboard main gear units.
The message was clear: the problem was
caused by poor airmanship rather than any
deficiency of the aircraft. Still, this led the OKB
to experiment with shock absorber pressures
as described above.
The MiG-15 (izde/iye SV) replaced the MiG-9
on the production line at the Kuybyshev aircraft
factory. This was initially the leading manufac-
turer of the type. Incidentally, in 1949 the facto-
ry received official thanks from Vasiliy I Stalin,
the Soviet leader's son and Commander of the
Moscow Defence District, for its persistent
efforts to improve the quality of MiG-15s.
So great was the Soviet Air Force's demand
for the new fighter (partly because of the war in
Korea) that eight more plants (!) joined in short-
ly afterwards. They were factory No 21 in
Gor'kiy (nameo after Sergo Ordzhonikidze),
factory No 31 in Tbilisi (named after the Bulgar-
ian Communist Gheorgi Dimitrov), factory
No 99 in Ulan-Ude, factory No 126 in Komso-
mol'sk-on-Amur, factory No 135 in Khar'kov
(named after the Young Communist League),
factory No 153 in Novosibirsk (named after
Valeriy P Chkalov), factory No 292 in Saratov
and factory No 381 in Moscow! At most facto-
ries the initial production version was allocated
the in-house product code 'izde/iye 50'.
Each of the factories which built the fighter
had its own system for the allocation of con-
struction numbers (manufacturer's serial num-
bers), and this is explained in detail on the
following page.
MiG-15 13
System 1 925 Red, cln 109025
1 Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1
09 batch 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, gun
barrel fairings andlor main gear doors.

System 2 (UTI-MiG-15): cln 11240

1 Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1
12 batch number
40 number of aircraft in batch

System 3 768 Red, cln 0715368

07 batch number
(1 to 6- MiG-15, 6to 30- MiG-15bis)
153 Novosibirsk aircraft factory No 153
68 number of aircraft in batch (up to 100?)
The cln is stencilled on the ailerons and sometimes on
the port side of the fuselage nose.

System 4 no serial, cln 3810102

381 Moscow aircraft factory No 381
01 batch number
02 number of aircraft in batch (10 per batch?)
The cln is sometimes stencilled on the port side of the
fuselage nose.

System 5 546 Red, cln 53210546

53 in-house product code (izdeliye 53 =MiG-15bis)
21 Gor'kiy aircraft factory No 21
05 batch number
46 number of aircraft in batch (up to 100?)
The cln is usually stencilled on the fin and rudder and
sometimes on the fuselage nose. Also, until the mid-50s,
Gor'kiy-built Fagots had acharacteristic 'MiG-15 - 21'
badge on the nose.

System 6 (factory No 126): 317 Red, cln 3317

33 batch number
17 no. of aircraft in batch (20 per batch?)
The cln is sometimes stencilled on the port side of the
fuselage nose.

System 7 (factory N0292): 421 Red, cln 2104

21 no. of aircraft in batch (50 per batch?)
04 batch number.

System 8 981 Red, cln 31530981

31 Tbilisi aircraft factory No 31
53 in-house product code (izdeliye 53 =MiG-15bis)
09 batch number
81 number of aircraft in batch (up to 100?)

System 9 cln 10990907

10 in-house product code (izdeliye 10 =UTI-MiG-15)
99 Ulan-Ude aircraft factory No 99 •
09 batch number
07 number of aircraft in batch

System 10 (UTI-MiG-15): cln 0213510

02 batch number
135 Khar'kov aircraft factory No 135
10 number of aircraft in batch

System 11 (UTI-MiG-15, factory No 135): cln 09009

09 batch number Top and centre: Early-production MiG-15s in the A Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (c/n 115002) during
009 number of aircraft in batch final assembly shop at the Kuybyshev aircraft checkout tests at Nil WS.
factory No 1 named after losif V Stalin, 1949. Yefim Gordon archive
The cln is stencilled on the fin and rudder. Yefim Gordon archive

14 MiG-15

Workers align the RD-45F engine of
an early-production Fagot-A at the Kuybyshev
aircraft factory, 1949. Yefim Gordon archive
Here, a Novosibirsk-built example is nearing
completion. Yefim Gordon archive
The type was also manufactured under licence
in China, Czechoslovakia and Poland (foreign
production is described separately). Indeed,
the MiG-15 family turned out to be so prolific (no
fewer than 13,131 of all versions were built in the
USSR alone!) that, paraphrasing the title of
a science fiction novel by Harry Harrison, The
Steel Rat, one might be tempted to call it the
Aluminium Rabbit. (No disrespect intended.)
Early-production MiG-15s were still armed
with NS-23KM cannons, and few had the OSP-
48 ILS. In the final batches of izdeliye SV, the
push-button circuit breakers were replaced by
conventional switches. These late 'non-push-
button' aircraft were assigned to Soviet units
fighting in Korea where the MiG-15 was to
prove its worth in combat.
Typically of Soviet military aircraft, testing at
Nil WS continued even after the type became
operational as air force test pilots explored the
fighter's potential. Fagots used by Nil WS
included a Kuybyshev-built aircraft serialled
719 Red (c/n 107019).
Speaking of serials, in the early 1950s Sovi-
et fighters had three- or four-digit serial num-
bers. These allowed more or less positive
identification, since they tied in with the air-
craft's construction number (usually the last
one or two digits of the production batch num-
ber plus the number of the aircraft in the batch).
In 1955, however, the WS switched (proba-
bly for security reasons) to the current system
of two-digit tactical codes which, as a rule, are
simply the aircraft's number in the unit operat-
ing it, making positive identification impossible.
(Three- or four-digit tactical codes are rare and
are usually worn by development aircraft only,
in which case they still tie in with the cln or fuse-
lage number (manufacturer's line number). On
military transport aircraft, however, three-digit
tactical codes are usually the last three of the
former civil registration; many Soviet/Russian
Air Force transports were, and still are, quasi-
civilian.) At the same time the star insignia on
the aft fuselage were deleted, remaining on the
wings and vertical tail only.
The MiG-15s (izdeliye SV)'s trials pro-
gramme included tests at speeds in excess of
Mach 0.92 held at L11 in the early 1950s. The
main purpose of these tests with a Moscow-
built MiG-15 (c/n 381 0203, no serial) was to find
out how the aircraft behaved beyond the pre-
scribed VNE . At 12,500 to 13,500m (41,010 to
44,291ft), test pilot AM Tyuterev accelerated to
maximum speed in level flight, then entered a
shallow dive with the engine running at
12,300rpm, reaching the planned Mach num-
ber, and pulled out of the dive with the engine
at flight idle.
These tests showed that control forces
increased considerably at speeds approaching
VNE ; still, the programme was duly completed.
The high-speed flights also demonstrated that
at speeds above Mach 0.86 the intensity of the
wing-drop problem was different for different
MiG-15s. Thus, the pilot had to be aware of the
peculiarities of each individual aircraft.
MiG-15 15
 In service, some MiG-15s (izdeliye SV) were
retrofitted with improved avionics and equip-
ment. The type also spawned a multitude of
versions described below, some of which were
one-off aircraft and were not developed further.

MiG-15 (izdeliye SA-1/SA-2)

development aircraft
In order to verify the OSP-48 ILS the complete
system was retrofitted to the second Moscow-
built MiG-15 (c/n 3810102, no serial). This air-
craft was unusual in being powered by a VK-1
engine as on the MiG-15bis (which see), being
developed in parallel with the latter. Yet it was
still a 'pure' MiG-15, not a bis; for instance,
it retained the original triangular 0.48m' air-
brakes.
The ARK-5 AOF had a loop aerial buried in
the aft fuselage and a whip aerial on the star-
board side immediately aft of the cockpit. The
MRP-48 marker beacon receiver aerial was in
the aft fuselage and the RV-2 low-range radio
altimeter aerials flush with the lower fuselage
skin. This necessitated a redesign of the aft
integral fuel tank which consisted of two halves
(port and starboard) with an avionics bay in
between. The AOF and marker beacon rec-
eiver aerials were fitted flush with this bay's
access hatch cover, while the AOF unit was
installed in place of the AFA-IM recce camera.
In addition, the RSI-6 HF radio was replaced
by the RSIU-3 Klyon (Maple) VHF radio, an
SRO-1 Bariy-M (Barium-M) identification friend-
or-foe (IFF) transponder' was fitted and a BU-1
hydraulic aileron actuator was installed in the
starboard wing leading edge. A new cockpit air
conditioning system was introduced and the
canopy had a single layer of thick Perspex
instead of the standard two thin layers with a
gap in between. In order to cut empty weight
the aircraft was stripped of the SOPO danger-
ous pressure differential warning indicator,
VS-46 altitude indicator, ammunition counter
and the armour plate attached to fuselage
frame 5a.
Called izdeliye SA-1 by Mikoyan, the modi-
fied MiG-15 underwent manufacturer's flight
tests from 4th February to 10th March 1950.
These were followed by preliminary State
acceptance trials from 29th to 31 st March and
6th to 19th April in the course of which the air-
craft made 24 test flights, including three at night.

Top: 616 Red (c/n 0615316), one of the

last Novosibirsk-built Fagot-As, with
NS-23KM cannons. Yefim Gordon archive

Centre and below: SA-1, the second Moscow-

built MiG-15 (c/n 3810102), a development
aircraft powered by a VK-1 engine. This aircraft
was fitted with an OSP-48 ILS, an RSIU-3 radio
and a Bariy-M IFF. Yefim Gordon archive

Bottom: A close-up of the NS-23KM cannons on

616 Red. Note the thin and angular serial style
characteristic 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 test
pilot Aleksandr M Tyuterev attained Mach 1.01
in 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 sliding
ASP-3N gunsight. The installation was intended
to improve the gunsight's efficiency but failed
dismally. Yefim Gordon archive
Yet, even though the OSP-48 system performed
acceptably it was not recommended for pro-
duction as fitted to the SA-1 (mainly because of
low component reliability) and development
work continued. A similarly converted second
aircraft designated izdeliye SA-2 was not sub-
mitted for State acceptance trials.
MiG-15 (izdeliye SA-3) development aircraft
Another MiG-15 designated izdeliye SA-3 was
also used to test the OSP-48 ILS and find the
best possible locations for the system's com-
ponents, primarily the aerials. For example, the
aerial of the RSI-6 radio doubled as the aerial
for the ARK-5 ADF. As on the SA-1, the aft fuel
tank was replaced by two smaller tanks to
make room for the ADF and MRP-48 marker
beacon receiver units, and the AFA-IM recon-
naissance camera was deleted.
In 1950, sixteen production RD-45F-pow-
ered MiG-15s were retrofitted with the OSP-48
ILS in order to perform the system's service tri-
als and operated by regular WS units with
good results. These aircraft have sometimes
been misidentified as izdeliye SA-3. Soon the
system became standard equipment for all
MiG-15 versions.
MiG-15 (izdeliye SA-4) development aircraft
This version was likewise powered by the
RD-45F and equipped with the OSP-48ILS. The
instrument panel was revised yet again, featur-
ing a generator failure warning light, a KI-11
compass (kompas indooktseeonnw) and a
Mach meter reading up to Mach 0.95. The
DGMK-2 gyrocompass and the AGK-47B artifi-
cial horizon were powered by separate PAG-1 F
transformers. The aircraft also had automatic
airbrake extension if the Mach 0.95 speed limit
was exceeded, and in-flight engine starting
capability was added.
The SA-4 completed manufacturer's flight
tests in August 1950 and was transferred to Nil
VVS for further testing. Some of the improve-
ments verified on the SA-4 were incorporated in
production MiG-15s.
MiG-15 (izdeliye SO) development aircraft
In 1949 an early-production Kuybyshev-built
MiG-15 (619 Red, cln 106019) was fitted with an
experimental sliding mount for the standard
ASP-3N gunsight consisting of a telescopic
tube and an inverted U-shaped support
attached to the windshield frame. From its stan-
dard position the sight could move 160mm
(6.3in) towards the pilot so that he could use
the target lead angles offered by the sight more
efficiently. It was also possible to use the sight
in the normal way.
Designated izdeliye SO (the 0 possibly
stood for oroozhiye, weapons), the aircraft
commenced State acceptance trials on 16th
June 1949. However, Stage 1 which ended on
6th August showed that the sliding gunsight
was unsatisfactory: its optical axis tilted from
+0° 20' to -1 0 30' as the aircraft climbed, affect-
ing the shooting results.
MiG-15 17
 More modifications were made pursuant to
MAP directive No M-40/3300 (14th October 1949);
the sliding mount was revised and additional
armour installed for better pilot protection. The
thickness of the bulletproof windscreen was
increased from 64mm (2.5in) to 105mm (4.3in),
and an armoured seat back and armoured
headrest - both 16mm (0.62in) thick - were
added. In this form the aircraft resumed State
acceptance trials during the following year, but
the sliding gunsight was rejected again and the
SO programme was terminated in July 1950.
Two views of izdeliye SU (e/n 109035),
a testbed for the V·1·25·Sh·3 experimental
elevating weapons system. "Mikoyan OKS
18 MiG-15
MiG-15 (izdeliye 5U)
development aircraft/weapons testbed
Pursuant to MAP directive No 658 issued on
14th September 1950, the Mikoyan OKB began
working on movable cannon armament for the
MiG-15. Usually a fighter pilot had to take aim
by pointing the whole aircraft, which took con-
siderable time. In a dogfight, this put him at a
disadvantage: he had to provide target lead by
aiming at a point ahead of the target on its
anticipated course. If the target was more agile
than his own aircraft, the pilot had no choice
but to break off the attack and start anew - and
the few seconds lost in so doing could prove
fatal. Conversely, on a fighter with movable
armament the pilot could bring his guns to bear
on the target much more quickly and more
accurately - even when pointing the aircraft
itself was impossible. Ideally, this gave him first-
shot, first-kill capability.
Hence a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (izdeliye
SV) serialled 935 Red (c/n 109035) was con-
verted to take the V-1-25-Sh-3 experimental
weapons system replacing the standard arma-
ment. The system was developed by the OKB
under Boris Shpital'nyy, the man behind the
ShKAS machine gun and ShVAK cannon of
Second World War vintage; the Sh in the des-
ignation stood for Shpital'nyy and 25 was the
number of the plant where his OKB was based.
The system comprised two 23mm Sh-3 guns
with 115 rpg in faired flexible mOl,lnts on the
- r

lower forward fuselage sides, giving the aircraft

a jowly, bulldog-like appearance in a head-on
view. The guns could elevate +11°/-7". The
aircraft 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 mov-
able sight and remote-controlled electric actu-
ators that moved the guns. The guns were
reloaded by a purpose-built electropneumatic
mechanism and elevation was controlled by
two knobs, one on the stick and one on the
throttle. Gun and sight movement was syn-
chronized via an electromechanical elevation-
aiming synchro transmission.
The prototype was completed on 29th
December 1950. Manufacturer's flight tests
began on 2nd January 1951 and were com-
pleted on 27th March. On 20th June, test pilot
Yuriy A Antipov ferried the prototype to Nil WS
for State acceptance trials which began ten
days later and continued until 10th August. Nil
WS test pilots Trofimov, Makhalin, Ye I Dzyuba,
Lookin, Kotlov, Toopitsyn and Filippov made 63
flights in the SU, including several flights to test
the new gun installation. In the course of the
trials, large gun blast panels made of heat-
resistant steel were riveted to the underside of
the fuselage nose and nose gear doors when
it turned out that firing the guns damaged the
aluminium skin.
The State commission's report said that
the movable cannon armament enhanced the
MiG-15's combat potential. For example, head-
on attacks could be made without the danger
of collision and the pilot could bring his guns 5 Red (c/n 105015), the MiG-15bis prototype contours of fuselage frames 21 to 28 and a 60-
to bear on the target for longer periods. The converted from a Fagot-A, during State litre (13.2 Imperial gallon) reduction in the
V-1-25-Sh-3 system could be mastered by the acceptance trials at Nil WS. Vefim Gordon archive capacity of the aft fuel tank. The tail cone above
average pilot in 20 to 25 flights. Still, izdeliye SU The Klimov VK·1 turbojet. Vefim Gordon archive
the engine nozzle was enlarged and the aft end
did not enter production because the system of the fuselage adjacent to the nozzle was
was too complicated and the elevation angle redesigned, with a kinked edge in side view
was too small. It is perhaps worth noting that in instead of a straight one. A GS-3000 starter-
1953, Mikoyan dusted off the movable gun MiG-15bis Fagot-B tactical fighter generator and a modified oil filler incorporating
idea, developing the izdeliye SN prototype, a (izdeliye SO; izdeliye 53, izdeliye 55) a wire mesh filter were introduced.
heaVily-modified MiG-17. The advent of the VK-1 engine rated at A BU-1 reversible hydraulic actuator was
2,700kgp (5,952Ibst) in early 1949 enabled the installed in the starboard wing as part of the
MiG-15 (izdeliye SSh) development aircraft Mikoyan OKB to radically upgrade the MiG-15 aileron control circuit. Elevator area was
In 1950, two RD-45F-powered MiG-15s built in and improve its performance. It also meant the enlarged by increasing relative elevator chord
Kuybyshev were fitted with a single 23mm end of the road for jet fighters powered by other to 21 % of the wing chord to improve aileron effi-
Shpital'nyy Sh-3 cannon replacing the portside engines, to say nothing of the piston-engined ciency and elevator aerodynamic balance was
NS-23KMs. The conversion involved changes fighters which were still in plenty in the WS increased to 22%; elevator and rudder leading
to the cannon mounts, access hatches and fair- inventory, causing huge maintenance prob- edges were reshaped to improve their aero-
ings, and the installation of a new ammunition lems. The idea of a single, 'standard' fighter dynamic balance.
box, new spent case and link chutes, and new (and 'standard' tactical bomber, the IL-28 which The airbrakes were enlarged to 0.5m'
barrel mounting collars for the Sh-3. The stan- was also powered by the VK-1) seemed both (5.37ft') and recontoured (the upper edge was
dard N-37 installation on the starboard side feasible and attractive, and on 14th May 1949 upswept instead of horizontal). Their hinge line
was retained. The aircraft was known as the Council of Ministers issued directive was inclined 22° 30' forward instead of vertical
izdeliye SSh, the Sh probably referring to the No 1889-699 ordering production of the La-15 to alleviate the MiG-15's annoying tendency to
Shpital'nyy cannon. and Yak-23 to be terminated. pitch up when the airbrakes were deployed,
The first aircraft was used to test the reliabil- Built in 1949 and assigned the in-house des- complicating gun aiming. A solenoid-operated
ity of the new Sh-3 cannon between 13th July ignation 'izdeliye SD' (the 0 probably standing valve controlled by a button on the control stick
and 25th August 1950. The second aircraft was for dorabotannoye - revised), the new fighter was introduced in the airbrake control channel
submitted for State acceptance trials on 1st incorporated the results of a year's production to improve control efficiency. A four-barrel
July 1950. The trials resulted in some modifica- and operational experience with early MiG-15s. ESKR-46 signal flare launcher was installed on
tions to the Sh-3 cannon which, in improved The VK-1 had slightly larger dimensions than the starboard side of the rear fuselage, with a
form, was fitted to the MiG-15 (izdeliye SSh) the RD-45F and an extension jetpipe of bigger control panel showing the colour (green, red,
described above. diameter, necessitating changes to the internal white and yellow) and number of used flares.

MiG-15 19
20 MiG-15
 Pursuant to the abovementioned directives
the prototype izdeJiye SO was to be submitted
for State acceptance trials on 1st July 1949.
However, the aircraft was not completed until
late July due to the late delivery of a Kuyby-
shev-built MiG-15 (c/n 105015, originally no
serial, later serialled 5 Red) to Mikoyan for con-
version. Manufacturer's flight tests began on
22nd July and were successfully completed on
9th September; four days later the prototype
was transferred to Nil WS.
As might be imagined, the new engine
proved troublesome, being prone to surge at
full military power above 8,000m (26,246ft) and
high-frequency vibration which reverberated
through the airframe and set your teeth on
edge. Three engine changes were made in the
course of the trials and modifications made to
the VK-1 's design; this alleviated the problem
but did not cure it completely. The engine con-
trol system also drew a lot of criticism because
it did not ensure stable engine operation at
flight idle and did not permit sharp acceleration
and deceleration (which might be necessary in
combat) without the risk of surge or a flameout.
Vladimir Klimov was strongly urged to rectify
this fault, while Artyom Mikoyan was suggested
to incorporate self-contained engine starting so
as to reduce dependence on ground support
equipment.
Trials showed an overall improvement in per-
formance, with the exception of range which
was 180km (97nm) shorter because of less
internal fuel and a thirstier engine. Compared
to the basic Fagot, the VK-1-powered version'
was 26km/h (14kts) faster, maximum speed at
sea level being 1,076km/h versus 1,050km/h
(581 kts versus 567kts). Rate of climb at sea
level increased from 42 m/sec (8,400ft/min) to
46 m/sec (9,200ft/min) and service ceiling
improved 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 on
235 Red. Yefim Gordon archive
Centre right, lower left and lower right: The lowered
cannon tray of MiG-15bis '235 Red', showing the
staggered arrangement of the NR-23s, the
starboard-side N-37D cannon, the ammunition
boxes and the cocking mechanism air lines.
Yefim Gordon archive
Bottom left: The muzzle of the N·37D cannon on
MiG·15bis '235 Red'. Note the large blast panel
for the portside NR·23s.
Yefim Gordon archive
Bottom right: The aft fuselage of a Gor'kiy-built
MiG-15bis (c/n 53210668), showing open
airbrake (the original 0.5m' version).
Yefim Gordon archive
Takeoff run was reduced by about 100m
(328ft), being 504m (1 ,653ft). Conversely, land-
ing roll increased by 70m (230ft), reaching
880m (2,887ft) and making Mikoyan engineers
consider the addition of a brake parachute. As
usual, as an aircraft matures it tends to grow fat-
ter; the new engine, equipment and armament
added 238kg (524Ib) to the Fagot's normal
take-off weight which reached 5,044kg
(11,120Ib).
On the whole, the results were deemed sat-
isfactory and the fighter was recommended for
production, with an order to submit a produc-
tion-standard aircraft for checkout tests by 1st
July 1950. The Kuybyshev factory switched to
the new version from Batch 21 onwards and the
Novosibirsk factory in the middle of Batch 6;
Gor'kiy, Tbilisi, Komsomol'sk-on-Amur and
Saratov built the new model from the start.
Soon the VVS began taking delivery of what
was originally known as the 'VK-1-powered
MiG-15'. From 1951 onwards, however, this
version became the MiG-15bis.
In Gor'kiy the MiG-15bis received the prod-
uct code 'izdeJiye 53', while in Kuybyshev it was
referred to, somewhat confusingly, as izdeJiye
55 (see MiG-15bisR entry). In the Westthe sub-
type was assigned a separate reporting name,
Fagot-B, the original 'pure' MiG-15 becoming
the Fagot-A.
The slipper tanks of the original MiG-15
which came in three sizes - 250, 300 and 600
litre (55, 66 and 132 Imperial gallon) were
replaced by 400 litre (88 Imperial gallon) drop
tanks mounted in more conventional fashion
on tandem pylons and braced on both sides at
the front to stop them from rocking during
manoeuvres. Unlike the slipper tanks, the new
tanks were interchangeable (port and star-
board). Originally they were of simple cigar
shape, but triangular tail surfaces were soon
added to facilitate separation from the aircraft.
(However, the early-model slipper tanks contin-
ued in use for a while after the MiG-15bis
became operational.)
Like the original MiG-15 (izdeJiye SV), early
production bises retained NS-23KM cannons
but in July 1951 they were substituted by rapid-
firing NR-23s, with appropriate changes to
fuselage frames 3 to 5a to accommodate the
new cannons, once the shell scatter problem
had been fixed. Following trials on half a dozen
aircraft, including 235 Red (c/n 122035), the
new armament was fitted in Kuybyshev from
Batch 28 onwards, in Novosibirsk from Batch
15 onwards, in Gor'kiy and Saratov from Batch
10 onwards and in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur from
Batch 29 onwards. Bises manufactured in Tbil-
isi had the new cannons from the start.
The ASP-3N sight replaced the ASP-1 N, par-
alleling armament development on the Sv. The
MiG-15bis was a considerable improvement
over the Fagot-A as a weapons system: the rate
of fire was more than 50% higher, the weight of
fire was increased and firing accuracy
improved.
The wing drop problem experienced during
flight tests and operations of the basic MiG-15
became even more serious on the MiG-15bis
because of this version's higher speed. Once
again, different aircraft were affected to a differ-
ent degree; some bises could reach 960 to
980km/h (519 to 529k1s) ·IAS while others
became completely uncontrollable at 850 to
950km/h (459 to 513kts) lAS. Anyway, this
behaviour led to accidents, and on 11th Sep-
tember 1950 the WS C-in-C issued an order
limiting the Fagot-B's true airspeed below
2,500m (8,202ft) to 1,040km/h (562kts).
Even before this order the Mikoyan OKB and
Nil WS began a special programme to elimi-
nate the tell-tale wing drop problem. For the
first time ever the institute held a series of sta-
bility and handling tests with a view to develop-
ing specific recommendations for service
pilots. The tests involved three Gor'kiy-built air-
craft serialled 45 Red, 46 Red and 47 Red (c/ns
53210345, 53210346 and 53210347). Test
flights began on 4th August 1950 and were ter-
minated on 29th September, by which time the
aircraft had logged 66hrs 20min in 100 flights.
This first stage of the anti-val'ozhka programme
led to the development in the same year of a
version designated izdeJiye SYa, which is
described separately.
Apart from val'ozhka, the MiG-15 had a few
quirks discovered by Nil WS pilots. Above
Mach 0.87 the aircraft displayed reverse roll
reaction to rudder inputs (ie, it rolled right
instead of left when left rudder was applied).
Also, aileron efficiency was poor at speeds in
excess of Mach 0.86 and Mach tuck appeared;
this was not dangerous but made flying a little
more complicated. Based on these findings the
MiG-15's flight manual was suitably amended.
In 1951 the OKB undertook an effort to
improve rearward vision for the MiG-15 pilot.
The canopy received 1Omm (0.39 in) thick glaz-
ing. The W-shaped internal upright at the rear
of the sliding canopy was deleted and the
transverse canopy frame member adjacent to it
was replaced with steel strips. The new canopy
was tested successfully in September 1951
and recommended for production. Actually,
MiG-15s with the new canopy began rolling off
the production lines in 1952.
Also in 1952, MiG-15bis pilots received the
PPK-1 G-suit (protivoperegroozochnW
kostyum) and appropriate modifications were
made to the aircraft's systems. Air for the G-suit
was bled from the engine compressor and fed
through a filter. An automatic pressure control
unit adjusted the pressure differential in the
chambers of the G-suit, depending on how
much G the aircraft was pulling. The PPK-1
operated with loads of 1.75 to 8 G, making it
easier for the pilot to fly in a combat environ-
ment involving high-G manoeuvres.
Pursuant to MAP directive No 10 (3rd Janu-
ary 1952) the airbrakes were redesigned to
improve manoeuvrability. Airbrake area was
increased from 0.5m' (5.37ft') to 0.8m' (8.6ft')
with no change to the aft fuselage structure (by
simply incorporating a new, larger skin panel
MiG-15 21
 extended upwards, downwards and aft) and
the hydraulic actuators were beefed up. The
deflection angle remained unchanged at 55°.
The modified airbrakes were tested on a
Gor'kiy-built MiG-15bis (c/n 53210668), start-
ing on 20th March of the same year. Trials
showed that the arrangement was more effec-
tive, improving diving characteristics at high
altitude, and the new design entered produc-
tion on 1st September. Special teams were dis-
patched from Kuybyshev and Novosibirsk to
the Soviet units fighting in Korea in order to
retrofit their aircraft with the new airbrakes on
site.
Other changes introduced in 1952 pursuant
to the said directive included a new.retractable
LFSV-45 landing light in the port wing root
ahead of the mainwheel well replacing the ear-
lier FS-155 landing/taxi light in the air intake
splitter and changes to the ejection seat that
allowed the pilot to use either hand to eject
(introduced on 1st july).
The first Soviet rear-view periscopes for fight-
ers were introduced in the 1950s. The Soviet
Defence Ministry awarded a contract to the
State Optical Institute named after S Vavilov to
develop three models of periscopes (TS-23,
TS-25 and TS-27); these were tested on the
MiG-15bis's double-glazed canopy and the
later MiG-17's canopy with single glazing.
In June 1952 one MiG-15bis (235 Blue, c/n
122035) was experimentally fitted with the
TS-23 periscope and another with the TS-25.
Tests showed that both models were unsuit-
able for operational use: the TS-23 proved very
inconvenient with its inverted image and the
TS-25 lacked electric defrosting essential for
combat at various altitudes and in different tem-
perature conditions. To rectify this, the Vavilov
Institute developed the TS-27A periscope with
a powerful electric defrosting system which
proved successful and was widely used on the
MiG-17 fighter.
The brand-new Sirena radar homing and
warning system (RHAWS) came next. Fifteen
aircraft of the 133rd and 216th Fighter Divisions
fighting in Korea were equipped with it for ser-
vice trials in October 1952. The results were
excellent and before long all MiGs fighting in
Korea had the Sirena RHAWS.

Fagot-Bs in the assembly shop at the

Novosibirsk aircraft factory.
Yefim Gordon archive

The aft fuselages of bises (c/ns 1115332,

1115333,1115335 etc) on the Novosibirsk
production line; note empty jig where the rear
end of No 1115334 should be.
Yefim Gordon archive

421 Red (c/n 2104), a MiG-15bis built by the

Saratov aircraft factory No 292.
Yefim Gordon archive

Izdeliye SD-ET, a Novosibirsk-built

MiG-15bis (1141 Red cln 1115341) used to
test the self-starter system developed for the
Fagot-B. Yefim Gordon archive

22 MiG-15

i-
201 Blue, a MiG-15bis equipped with an RSI-6
radio and a Bariy-M IFF, on test at L11. Note that
the barrel fairing of the N-37D cannon has been
removed. Yefim Gordon archive

Fagot-Bs '570 Red' (c/n 53210570) and '497 Red'

(c/n 53210497) during trials. Note the character-
istic serial style of Gor'kjy-built aircraft and the
factory's badge on the nose - a stylised aircraft
silhouette with the inscription 'MiG-15 - 21'.
Like most Fagots, Gor'kiy-built MiG-15s usually
had 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-3N

gunsight was replaced by an improved ASP-
3NM. The new model featured an electromag-
netic damper increasing aiming accuracy and
reducing aiming time during sharp manoeu-
vres. Likewise, the new sight made its service
debut in Korea.
The MiG-15bis was the most numerous ver-
sion of the Fagot. It served with the WS, the air
forces of Warsaw Pact countries and Third
World countries, earning a reputation as a reli- 1
able and effective weapons system. Like the
MiG-15, the bis was built under licence abroad;
some licence-built aircraft had minor local
modifications.

MiG-15bis (izdeliye SYa)

The next stage of the effort to cure the wing
drop problem began in September 1950 when
three bises (c/ns 122040, 122067 and
53210434) were handed over to Nil WS. The
two Kuybyshev-built aircraft had a stiffened
wing structure, a 'knife' (bendable trim tab)
40mm (1.57in) wide on the wing trailing edge
and a similar tab 30mm (1 .18in) wide on the
starboard aileron, while the Gor'kiy-built exam-
ple was used for comparison and featured only
the 'knives' to represent a field modification.
Test flights made from 26th September to 9th
October gave disappointing results. On the
'field-modified' MiG-15bis c/n 53210434, wing
drop 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 TAS
could only be reached with full stick deflection
to keep the wings level, which of course was
totally unacceptable; as per the said order the
required stick travel was not to exceed a third.
The two aircraft with stiffened wings fared
better, showing an improvement of 30 to 60km/h
(16 to 32kts) in speed at which wing drop was
easily countered as compared to unmodified
bises. Still, they could not reach 1,065km/h
(575kts) lAS at 700m - conditions at which,
according to Kuybyshev engineers, wing drop
was not felt at all! All three aircraft showed no
signs of val'ozhka up to Mach 0.92 in straight
and level flight above 3,000 to 4,000m (9,842 to

MiG-15 23
 633 Blue, a Saratov-built MiG-15bis. In Saratov
the serial was written 'back to front' in relation
to the cln, since the last digit of the batch
number always came first. Yefim Gordon archive

Izdeliye SD-UPB, the prototype MiG-15bisS escort

fighter (c/n 53210114) with 600 litre (132

-.
Imperial gallon) drop tanks. Yefim Gordon archive

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

The manufacturers' fair - a line-up of bises

produced by different factories on comparative
trials 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) from
Komsomol'sk-on-Amur, Novosibirsk-built '1776
Red' (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/ns
122067 and 53210434) were steady up to Mach
0.92 in straight and level flight at 9,000 to
10,000m (29,527 to 32,808ft).
A fourth MiG-15bis (c/n 122058) was modi-
fied with an even stiffer wing structure which
incurred a 47kg (1 03.6Ib) weight penalty com-
pared to 30kg (66Ib) for the previous two air-
craft. The new wings were designed by
Vladimir P Yatsenko, a designer best known for
the 1-28 fighter of 1938. Hence the three Fagot-
Bs with reinforced wings came to be known as
izdeliye SYa, the letter Ya referring to the
designer (izdeliye S s krylom Yatsenko - with
Yatsenko wings). MiG-15bis c/n 122058 was
tested during 11 th to 28th November 1950 with
good results and the reinforced wings entered
production.
But even though the wing drop problem was
cured, poor roll control and reverse roll reaction
to rudder inputs at high speed remained.
Hence the same aircraft was used to investi-
gate lateral stability and aileron efficiency at
high speeds during 7th-20th December; there
was a pause in the tests between 8th Decem-
ber and 16th December when the starboard
wing was shipped to TsAGI for measuring tor-
sional stiffness.
TsAGI specialists noted that the wing drop
problem might be due in part to poor manu-
facturing discipline - eg, careless aligning and
balancing during final assembly. Hence, in
addition to the customary 'knives', late MiG-
15bis batches featured adjustable wing/fuse-
lage joints that allowed port and starboard wing
incidence to be altered individually for neutral-
ising val'ozhka.
MiG-15bis (izdeliye SO-P)
Between 20th May and 20th July 1951, Mikoy-
an undertook a trials programme aimed at
shortening the MiG-15's landing roll. The UA-11
anti-skid unit was tested. So were three models
of brake 'chutes: two single-canopy models -
TP-1453-50 (tormoznoy parashoot) and TR-20
with an area of 7.2m 2 (77ft2) and 20Am 2 (219ft2)
respectively - and twin TP-1453-50 'chutes with
a total area of 14Am 2 (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 between
4th September and 20th September 1951 . This
model worked well and was recommended for
production. The parachute was housed in a
special bay under the jetpipe; the dual bay
doors and the parachute release lock were
actuated pneumatically.
A small batch of bises equipped with PT-
2165-51 brake 'chutes and UA-11 anti-skid units
was built by the Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1
in 1952 and delivered to the WS in 1952. These
aircraft were sometimes referred to as izdeliye
SD-P, the P standing for [s tormoznym]
parashootom - with brake parachute.
MiG-15bisS Fagot-B
(izdeliye SO-UPS) escort fighter
The advent in the late 1940s of the first Soviet
jet tactical bombers, the IL-28 and Tu-14, creat-
ed a need for an escort fighter capable of
reaching 900km/h (486kts), with a range of at
least 2,500km (1,351nm). The La-11 escort
fighter - the ultimate Lavochkin prop-driven air-
craft - had the range but was nowhere near fast
enough (its top speed was 674km/h or 364kts).
Hence a requirement for an escort fighter deriv-
ative of the MiG-15bis with a range of 2,000km
(1,081 nm) at 10,OOOm (32,808ft) was drawn up
in 1950.
The Mikoyan OKB took delivery of the 14th
Gor'kiy-built MiG-15 (c/n 53210114, no serial)
which was fitted with huge slipper tanks of all-
metal welded construction holding 600 litres
(132 Imperial gallons) each. These were car-
ried on new and stronger 04-48 shackles5
which necessitated changes to the wing struc-
ture. The fighter had provisions for carrying
production drop tanks or bombs on BD2-
48MiG pylons.·
Because of the greater endurance oxygen
system capacity was increased from 6 litres
(1.32 Imperial gallons) to 8 litres (1.76 Imperial
gallons). This aircraft and subsequent MiG-15s
were fitted with expander-tube wheel brakes
and more durable tyres to cope with the higher
gross weight (6,010kg/13,249Ib).
Designated izdeliye SD-UPB (s oovelichen-
nymi podvesnymi bahkami - with enlarged
drop tanks), the aircraft was tested by the OKB
from 10th June to 21 st July 1950. Manufac-
turer's tests showed the aircraft was prone to
rocking fore and aft during taxying and the
take-off/landing run; to remedy this, nose gear
shock absorber pressure and nosewheel tyre
pressure was reduced to 23 bars (328psi) and
2.5 bars (35.7psi) respectively.
On 8th August the aircraft was delivered to
Nil WS for State acceptance trials. Test flights
began on 14th August but were suspended five
days later after nine flights (including four with
drop tanks) because the pilots complained that
the landing gear was too stiff. The OKB autho-
rised operations with nose gear oleo and tyre
pressure increased to 30 bars (428psi) and 4.2
bars (60psi) respectively; however, the rocking
problem reappeared and the pressure had to
be reduced again to 26 to 27 bars (371 to
385psi) and 3.5 bars (50psi) respectively
before taxying behaviour was satisfactory. Test-
ing resumed on 20th September and was com-
pleted 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 loads
with full drop tanks were limited to 3.76 at
speeds above 450km/h (243kts) lAS; otherwise,
the aircraft was no different in performance and
handling from the standard MiG-15bis.
Even though the specified range target was
met, the aircraft was rejected by the WS. The
reason was that speed with drop tanks was
limited to 650km/h (351 kts) , which was not
good enough for escorting IL-28 and Tu-14
jet bombers; the required speed was at least
700km/h (378kts). Conversely, the piston-
engined Tu-4 was unable to keep up with the
fighter; at its minimum speed in stable flight
with drop tanks (350km/h or 189kts), the
SD-UPB was 30 to 67km/h (16 to 36kts) faster
than the bomber in economical cruise mode.
MiG-15 25
The cockpit became extremely cold and
uncomfortable in prolonged cruise at high alti-
tude. Finally, the fighter lacked ILS and IFF
equipment.
There was an incident with the new tanks
during the trials. The venting system apparently
malfunctioned, creating a partial vacuum inside
the tanks as fuel was used up. When the aircraft
descended from 10,000m (32,808ft) to 1,500m
(4,921ft) in 4.5 minutes with the engine at low
rpm, the quickly rising external air pressure
crushed the noses of the drop tanks completely.
This led Mikoyan to develop new 600 litre
slipper tanks with a blended shape for the
SO-UPS. As compared to the standard slipper
tank, the new tank was 100mm (3.93in) nar-
rower at the top but of 30mm (1.18in) greater
diameter; the forward portion was reinforced
and 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). The
new tanks were carried on 04-50 shackles.
The SO-UPS completed initial flight tests
with the redesigned 600 litre tanks in November
1950. In January 1951 the aircraft was turned
over to Nil WS for checkout tests and passed
them satisfactorily. The test report said that the
MiG-15bis could be flown with the 600 litre drop
tanks at up to 820km/h (443kts) or Mach 0.85,
which was acceptable. However, violent
manoeuvring was out of the question; G loads
with full drop tanks were again limited to 3.76.
On 11th April 1951 the Council of Ministers
issued directive No 1169-586, ordering the air-
craft into service as the MiG-15bisS; the S
denoted soprovozhdeniye (escort). (The air-
craft has been referred to as 'MiG-15Sbis' in
some publications but this is incorrect, since
the aircraft was a development of the basic
MiG-15bis and there was no such version as
'MiG-15S'.) Council of Ministers directive
N03099-1454 (23rd August 1951) and MAP
directive No 849 (1 st September) ordered the
production of 100 Fagot-Bs to this standard in
26 MiG-15
Saratov in the same year, but only 49 were actu-
ally built.
With 600 litre production drop tanks MiG-
15bisS had a maximum range of 2,520km
(1,362nm) at 12,000m (39,370ft); endurance
was 3hrs 52min. In comparison, the basic
Fagot-B without external tanks had a range of
only 1,330km (718nm) and an endurance of
2hrs 6min at the same altitude. Total fuel capac-
ity of the MiG-15bisS was 2,612 litres (574.64
Imperial gallons); take-off weight increased to
6,106kg (13,461Ib).
MiG-15bisR (izdeliye SR; izdeliye 55)
photo reconnaissance aircraft
Early MiG-15s carried an AFA-IM recce camera
with rather limited capabilities which was
removed in 1950 to make room for new equip-
ment. Later, however, plans evolved to create a
photo reconnaissance (PHOTINT) version of
the MiG-15bis. Over the years, the Soviet Air
Force had had no specialised tactical PHOTI NT
aircraft; this role was traditionally filled by in-
service fighters, attack aircraft and light
bombers fitted with cameras and extra fuel
tanks to extend range. This tried and tested
approach was applied to the MiG-15bis as well.
On 25th April 1950 the Council of Ministers
issued directive No 1706-663, followed by MAP
directive No 316 three days later. Soth docu-
ments ordered the Mikoyan OKS to develop a
short-range tactical reconnaissance version of
the MiG-15bis equipped with an AFA-SA/40
camera and submit it for State acceptance
trials in July.
The prototype, assigned the manufacturer's
designation 'izdeliye SR' - ie, izdeliye S,
[samolyot-] razvedchik, reconnaissance air-
craft' - was converted from a production ILS-
equipped MiG-15bis (the 20th Gor'kiy-built
Fagot-B, c/n 53210120, no serial). The AFA-
SA/40 camera with a 40mm focal length was
mounted on the weapons tray between frames
8a and 9 and 'fired' from a control panel in the
cockpit. The inboard NS-23KM cannon had to
be deleted, since the new camera was bulkier
than the original AFA-IM. The camera installa-
tion incurred virtually no weight penalty.
State acceptance trials began later than
planned, on 15th August 1950. The delay was
due to the OKS making several changes aimed
at improving working conditions for the pilot. A
canopy with single glazing was fitted instead of
the standard double-glazed canopy which was
prone to misting and icing, and a GF-1103
chemical filter was introduced in the cockpit
pressurization system to stop kerosene fumes.
Also, hydraulic pressure was reduced from 140
bars (2,000psi) to 125 bars (1 ,785psi) to extend
the service life of hydraulic system compo-
nents.
The trials were completed on 16th Septem-
ber, and the result was a thumbs-down. The
reasons were the camera installation's insuffi-
cient coverage width (mainly due to the lack of
a tilting camera mount for two-strip photo-
graphy), the impossibility to perform recon-
naissance below 2,400m (7,874ft) or tactical
reconnaissance below 1,600m (5,249ft) because
the AFA-SA/21 wide-angle camera could not be
fitted, and inconvenience of operation.
The upgraded cockpit was also deemed
unsatisfactory because the canopy misting/
icing problem persisted and the chemical filter
was inefficient. The cockpit was excessively hot
during climb to 5,000m (16,404ft) but became
too cold for comfort after 30 or 40 minutes at
1O,OOOm (32,808ft). One feature the military did
like was the heating system for the pilot's feet.
On the other hand, the aircraft's perfor-
mance and armament were considered to be
adequate. For instance, combat radius with
10% fuel reserves on a typical mission involving
cruise at 10,000m (32,808ft) and 10 minutes of
air-to-air combat was 366km (198nm) in high-
speed reconnaissance mode and 414km
(223nm) in maximum-range mode on internal
fuel only; with drop tanks it increased to 557km
(301 nm) and 626km (338nm) respectively.
Range became even greater when the stan-
dard S02-48MiG weapons racks were
replaced by 04-50 racks, enabling 600 litre
(132 Imperial gallon) drop tanks to be carried.
View from the cockpit of the MiG-15bisR
reconnaissance 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 Imperial
gallons) drop tanks at L11 in 1954.
Yefim Gordon archive
These two shots illustrate the different serial
styles worn by Kuybyshev·built Fagots. The style
used on 182 Red (c/n 121082) was rarely used;
most aircraft had the serial painted on in the
manner shown on 588 Red (c/n 125088). Note
that 182 Red has the RV·2 radio altimeter aerial
located under the belly. Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-15 27
Oxygen system capacity was increased to 8
litres (1.76 Imperial gallons) and an SRO-1
Bariy-M IFF transponder fitted at the same time.
Development of the aerial camera continued
during 1951. After ground rig tests the camera
was reinstalled and the aircraft was ferried to
Nil WS for renewed tests which ended on 10th
July 1951.
In early August the Council of Ministers stat-
ed that the Soviet Air Force was ill-equipped for
reconnaissance duties. It also stated that the
Ministry of Defence and MAP had underesti-
mated the importance of state-of-the-art tacti-
cal and long-range jet recce aircraft without
which tactical aviation would be blind and the
strategic bomber a~m unable to hit its targets
accurately. Hence on 3rd August the .SR was
included int9 the WS inventory pursuant to
directive No f817-1338 as the MiG-15bisR (ie,
MiG-15bis-raZvedchik; the designation MiG-
15Rbis quot$d sometimes is incorrect).
The recce\iersion ente,red production at the
Gor'kiy aircraft factory aimost simultaneously
with the basic Fagot-B, rElceiving a separate in-
house product code, 'izdeliye 55'; the first pro-
duction aircraft had the cln 55210101. All
production MiG-15bisRs had NR-23 cannons.
The MiG-15bisR usually flew with 600 litre slip-
per tanks but other types of drop tanks could
be used as well. The aircraft remained in ser-
vice for a long time until replaced by PHOTINT
aircraft based on later-generation combat jets.
MiG-15bis (izdeliye SD-ET)
development aircraft
As noted earlier, the lack of self-contained
engine starting had been a standing complaint
ever since the MiG-15 first flew. On 16th Febru-
ary 1952 the Council of Ministers issued direc-
tive No 3169rs concerning the introduction of
this capability. After the new 12SAM-25 DC bat-
tery had been successfully tested, a Novosi-
birsk-built MiG-15bis (1141 Red, cln 1115341)
was fitted with an ST2-48 starter (the same
model as on the IL-28).
Tests held during 5th-10th March, 1952
showed that the 12SAM-25 battery enabled at
least ten sorties lasting 30 to 40 minutes with
self-contained engine starting. With the 12A-30
battery, engine starting was slow, but the old
battery could still be used until the 12SAM-25
entered production. As a 'belt-and-braces poli-
cy', provisions for engine starting in the usual
way (from a ground power source) were
retained. The modification did not require
major changes to the electric system and
added only 7kg (15.43Ib) to the aircraft's
empty weight.
The aircraft was also used to test a series of
improvements - eg, an ART-8V engine acceler-
ation control unit (avtomaht regooleerovaniya
topliva - automatic fuel [flow) control device)
instead of the earlier ART-1 V, which allowed the
pilot to move the throttle sharply at high altitude
in order to put on a burst of speed. A PN-2FAK
fuel flow limiter was added to prevent engine
overspeeding and a DK-6K minimum fuel pres-
28 MiG-15
sure limiter to provide steady engine operation
at low rpm.
The back-plates of the NR-23 cannons were
reinforced. Nose gear oleo pressure and tyre
pressure were reduced. Hydraulic pressure
was reduced from 140kg/cm2 (2,000psi) to
130kg/cm2 (1 ,857psi) to improve hydraulic sys-
tem operation. A Mach meter was installed that
automatically initiated airbrake deployment at a
preset speed. The drop tank jettisoning pattern
was changed, enabling the pilot to set the tanks
for self-destruction (!) after jettisoning. A GF-
1103 chemical filter was introduced in the air
conditioning system to clean the air supplied to
the cockpit.
The aircraft, which was assigned the comp-
any designation 'izdeliye SD-ET', passed its
State acceptance trials successfully and the
go-ahead was given to many features tested on
this MiG-15bis.
MiG-15bisP (izdeliye SP-1)
experimental interceptor
During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the air
forces of NATO nations re-equipped with jet
bombers capable of nuclear strikes against the
USSR from European and Asian bases. The
high speed of these aircraft made visual inter-
ception almost impossible in anything but the
clearest weather, so the Soviet Union was faced
with the task of equipping its interceptors with
radar.
The first Soviet airborne radars - the Gneys
(Gneiss) series developed during the Second
World War - enabled the fighter pilot to detect
the presence of the target but could not be
used for gun-aiming. This meant the pilot could
not open fire until he was within visual range of
the target. (And here we are, back where we
started.) The objective was to develop an air-
craft radar which allowed interception in instru-
ment meteorological conditions without unduly
compromising the fighter's performance.
The officials were quick to react. On 17th
December 1948, even before the would-be
enemy bombers entered service, MAP issued
directive No 939 ordering the development of
an airborne radar for interceptors. Considering
the complexity of the task, the research estab-
lishments and OKBs with the greatest expertise
were entrusted with radar development. All four
Soviet fighter OKBs joined in the program.
The Mikoyan team chose the Toriy (Thorium)
radar developed by NII-178 under chief project
engineer A B Slepooshkin, the Soviet radar
technology pioneer. It was a single-antenna
centimetre-waveband unit specially designed
for the MiG-15. Mikoyan engineers favoured
the Toriy because, having just one antenna, it
did not require radical changes to the MiG-15's
structure and aerodynamics. However, it had
no automatic target tracking mode, which was
a major shortcoming. Tracking had to be per-
formed manually by the pilot - or by a radar
intercept officer (RIO) if a two-seat version was
developed, so the Mikoyan OKB explored both
single-seat and two-seat concepts.
The single-seat aircraft was to be based on
the MiG-15bis and designated izdeliye SP-1 -
ie, izdeliye S, perekhvahtchik (interceptor), ver-
sion 1. In contrast, the two-seater - the 1-320
'Mk 2' (izdeliye R) twin-engined h,eavy inter-
ceptor - was designed from scratch and lies
outside the scope of this book. Both were
equipped with the Toriy radar.
The original SP-1, however, was converted
from a very early Kuybyshev-built Fagot-A (c/n
102005, no serial), not from a bis. The forward
fuselage up to frame 9 was redesigned to
accommodate the radar set and dish. The
radar dish was located in a large bullet-shaped
fairing on top of the air intake which, despite its
bulk, reduced intake cross-section only slightly
but protruded perceptibly above the nose con-
tour. The radome increased the aircraft's over-
all length by 120mm (4.72in). The S-13 gun
camera was moved from its usual location on
top to the starboard side of the air intake.
The nose gear unit was moved forward
80mm (3.15in) and reinforced to absorb the
weight of the radar. This required the lower por-
tion of the intake splitter to be widened to
accommodate the wheel well, which was
closed by a single door opening to port instead
of the usual twin doors. A special dielectric
material had to be developed for the radome.
The canopy was modified to accommodate the
radar display and PKI-1 collimator gunsight,
featuring a new windscreen with the 64mm
thick bulletproof windshield farther forward
than usual.
The standard RD-45F engine was replaced
by a VK-1 which necessitated changes to the aft
fuselage structure a la MiG-15bis. Enlarged
MiG-15bis-style airbrakes were fitted. The
wings and tail unit were similar to those of the
production MiG-15, except for wing anhedral
increased to 30 and increased elevator and rud-
der aerodynamic balance. A B-7 hydraulic
actuator was introduced in the aileron control
circuit.
To make up for the weight penalty incurred
by the radar the two portside NR-23 cannons
were deleted, leaving the SP-1 with a single
37mm N-37D cannon with 45 rounds (some
sources state 60 rounds). This was located as
close to the fuselage centreline as possible
(closer than on the standard aircraft) in order to
maintain balance; hence the nose gear unit had
to be redesigned with half-fork on the port side
instead of the usual fork. The cannon was fixed
and accessed via simple hinged cowls, the
usual weapons tray being dispensed with.
A 6kW GS-6000 DC generator supplanted
the standard GSK-1500, and a separate SGS-
7,5/3 AC generator powered the radar. Other
equipment included an MRP-48 marker beacon
receiver, an ARK-5 ADF and an RSIU-3 UHF
radio.
The aircraft was completed in April 1949 and
test-flown by Mikoyan test pilots A N Cher-
noboorov and Gheorgiy A Sedov from 23rd
April 1949 to 20th January 1950. The tests
lagged behind schedule because of problems
 - - - - _... __ ..• -----------------------~--------------------
with the new VK-1 engine and late delivery of
the radar (for which Slepooshkin was twice rep-
rimanded). This was followed by State accep-
tance trials which lasted from 31 st January to
20th May 1950.
Tests showed that the wing drop problem
affected the SP-1 as well; the aircraft became
uncontrollable at 940 to 950km/h (508 to
513kts). Hence the inboard boundary layer
fences on both wings were reinforced, increas-
ing wing torsional stiffness and alleviating the
problem. Besides, the radar was rather unreli-
able, shutting down of its own accord if engine
rpm dropped below 7,600 to 8,000 and 'acting
up' when the cannon was fired.
From 23rd to 29th August, 1950 the SP-1
went through further tests, after which MAP
issued directive No 999 on 28th December
ordering the construction of a small batch of
these aircraft for service trials. Work on conver-
sion blueprints began in 1951. During the same
year five new-build Fagot-Bs were converted by
the Kuybyshev factory to SP-1 standard; these
aircraft have sometimes been called MiG-
15bisP. As a point of interest, five Lisunov Li-2
Cab transports (licence-built Douglas C-47s)
were converted into radar trainers equipped
with the Toriy radar by their manufacturer, the
Tashkent aircraft factory No 84.
One of the five production SP-1 s was turned
over to Nil WS on 25th November 1951 for
checkout tests. Test pilots Stepan P Sooproon,
Yuriy A Antipov, A Blagoveschchenskiy, Ye I
Dzyuba, Piboolenko, Kalachov and Vasiliy G
Ivanov made successful intercepts, with IL-28
and Tu-4 bombers acting as practice targets.
The Toriy radar could be mastered only by
highly experienced pilots because they were
required to fly the aircraft and track the target
simultaneously. This was too difficult for the
average pilot, so the Mikoyan OKB switched to
a twin-antenna Izumrood (Emerald) radar sys-
tem developed by Viktor V Tikhomeerov, NII-17
Director since June 1950, leaving work on a sin-
gle-antenna system for a future time when reli-
able automatic target tracking equipment
would be available. (Developrnent of the Izum-
rood radar had been intiated by MAP directive
No 933 on 23rd November 1949.)
Meanwhile, A B Slepooshkin continued refin-
ing his radar. An improved Toriy-A prototype
was built, which later evolved into the Korshoon
(Kite, a bird of prey) airborne radar. Both were
flight-tested on the 1-320 and SP-2 (the latter
was a follow-on to the SP-1 , a similarly convert-
ed MiG-17F). Neither model entered produc-
tion and went into service because Soviet
electronic components were, putting it mildly,
less than state-of-the-art and the radars worked
unsatisfactorily.
After Stalin's death and normalization in the
country, advanced technologies began devel-
oping rapidly, enabling the USSR to compete
with the West in the race for technological
superiority. This led to quick development of
fire control radars using reliable electronics,
allowing operational radars to be installed on
Soviet interceptors by the late 1950s.
The SP-1 was Mikoyan's first attempt to
create an all-weather interceptor.
Both Mikoyan OKB
The aircraft's nose is dominated by the bulbous
radome of the Toriy-A radar. Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-1Sbis (izdeliye SP-S)
experimental interceptor
In the early 1950s the Mikoyan OKB continued
the development of radar-equipped intercep-
tors. Two types of radars (referred to as 'radio
sights' in Soviet terminology of the time) were
then under development in the USSR: the so-
called autonomous, or single-antenna, radars
and twin-antenna radars integrated with ordi-
nary optical gunsights. Unlike the former type
which had its own computer, the twin-antenna
radar fed target data to the computing gunsight
which displayed the target as a blip, the size of
which depended on target range.
NII-17 started designing the RP-1 Izumrood-
1 radar (RP = rahdiopreetsel - radio sight) in
1948. This project was considered to be of
minor importance, mainly as an insurance pol-
icy in case the Toriy autonomous radar turned
out to be a lemon (which it did). The lzumrood
provided target search, autotracking and
attack in the fighter's forward hemisphere (in
conjunction with the ASP-3N optical sight) and
identified the target in conjunction with the IFF
system. The main advantage of the new radar
was that it could be installed quite easily in a
single-seat aircraft, since pilot workload was
significantly lower than with the Toriy.
Designing the lzumrood took three years of
hard work. It was a centimetre-waveband
(S-band) radar with a 50 to 60kW transmitter,
two aerials and two modes of operation: search
and aiming (tracking). In search mode the
radar had a 12km (6.48nm) range9 and a field
MiG-15 29
of view of ±60° in azimuth and +26/-16 0 in
elevation, scanning through the entire field of
view in 1.33 sec. Tracking mode was switched
on automatically when the target was in a yo for-
ward cone and at approximately 2km (1.08nm)
range. At this range, autotracking accuracy
was 10 and 150m (492ft).
The radar featured a cathode-ray tube (CRT)
with a high retention (viewing) time enabling
the pilot to observe multiple targets simultane-
ously; it also showed artificial horizon markers
for attitude reference. The CRT was originally
viewed through the ASP-3N sight by means
of mirrors, though on production aircraft
equipped with the RP-1 it was a separate unit.
Interception was performed as follows.
Assisted by ground control, the interceptor
pilot entered the area where the intruder was
supposed to be and switched on the radar,
scanning the forward hemisphere in search
mode. When the target was acquired the ASP-
3N showed it as a blip of varying shape - 'T' if
the target was above the fighter's flight level,
'inverted T' if it was below the fighter's flight
level or '+' if it was on the same level. The pilot
The SP-5 interceptor prototype during
manufacturer's tests. Mikoyan OKS
The same aircraft during State acceptance trials.
Note the test equipment fairing under the centre
fuselage. Yefim Gordon archive
30 MiG-15
was to make sure he was on the same level with
the target and close in on it so that the blip
crossed the CRT's centreline, entering the
radar's autotracking zone. Then the gunsight
showed the target as a blip with wings
(==0==). known in pilot slang as the ptitsa
(bird), the wingspan depending on the target's
range. When the range was right the computer
gave the OK to fire. The radar not only indicat-
ed target range and position relative to the
fighter but also target motion, enabling the pilot
to make an attack manoeuvre and cut across
the target's path.
The Mikoyan OKS decided to try the Izum-
rood-1 radar for its all-weather interceptor. The
main challenge in fitting the RP-1 was in finding
the best locations for the two antennas in the
forward fuselage. At length, the engineers
incorporated the search antenna into the air
intake upper lip and the tracking antenna into
the air intake splitter. This arrangement with its
characteristic twin radomes ('fat lip' and small
bullet-shaped intake centrebody) became
standard for all Mikoyan aircraft equipped with
the Izumrood radar.
To implement this upgrade, a production
MiG-15bis was converted to take the Izumrood-
1 radar. The changes to the airframe were less
extensive than in the case of the SP-1 ; the for-
ward fuselage was redesigned up to frame 9.
Interestingly, the search antenna radome built
into the air intake upper lip had a downturned
lower edge; this was to change on later aircraft
equipped with the Izumrood radar."
The modified nose housed 15 radar equip-
ment modules, including an MA-1500 trans-
former for the radar. The canopy windscreen
was redesigned in a similar manner to the SP-1
to accommodate the radar display but had two
additional frame members on top.
The armament was reduced to two NR-23
cannons (left and right) with 120 and 90 rounds
respectively; the starboard cannon protruded
while the port one was buried. The cannons
more or less balanced each other and did not
have to be placed so close to the fuselage cen-
treline as on the SP-1, which meant the stan-
dard nose gear unit could be retaiped. In a
similar manner to the SP-1, the S-13 gun cam-
era was relocated to the starboard side of the
intake; an identical camera was arranged in a
prominent thimble fairing atop the windscreen
to photograph a pilot's eye view of the target
through the sight reticle. The aircraft was fitted
with an OSP-48 ILS and an RSI-6 HF radio set;
provision was made for the Sariy-M IFF
transponder.
Known in-house as izdeliye SP-5 (and like-
wise referred to by some sources as MiG-
15bisP), the interceptor prototype with the
Izumrood radar was completed in mid-1950.
Manufacturer's trials were performed by NII-17,
with the Mikoyan OKS providing technical sup-
port. Initial flight tests at the hands of V M
Malyugin took place from 22nd August to 9th
September 1950, with A E Ber as project engi-
neer. These were followed by radar perfor-
mance tests which lasted until 30th July 1951.
At this stage of the trials a sizable fairing hous-
ing test equipment was added under the cen-
tre fuselage.
After that, the aircraft was turned over to Nil
WS for State acceptance trials at the hands of
Air Force test pilots N Zakharov and V Levko,
with good results. For instance, from 30th
August to 7th September 1951 the SP-5 suc-
cessfully passed cannon firing trials at the
Kooshalino test range near Moscow, destroy-
ing unseen towed targets in instrument meteo-
rological conditions (IMC). The radar's efficiency
in IMC was judged to equal that of the standard
ASP-3N gunsight in visual meteorological con-
ditions (VMC) and six or seven times greater
than that of the Toriy radar.
Given the lack of other comparable equip-
ment for night/all-weather targeting, the State
commission recommended the Izumrood-1
radar for production. Still, the RP-1 was not fit-
ted to production MiG-15s, entering service in
1952 on the more capable MiG-17P/PF Fresco-
BID fighters. It was subsequently developed
into the RP-2, RP-3 and RP-5 Izumrood-2
radars; the latter model was fitted to late
MiG-17PFs, as well as to the MiG-17PFU and
MiG-19PM interceptors armed with RS-2US
(K-5) semi-active radar homing (SARH) mis-
siles. Thus, the SP-5 may well be regarded as
an avionics testbed.
MiG-15bis (izdeliye SL-5) engine testbed
In June and July 1951 the Mikoyan OKB con-
verted a production MiG-15bis aircraft to take
the new Klimov VK-5 centrifugal-flow engine
rated at 3,000kg (6,613Ib). To this end the main
engine bearers were changed, the fuselage
tail cone was modified and a new extension jet-
pipe installed. The manufacturer's designation
was izdeliye SL-5, the L obviously standing
for [/etayuschchaya] laboratoriya - in this
instance, engine testbed.
The converted aircraft was delivered to L11 on
20th July 1951 for flight tests which lasted from
15th August to 31 st October 1951. The idea
was not pursued further because axial-flow
engines were clearly superior to centrifugal-
flow engines.
MiG-15bis (izdeliye SYe, LL)
aerodynamics research aircraft
In order to eliminate the MiG-15's reverse roll
reaction to rudder inputs at high speeds L11
engineers I M Pashkovskiy and D I Mazoorskiy
proposed offloading the ailerons and increas-
ing rudder area. Following TsAGI recommen-
dations, a Mikoyan OKB team under V P
Yatsenko designed new wingtips with a modi-
fied airfoil and an angular trailing edge. The
ailerons were also modified so that their span
and area was increased but overall wing span
remained unchanged. Also, the height and
area of the vertical tail were increased to
improve controllability. The redesign was initi-
ated by MAP directive No 939 issued on 2nd
December 1950.
Blueprints for the changes were issued in
December 1950. Since the MiG-15's mid-set
horizontal tail required the fin and rudder to be
built in two sections to simplify manufacturing,
the engineers chose not to design an all-new
vertical tail but simply fitted a new upper fin and
rudder section to the existing lower fin. The new
assembly was taller and the upper fin section
had increased and constant chord (unlike the
tapered standard fin). This resulted in a kinked
leading edge and made the aircraft look rather
incongruous with its outsize tail.
The aircraft received the manufacturer's des-
ignation 'izdeliye SYe', the letter Ye probably
standing for yedinitsa (lit. 'single unit' but more
appropriately translated as 'one-off'). It was
also known as LL (Ietayuschchaya laboratoriya)
- in this instance, aerodynamics research air-
craft - and has also been referred to in some
sources as MiG-15LL, though this designation
is doubtful. Three Fagot-Bs - two flying proto-
types, including 510 Red (c/n 125010), and a
static test airframe - were built in this form in
Kuybyshev in March 1951; the static test air-
frame was delivered to TsAGI on 23rd March.
The aircraft were tested at L11 in June and
July 1951 by Anatoliy M Tyuterev. Tests revealed
that the structural changes <;lid not resolve the
reverse roll reaction problem and the program
was abandoned.
MiG-15bis avionics testbed
with SRO-3 Grad gun ranging radar
In mid-1952 the Mikoyan OKB converted a pro-
duction MiG-15bis into a testbed for the SRD-3
Grad (Hail; pronounced grahd) gun ranging
radar, a reverse-engineered copy of the
AN/APG-30 fitted to the North American F-86
Sabre, an example of which had been captured
in Korea (see Chapter 4). No separate desig-
nation has been quoted. Little is known of this
aircraft except that the forward fuselage was
redesigned up to frame 4; the radome was built
into the intake upper lip, causing the S-13 gun
camera to be relocated to the starboard side of
the intake. The SRD-3 was later tested on a
modified MiG-17 designated izdeliye SG.
MiG-15M target drone
When the MiG-15 was phased out by the WS,
a number of Fagots with some airframe life
left on them were converted into target drones
with remote control equipment replacing the
ejection seat. Conversion took place at the
Air Force's aircraft overhaul plant in L'vov. Des-
ignated MiG-15M (mishen' - target), they
were used until the early 1990s along with the
Soviet Air Force's principal target aircraft, the
La-17MM drone for training Air Defence Force
(PVO - Protivovozdooshnaya oborona) inter-
ceptor pilots and surface-to-air missile crews.
The designation M-15 has also been used; curi-
ously, this coincides with the designation of
a Polish jet-powered agricultural biplane (PZL
M-15 Belfegor) used on a small scale in the
Soviet Union. Several MiG-15Ms were operat-
ed by GLiTs (the State Flight Test Centre, ex-Nil
WS) in Akhtoobinsk.
MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-21)
development aircraft
On 15th December 1951 the Council of Minis-
ters issued directive No 5119-2226, followed by
MAP directive No 1264 eleven days later. These
documents ordered the Mikoyan OKB to
expand the MiG-15's tactical envelope by
enabling it to carry external stores for use
against both ground and aerial targets (I). The
first of these was to be a ground attack version
armed with two heavy unguided rockets.
A gliding scale model of the izdeliye SYe
aerodynamics research aircraft was used to
verify the changes before the real thing was
built. Note landing skid.
Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-15 31
 To meet this objective the Mikoyan OKB
fitted a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15bis serialled
407 Red (c/n 134007) with 03-40 shackles on
small pylons located about halfway between
the main gear units and the drop tank attach-
ment points. These carried 212mm (8.35in)
ARS-212 (S-21) rockets on APU-O-212 launch-
ers developed in April 1952. 10 S-13 gun cam-
eras were mounted aft of the pylons to record
test launches.
The aircraft featured a special AP-21 sight
based on the standard ASP-3NM. Accurate
sighting range was 400 to 800m (1,312 to
2,624ft) for the rockets and 180 to 800m (590 to
2,624ft) for the standard cannons. However, the
sight did not enable simultaneous. cannon fire
and rocket launch, which meant one of two
sighting modes (cannons or rockets) had to be
selected before commencing an attack. The
maximum payload comprised two rockets and
two 300 litre (66 Imperial gallon) slipper tanks;
the latter had to be jettisoned before the rock-
ets were fired.
Designated izdeliye SO-21 (ie, izdeliye SO
armed with 21-cm rockets), 407 Red was
turned over to Nil WS on 31 st May 1952. The
aircraft passed its State acceptance trials with
flying colours and was recommended for pro-
duction. However, the AS-21 weapons system
was never actually used by the MiG-15bis for
some reason; instead, it was fitted to MiG-17s
operated by fighter-bomber units of the WS.
Thus the SO-21 can be regarded as a weapons
testbed.

MiG-15bis (izdeliye SO-57)

development aircraft
In June 1952 a MiG-15bis serialled 803 Red
was fitted with two experimental rocket pods,
each with twelve ORO-57 launcher tubes" for
57mm (2.24in) ARS-57 Skvorets (Starling; pro-
nounced skvorets) folding-fin aircraft rockets.
Above: 510 Red (c/n 125010), one of the two izdeliye 5Ye research aircraft. Both Yefim Gordon archive
The pods were carried on 04-50 shackles at the
standard drop tank attachment points. The air-
craft received the designation 'izdeliye SO-57'
(ie, izdeliye SO armed with 57mm rockets). The
programme was undertaken under contract
with OKB-16, a weapons design bureau. The
ARS-57 FFAR (also designated S-5) was widely
used on later Soviet tactical aircraft.

MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-5)

a;;;rr::::: i. •~·===-- development aircraft
t In November 1952 another MiG-15bis was con-
verted at plant No 21 in Gor'kiy. The aircraft had
03-40 shackles for carrying two FFAR pods,
each with eight ORO-57 launcher tubes for
ARS-57 FFARs. Firing was electrically con-
trolled; AKS-2 gun cameras were fitted aft of the
pods to record test launches. Designated
izdeliye SO-5, the aircraft was tested but did not
enter production.

Left: 407 Red (c/n 134007), the 50-21 weapons

testbed with AR5·212 (5-21) rockets.
Mikoyan OKB

32 MiG-15

MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-10)
development aircraft
A version of the MiG-15bis with the designation
izdeliye SO-10 was developed with the inten-
tion that it would be used in combatting enemy
bomber formations by dropping two 100kg
(220Ib) PROSAB-100 anti-aircraft bombs (pro-
tivosamolyotnaya aviabomba). The bombs
were carried on 04-50 shackles. In other
respects, the aircraft did not differ from the pro-
duction Fagot-B. The aircraft commenced its
State acceptance trials at Nil WS on 29th Feb-
ruary 1952.
It has to be said that the idea was nothing
new, having been pioneered on the Petlyakov
VI-100 high-altitude fighter (the immediate pre-
decessor of the Pe-2 dive bomber) back in
1939; however, it was Germany that used the
concept operationally against Allied night
bombers during the Second World War.
MiG-15bis (izdeliye 50-25)
development aircraft
Another MiG-15bis armed with two 250kg
(551 Ib) PROSAB-250 bombs commenced
State acceptance trials in late March 1952; this
aircraft was designated izdeliye SO-25. Tests
showed that the thin shell of the anti-aircraft
bombs was deformed by the shackles in flight.
Modifications were made to the shackles to
cure the problem and this rather unorthodox
weapons system was recommended for ser-
vice use.
i •
/ Stage 1 of the State acceptance trials in 1952
--r
t
The SO-57 weapons testbed (803 Red) was used
to test ARS-57 Skvorets FFARs. Mikoyan OKS
539 Red (c/n 135039) was used to test the Grad
aerial minelaying system. The minelaying pods
were converted from standard slipper tanks.
Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-15bis (izdeliye SO-??)
'aerial minelayer' development aircraft
The Yakovlev design bureau (OKB-115) tried a
slightly different approach to killing off
bombers in large numbers, developing the
Grad (hail; pronounced grahd) system for the
MiG-15. The system consisted of two pods con-
verted from standard 260 litre (57.2 Imperial
gallon) MiG-15 slipper tanks. Each pod incor-
porated seven cassettes and contained 56
parachute-retarded mines dropped in packs of
eight through two sets of ventral clamshell
doors.
The port and starboard pods 'fired' simulta-
neously. Two drop modes were possible - the
four rearmost packs followed by the remaining
three or all seven packs at once. In both cases
the cassettes were discharged in reverse order
(7 through 1). A warning system was activated
if any pack of mines got stuck in the pod (and
could come unstuck on landing, blowing the
fighter to bits).
Two late-production Kuybyshev-built bises -
511 Red (c/n 135011) and 539 Red (c/n
135039) were used to test the Grad system.
The latter aircraft (possibly both) had a small
fairing aft of the nose gear housing cine cam-
eras which recorded mine separation. After
both aircraft were returned to OK8-115 for cor-
rection of deficiencies (the .mines struck the
pods and wings when dropped, causing dam-
age, and in several cases the parachutes of the
individual mines got entangled with each
other). The problems were cured by introduc-
ing a pneumatic mine ejection system; com-
pressed air was supplied by a cylindrical bottle
in the pod's nosecone.
Renewed manufacturer's tests conducted
by Fyodor L Abramov showed that the system
worked excellently and was easy to use. Still, in
August 1953 MAP issued a directive terminat-
ing further development of the Grad system.
MiG-15bis (Fagot-B)
attack and fighter-bomber versions
After the Second World War, the Soviet Air
Force attack units re-equipped first with
Ilyushin IL-10 Beast piston-engined attack air-
craft (a development of the IL-2M-3 Bark of
Great Patriotic War fame) and then the
improved IL-10M. These aircraft had adequate
performance to meet the requirements for
close air support (CAS) aircraft in the early
postwar years. The advent of jet fighters, how-
ever, necessitated the development of faster
and more survivable CAS aircraft.
The heaVily armed and armoured 'flying
tank' attack aircraft concept found ready
acceptance in the USSR. A number of strike
aircraft prototypes were built, including the
piston-engined IL-20 of 1948 which was obso-
lete by the time it appeared, the twinjet IL-40
Brawny of 1953 and the turboprop Tu-91
Bychok (Goby fish)/Boot shipboard attack air-
craft of 1956 which was at least ten years ahead
of its time. However, these aircraft fell victim to
the Soviet leader Nikita Sergeyevich Khrusch-
chov's predilection towards intercontinental
ballistic missiles and his lack offaith in manned
strike aircraft which killed off many promising
designs.
Thus, by the early 1950s the WS was left
with virtually no operational battlefield support
aircraft. This gap was filled by re-equipping
attack units (and fighter-bomber units from
1957 onwards) with Fagot-Bs transferred from
fighter units. To this end the MiG-15bis was
retrofitted with two 803-56 pylons about
halfway between the main gear units and the
drop tank attachment points. Possible
weapons options were two ORO-57K rocket
pods with S-5M or S-5K FFARs, two S-1-0F"
HVARs on ORO-212K launchers, and up to four
bombs of 50 to 250kg (110 to 551 Ib) calibre
(including two on the standard drop tank
attachment points). The cannon armament
remained unchanged. All weapons were aimed
using the standard ASP-3N gunsight.
The prototype (24 Blue, ex-2811 Red, cln
2815311) was converted at plant No 21 in Gor'kiy
in early 1958, using documents supplied by the
MiG-15 33
Mikoyan OKB. Together with a similarly con-
verted MiG-17 (15 Blue, c/n 54210565) the air-
craft went directly to Nil WS for trials which
lasted from 4th March to 30th June 1959; the
MiG-15bis was flown by test pilots V S Seryogin
and V G Plyushkin who made a total of 114
flights on both aircraft. It was discovered that,
while enhancing the aircraft's combat potential,
the increased weapons load impaired perfor-
mance somewhat. With two 250kg bombs and
two 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 to
805m (2,641 ft). True airspeed with external
stores was limited to 805km/h (435kts).
Maximum G load was 7 without drop tanks
(regardless of other stores), 4.5 with full drop
tanks and 6 with empty drop tanks (regardless
of other stores). With four 250kg bombs or two
250kg bombs and two S-1 HVARs, landing was
impossible and two of the stores had to be jet-
tisoned before landing. Maximum fuel in the
event of a landing with external stores was lim-
ited to 500 litres (110 Imperial gallons).
Generally the results were satisfactory and
the conversion was recommended for service.
The Fagot-B served with fighter-bomber regi-
ments of the WS until 1960, when it was pro-
gressively replaced in the CAS role by Su-7B
Fitter-As and MiG-17s - likewise transferred
from fighter units.
34 MiG-15
As a fighter-bomber, the MiG-15bis was
handicapped by its modest bomb load of only
two 100kg (220Ib) bombs and the lack of ade-
quate navigation and weapons-aiming equip-
ment. Another disadvantage was the Fagot's
vulnerability to ground fire due to poor armour
protection consisting only of the bullet-proof
windshield, an armour plate installed in front of
the cockpit and the armoured headrest (the
armoured seat back was fitted to late-produc-
tion aircraft only). On the plus side, the MiG-
15bis was well armed with two 23mm cannons
and one 37mm cannon. In addition, it could
carry 57mm FFAR pods and powerfUl 190mm
(7.48in) and 212mm HVARs.
MiG-15bis (ISh)
experimental fighter/attack aircraft
In an attempt to enhance the combat potential
of the MiG-15bis, the Air Force's Aircraft
Operations and Repair Research Institute (Nil
ERAT WS - Naoochno-iss/edovatel'skiy insti-
toot eksplooatahtsii i remonta aviatseeonnoy
tekhnikl) developed a specialised attack ver-
sion in 1958-64. The aircraft was designated
MiG-15bis (ISh), the suffix standing for istrebi-
tel'-shtoormovik (fighter/attack aircraft).
The MiG-15bis (ISh) differed from the basic
Fagot-B in having reinforced wing spars and
huge weapons pylons extending far beyond
the wing leading edge about halfway between
the main gear units and the drop tank attach-
ment points. These were fitted with triple
weapons racks located in line, permitting the
carriage of three 50 to 100kg (110 to 2201b)
bombs, FFAR pods or heavy unguided rockets
under each wing. In order to fire the rockets
all six weapons racks could be inclined
downwards 15°; it was also possible to fire
rockets with zero deflection from the two for-
ward racks.
The MiG-15bis (ISh) was tested at Nil WS
and the 4th TsBPiPLS (Tsentr boyevoy podgo-
tovki i peeroochivamiya Iyotnovo sostahva -
Combat and Conversion Training Centre) in
Lipetsk, but did not enter service for three rea-
sons. Firstly, Soviet military doctri~e called for
a dedicated fighter-bomber and this require-
ment was filled by aircraft developed by the
Sukhoi OKB in the 1960s. Secondly, the MiG-15
was getting long in the tooth and was due
for retirement by the time the trials were com-
pleted. Finally, conversion to MiG-15bis (ISh)
standard was much more complicated and
expensive than the Mikoyan OKB's option.
An experimental batch of twelve aircraft was
built; some sources, though, quote a much
lower figure (three flying prototypes and a stat-
ic test airframe). One of them, a Novosibirsk-
built aircraft coded 27 Red (ex-2168 Red, c/n
2115368), survives at the Russian Air Force
Museum in Monino, east of Moscow.
24 Blue (ex-2811 Red, c/n 2815311), a MiG-15bis
converted into the 'production' fighter-bomber
prototype at the Gor'kiy aircraft factory in early
1958. The aircraft carries two 400 litre drop
tanks and two S-l heavy unguided rockets on
extra pylons. Yefim Gordon archive
l
MiG-15bis captive long-range
escort fighter (Project Burlaki)
When the Tu-4 Bull long-range heavy bomber
entered service with the WS in 1948, the prob-
lem of fighter escort arose. The USSR had
never had operational escort fighters; those
that 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, heavy
escort fighter) and the Tairov Ta-1 (OKO-6) - did
not progress beyond the prototype stage. The
reason, apart from development problems and
the wartime shortage of engines, was that the
escort fighter role could be filled quite nicely by
production tactical fighters of the time.
In 1948, however, the situation was different.
Since the potential adversary had jet fighters
capable of flying nearly twice as fast as the TU-4,
the bomber's prospects of reaching its targets
seemed doubtful. This was clearly demonstrat-
ed by USAF experience in the Korean War,
where the B-29 (from which the Tu-4 was
copied) sustained heavy losses from North
Koreari MiG-15 fighters.
In the USSR, the Tu-83 long-range escort
fighter based on the Tu-82 experimental twinjet
tactical bomber of 1949 was conceived but
abandoned at the PO stage. There were no
escort fighter modifications of Soviet intercep-
tors. The production Fagot was clearly unsuit-
ed for this role; even with 600 litre (132 Imperial
gallon) drop tanks, the MiG-15bisS had a range
of only 2,520km (1 ,362nm). This was adequate
for escorting IL-28 tactical bombers with a
range of 2,400km (1 ,297nm) but not enough to
escort the Tu-4 with its 5,400km (2,919nm)
range.
One way to crack the range problem was for
the bombers to carry captive or 'parasite' fight-
ers with them. In 1931-39, a Soviet design team
under Vladimir Sergeyevich Vakhmistrov devel-
oped seven fighter/bomber combinations
called zveno (flight, as a tactical unit), consist-
ing ofTupolev 1-4, Polikarpov 1-15 and 1-16, and
Grigorovich I-Z fighters carried in various com-
binations by Tupolev TB-1 and TB-3 bombers.
The ultimate Z-7 combination (TB-3 plus two
1-16s fitted out as dive-bombers) even saw lim-
ited operational use in the early stages of the
Great Patriotic War.
In the United States, experiments were car-
ried out after the Second World War with B-29s
carrying the minuscule McDonnell XF-85 Gob-
lin parasite fighter in the bomb bay or towing
Republic F-84 Thunderjet fighters. There were
also the FICON (fighter conveyor) and 'Tom-
Tom' programmes involving modified Convair
B-36Peacemaker bombers and F-84s. Created
to develop an escort capability, the FICON pro-
gramme was used for long-range reconnais-
sance rather than escort duties, RF-84K
Thunderflash PHOTINT aircraft being carried in
the bay of the B-36 in service.
A similar programme was conducted in the
USSR. In 1950, responding to a Long Range
Aviation (Dahl'nyaya aviahtsiya - long-range
aviation)" headquarters proposal, the Yakovlev
OKB began investigating ways of increasing
the range and endurance of escort fighters
without resorting to drop tanks. The argument
was that a fighter weighed down by drop tanks
becomes slow and sluggish, which spoils its
chances in a dogfight with enemy fighters.
The solution was a system enabling the
Tu-4 to tow MiG-15bis fighters, with automatic
coupling and uncoupling. In theory, it offered
two advantages: the bomber would still be able
to carry a full payload and the fighter would
be 'travelling light', its performance unaffected
by extra fuel. The system was code-named
27 Red (ex-2168 Red, c/n 2115368), the sole
surviving MiG-15bis (ISh) fighter·bomber, at the
Russian Air Force Museum in Monino. This view
shows the huge extra pylons to advantage.
Yuriy Popov
Burlaki (pronounced boorlakee). In 19th Cen-
tury Russia, the bur/aki were teams of strong-
men whose job was to haul barges up rivers by
means of ropes; the analogy with the towed
fighter concept was obvious.
The Yakovlev/OKB-30 system utilised a
drogue deployed by the Tu-4, the towing cable
running through an external conduit on the rear
fuselage portside to a winch in the fuselage
operated by the tail gunner. A pneumatically-
operated telescopic probe with a barbed tip
was installed atop the fighter's nose on the
fuselage centreline; it was promptly dubbed
'harpoon' and the appellation found its way into
official documents as well. The modus operan-
di was as follows. The bomber paid out 80 to
100m (262 to 328ft) of cable, the fighter closed
in on the drogue and 'fired' the 'harpoon' into
it; then the pilot shut down his engine and the
fighter was towed by the Tu-4 like a glider. If
enemy fighters attacked, the fighter pilot start-
ed his engine, broke contact with the bomber
and engaged the enemy, subsequently hook-
ing up to the bomber again for the journey
home.
(Incidentally, the Lockheed company tested
a similar system in mid-1947 on a modified
P-80A-1-LO (44-84995I'PN-995'). Much has
been said about the apparent Soviet custom of
copying Western designs. However, this was
very probably one of the many cases when
engineers working on the same problem in
different parts of the world arrive at the same
solution independently.)
MiG-15 35
 Initially the system was tested on the first
prototype straight-winged Yak-25 'Mk l' (15 Yel-
low) and a modified lend-lease North American
B-25J Mitchell bomber with a 150m (492ft)
cable. Stage 1 lasted from 1st June 1949 to
30th September 1950; nine successful con-
tacts were made, with Sergey N Anokhin flying
the bomber and Valentin Chapov flying the
Yak-25.
Stage 2 involved 'the real thing'. The 51st
Tu-4 manufactured by the Kazan' aircraft facto-
ry No 22 (46 Black, c/n 221001) was equipped
with a BLI-50E winch and drogue holder,
and a Gor'kiy-built MiG-15bis (408 Red, c/n
53210408) was fitted with a 'harpoon' identical
to that of the Yak-25. The 'harpoon' was 945mm
(3ft 1.2in) long in the collapsed position and
1,372mm (4.5ft) long when fully extended. The
S-13 gun camera was deleted to make room for
. the 'harpoon', and a second 12A-30 DC battery
and an extra 4 litre (0.88 Imperial gallon) air bot-
tle were provided for actuating it. The bomber
was converted by OKB-30 (the design bureau
of the MMZ No 30 aircraft factory at Moscow-
Khodynka), using Yakovlev drawings, and the
fighter by Yakovlev's experimental shop (MMZ
No 115).
Tests began at L1I, Zhukovskiy, on 2nd Feb-
ruary 1951 and were completed on 26th March.
The results looked ,encouraging; the conver-
sion had almost no adverse effect on either air-
craft's performance, and reliable and safe
contact could be made day and night without
any trouble. The MiG-15's engine could easily
36 MiG-15
be restarted at upto 6,000m (19,685ft). Contact
was so smooth that the bomber's crew hardly
felt anything at all, and the bomber's speed was
reduced by only 10 to 12km/h (5.4 to 6.48kts) if
engine rpm remained constant. S N Anokhin
reported that the MiG-15bis handled well when
under tow and the procedure could be mas-
tered by the average pilot in two or three flights.
From 28th July to 24th August 1951 the
Burlaki system passed its State acceptance tri-
als - again with good results. According to the
Nil WS report, connection and disconnection
was possible in level flight at 300 to 360km/h
(162 to 194kts) lAS and 200 to 9,OOOm (656 to
29,527ft), during turns with 15 to 20° bank and
climb/descent at up to 10m/sec (1 ,968ft/min).
In clear weather the 'air train' could briefly
cruise at its service ceiling of 9,650m (31 ,660ft).
The bomber/fighter combination's top speed
was 392km/h (211.89kts) at sea level and
490km/h (264.86kts) at 9,000 m; maximum
range at 6,000m was 3,920km (2,119nm).
Yet the trials also revealed that the Burlaki
system had serious shortcomings. The MiG-15's
cockpit heating and pressurization system did
not work with the engine shut down, and sitting
for long hours in a cockpit which became bit-
terly cold at 7,000 to 10,OOOm (22,965 to
32,808ft), wearing an oxygen mask, was a sore
trial for the pilot. The drag generated by the
towed fighter slowed the TU-4, and a slow
bomber in the formation would inevitably slow
down the entire formation, which was unac-
ceptable. Worse, the fighter had little hope of
reaching its home base if it became separated
from the bombers during a dogfight with
enemy fighters.
The trials report contained many sugges-
tions - eg, providing a secure telephone link
allowing the fighter pilot and the bomber crew
to communicate while maintaining radio silence
and adapting the system for the new and faster
bombers then under development (the twinjet
Tu-16 and the four-turboprop Tu-95). The main
proposal, however, concerned changing the
ideology of the system completely and using
the probe and drogue for flight refuelling rather
than towing. This led to the next phase of devel-
opment work described below.
Despite the system's shortcol")1ings, the
Council of Ministers issued a directive on 30th
October 1951, ordering the conversion of five
more Tu-4s and five more Fagot-Bs to Burlaki
standard for service trials. The bombers (c/ns
1840848, 2805003, 2805005, 2805110 and
2805203) were converted by plant No 18 in
Kuybyshev where they had been built in 1951-
52, while the fighters were built as such in
Novosibirsk. They were serialled 2170 Red,
2175 Red, 2176 Red, 2190 Red and 2204 Red
(c/ns 2115370, 2115375, 2115376, 2115390
and 2215304 respectively).
The trials were held in the 50th VA (voz-
dooshnaya armiya - Air Army, == air force) at
Zyabrovka airbase in the Belorussian Defence
District between 9th July and 8th September
1952. The bombers were flown by five crews of
the 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 the
Burlaki system, during State acceptance trials.
The lower photo shows the 'harpoon' in
retracted position as used for towing.
Yefim Gordon archive
Below right: MiG-15bis '408 Red' with 400 litre
drop tanks as seen by the tail gunner of the Tu-4
which tows it. Yefim Gordon archive
Top pair left: MiG-15bis '408 Red' about to engage the towing drogue of a
Burlaki-equipped Tu-4. Yefim Gordon archive

Centre pair left: MiG-15bis '2175 Red' (c/n 2115375), the first of the pre-
production Burlaki-equipped Fagots, under tow. Yefim Gordon archive

Bottom left: View from the cockpit of a Burlaki-equipped l)IIiG-15bis about to

make 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 an
adaptation of the Burlaki system. Here, MiG-15bis '2204 Red' (c/n 2215304)
is shown during the system's ground tests. Note how the fuel transfer
drogue and hose slide along the towing cable, making contact with the
towing drogue. Yefim Gordon archive

MiG-15 37
 Berlinskiy GvTBAP/3rd AE, while the fighters
were operated by ten crews (ie, pilot and tech-
nicians) of the 144th IAD/439th IAP/1 st AE. 14
The objective was to evaluate the system's
reliability and 'user-friendliness', fighter/bomber
rendezvous techniques and formation flying
techniques. The trials involved 142 hook-ups
(including 17 at night) and went without inci-
dent. The manoeuvring envelope was slightly
narrower than during Nil WS trials, with bank
angles up to 15° and rates of climb/descent up
to 7 m/sec (1 ,378ft/min). The longest towed
flight lasted 2hrs 30 min, inCluding 2hrs 27 min
with the engine shut down.
Before making contact the fighters zeroed in
on the bombers by means of their ARK-5 ADF
which zeroed in on the bomber's 1RSB-70
radio transmitter used as a short-range naviga-
tion (SHORAN) system. During landing
.approach the fighters stayed connected right
down to 300m (984ft). After extending the land-
ing gear and lowering the flaps 20° the fighter
pilot waited for the signal from the bomber crew
or the tower to break contact; having received
the go-ahead, he disengaged the 'harpoon' at
2 to 3km (1.08 to 1.62nm) from the runway
threshold and landed.
The system was ultimately put to the test in
two sessions of mock combat on 5th August
1952. A flight of fighter-towing Tu-4s was
'attacked' by four MiG-15s representing the
'bad guys'. The attackers were gUided to their
target by a ground controlled intercept (GCI)
station using target information from an air
defence 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 arm
but weak in the head. The bombers' flight
leader spotted the 'enemy' fighters at 12 to
15km (6.48 to 8.1 nm) range as they were mak-
ing their first attack and gave the command to
start the engines, disengage and repel the
attackers. However, as the towed fighters did
so the attackers managed to make a second
'firing pass'. If this had been for real, the
bombers would have been shot down - proba-
bly taking their captive protectors with them!
The second try was more successful; two
pairs of MiGs took turns patrolling (flying top
cover) and resting (ie, being towed). This time
one pair of escort fighters was ready to repel an
incoming attack; yet again the 'enemy' fighters
were discovered a little too late and the protec-
tive pair just couldn't cope with them. However,
the 'bad guys' did not manage to repeat the
attack before they found themselves counter-
attacked. The conclusion was that incoming
enemy fighters needed to be spotted at least 4
minutes before they got within firing range so
that the towed escort fighters could get ready.
This could be done by fitting the bomber with a
search radar, enabling the crew to spot enemy
fighters at 60 to 80km (32 to 43nm) range.
Technology quickly made the Burlaki system
obsolete and it never entered service. Firstly,
the Tu-4 was replaced by the Tu-16 jet bomber
capable of cruising at 1,000km/h (540kts),
equalling the speed of many fighters. Its heavy
defensive armament and electronic counter-
measures (ECM) equipment gave it a good
chance of reaching its target. Secondly, exper-
iments began with flight refuelling systems for
fighters; some of them are described below.
MiG-15bis flight refuelling system testbeds
The first Soviet experiments with flight re-
fuelling date back to the 1930s when gravity
transfer of fuel from a higher to a lower aircraft
was tried with T8-1 and TB-3 bombers; this
method was not adopted for service. Interest in
flight refuelling systems was revived by the
desire to increase the Tu-4's range and by the
debut of jet aircraft with thirsty engines.
Tactical aircraft were also viewed as candi-
dates for flight refuelling. This could enhance
their combat potential in many ways, such as
extending on-station loiter time; escorting
heavy bombers; delivering tactical strikes
(including nuclear strikes) at ranges exceeding
the aircraft's unrefuelled combat radil,ls; extend-
ing the range of interceptors; and increasing
the chances of coming back safely from a long-
range mission by means of refuelling on the
way home .
Flight refuelling studies in the USSR began
in earnest in 1948. A team headed by V S
Vakhmistrov developed the so-called 'system
of crossing ropes' based on a system devel-
oped by the British company Flight Refuelling
Ltd. But this proved cumbersome, unreliable
and difficult to maintain. Once again, fuel was
transferred by gravity; this meant the tanker
had to stay directly above the receiver in for-
mation flight, which was most inconvenient.
The next step was a wing-to-wing refuelling
system developed by a team headed by L11 test
pilots Igor' Shelest and Viktor Vasyanin. The
tanker deployed a hose stabilised by a small
parachute from one wing and the receiver air-
craft 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 fuel
from the Tu-4 tug/tanker. Yefim Gordon archive
Left: The entire pre-production batch of a
Burlaki-equipped MiG-15bis fighters during
service trials. Yefim Gordon archive
the end engaged a receptacle under the receiv-
er aircraft's wingtip. The receiver increased
speed so that the hose formed a loop and rotat-
ed the receptacle, opening a valve, whereupon
fuel transfer under pressure could begin.
Tests of a mock-up installation began in the
summer of 1949, initially with on a pair of Tu-2
bombers, later with a Tu-2 as the 'tanker' and a
Yak-15 coded 47 Yellow as the 'receiver'. The
ShelestNasyatin (or wing-to-wing) system did
not find application for fighters, as the brand-
new MiG-15 was then considered to have an
adequate combat radius. However, the system
was adopted by the strategic bomber arm of
the WS for the Tu-4 and later for the Tu-16.
However, the wing-to-wing system had some
serious shortcomings, including a fairly com-
plicated engagement procedure and a low fuel
transfer rate. Despite the stabilising parachute,
the hose thrashed around like mad in the
tanker's wingtip vortex and could get caught in
the receiver aircraft's aileron - with disastrous
results. Hence, as mentioned earlier, the WS
considered using a probe-and-drogue system
based on the Bur/aki towed fighter concept.
Initially OKB-30, OKB-134 and the Yakovlev
OKB modified the existing Bur/aki system by
adding new elements. The fighter's 'harpoon'
incorporated a valve and plumbing to the fuel
system. The bomber was equipped with three
kerosene tanks, a pump and a neutral gas
pressurization system to reduce the risk of fire
and explosion if hit. After the fighter made con-
tact with the tanker's towing drogue, a hose ter-
minating in a smaller drogue was paid out
along the towing cable and the fighter acceler-
ated, locking the two drogues together. (The
original drogue was modified so as to allow fuel
to pass through it into the probe.) 1,210 Iitres
(266.2 Imperial gallons) of fuel could be trans-
ferred in six minutes. When refuelling was com-
pleted the smaller drogue was automatically
disengaged and the hose rewound.
Two of the aircraft used for service trials of
the Burlaki system - Tu-4 '41 Red' (c/n 1840848)
and MiG-15bis '2204 Red' (c/n 2215304) - were
converted for flight refuelling trials which were
held at L11 between 24th September 1954 and
2nd March 1955. The tanker was piloted by A
Yefimov, with A I Vershinin as the refuelling sys-
tem operator; the fighter was flown by S N
Anokhi"n and F I Boortsev. The programme
involved ten flights on the MiG-15bis, including
five contacts at 2,000m (6,561ft) and 4,000m
(13, 123ft); on three occasions, fuel was actual-
ly transferred. An attempt to repeat the perfor-
mance at 8,500m (27,887ft) failed, however,
because the system's rubber components
froze up and became inflexible.
Generally the 'wet Bur/aki' system was con-
sidered 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 Alek-
seyev, took on the flight refuelling problem.
This bureau (which absorbed the entire
Vakhmistrov team) later became the Zvezda
(Star) company best known for the K-36 ejec-
tion seat fitted to almost all current Russian
combat aircraft.
Once again a late-production Kuybyshev-
built Tu-4 - this time not one of the Bur/aki test-
beds (c/n 2805204) - was converted for the
tanker role at plant No 18. The arrangement pro-
posed by OKB-918 differed from the OKB-301
Yakovlev system in two important respects.
Firstly, it was much simpler, with only one
drogue and hose Gust like the system devel-
oped by Flight Refuelling Ltd which is in world-
wide use today). Secondly, the aircraft was a
two-point tanker. Two hose drum units (HDUs)
were installed in the forward bomb bay, with the
hoses running inside the wings and exiting
from specially-modified wingtips. The refuelling
operator sat in the tail gunner's station; the tail
guns were replaced by a cine camera unit to
record the refuelling sequence.
Three Fagot-Bs serialled 17 Red, 342 Blue
(c/n 123042 or 133042) and 618 Red were fitted
with fixed telescopic refuelling probes offset to
port on the intake upper lip; the conversion
work was done by the Novosibirsk factory in
May 1952. Test flights began in 1953, with a
considerable delay because of late equipment
deliveries for the tanker conversion; S N
Anokhin and V N Pronyakin flew the fighters. At
first, Mikoyan engineers were apprehensive
about having the probe near the intake, fearing
the drogue would generate excessive turbu-
lence at the air intake lip and provoke a com-
pressor stall. These fears were possibly caused
by knowing that in the USA, an F-84 fitted
experimentally with the probe-and-drogue re-
fuelling system had the probe mounted on the
starboard wing, well clear of the air intake.
However, trials showed these fears were
unfounded.
Several versions of the hose had to be tried
before the system was satisfactory. The original
hose incorporating a reinforcing wire spiral
proved not durable enough. A 'soft' hose with
no reinforcing wire, on the other hand, flexed
excessively and fighter pilots found that just a
little turbulence made 'hitting the tanker' very
difficult. Another problem was the considerable
amount of fuel remaining in the hose after the
transfer pumps were shut down; immediately
after breaking contact with the tanker the fight-
er was liberally doused with fuel, some of which
even entered the cockpit. Still, the system was
simple, reliable and offered a high fuel transfer
rate.
The combination ofTu-4 tanker and two MiG-
15bis receivers was presented twice for State
acceptance trials but failed both times because
of problems with the supporting rollers inside
the wings which caused hose oscillation and
failure of the fighters' refuelling probes due to
the whiplash effect of the hose. Also, unlike the
USAF, the WS had no need to fly its fighters
over long distances. However, once again the
probe-and-drogue refuelling system was used
successfUlly on strategic aircraft - the Myasis-
chchev 3MN/3MS Bison-B and 3MD Bison-C
heavy bombers, most members of the Tu-951
Tu-142 Bear family, the Tu-126 Moss airborne
warning and control system (AWACS), the
Tu-22KD/RD/PD/UD B/inder and Tu-22M2
Backfire-B supersonic long-range bombers
and their versions etc.
Experiments continued with the MiG-19
fighter, using both the wing-to-wing and the
probe-and-drogue systems (these develop-
ment aircraft will be described later), but in the
1960s, development work was put on hold. It
was not until the early 1980s that Soviet tactical
aircraft received flight refuelling capability at
last. Four decades earlier, it seemed that the
solution lay just a few years ahead.
MiG-15bis aerodynamics research
aircraftlflight control system testbeds
In 1952 two Fagot-Bs were modified' to test
flight spoilers assisting the ailerons for roll con-
trol; the spoilers were 1m (3ft 3.37in) long on
one aircraft and 0.22m (8.66in) long on the
other one.
MiG-15bis aerodynamics research aircraft
An early-production Luybyshev-built MiG-15bis
serialled 172 Blue (c/n 121072) was converted
for aerodynamics research by L11. The aircraft
had a non-standard rounded fin tip and
redesigned upswept wingtips with a modified
airfoil. Unfortunately, nothing is known about
the 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-15
became obvious even as the S-1 and S-2 pro-
totypes were going through their State accep-
tance trials. Hence on 6th April 1949, the
Council of Ministers issued directive No 1391-
497 tasking the Mikoyan OKB with designing
such an aircraft, followed on 13th April by MAP
directive No 266 to the same effect. The trainer
was to have maximum commonality with the
standard RO-45F-powered MiG-15, differing
mainly in seating and control arrangement, and
have no appreciable deterioration in perfor-
mance.
The aircraft received the preliminary service
designation 1-312 and the manufacturer's des-
ignation izdeliye ST (ie, izdeliye S, treneerov-
ochnyy [variahnt] - trainer version). Work on
the trainer proceeded fast; Artyom I Mikoyan
40 MiG-15
Left: 172 Blue (c/n 121072), a MiG-15bis
converted 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), the
first prototype of the UTI-MiG-15 trainer, during
manufacturer's flight tests. Originally the aircraft
was designated 1-312. Mikoyan OKB
to the detachable rear fuselage. Changes were
also made to the rudder and elevator aero-
dynamic balances, and stabilizer incidence
was changed to +2°.
The aircraft had full dual controls and com-
plete sets of flight instruments in both.cockpits,
and the landing gear and flaps could be oper-
ated from either cockpit. The instructor could
override the trainee during landing gear, flap or
airbrake operation. The trainee's cockpit fea-
tured a blind-flying hood for instrument flight
rules (IFR) training. An SPU-2M intercom
(samolyotnoye peregovornoye oostroystvo)
was also provided.
The fuel system was also modified, featuring
a 95 litre (20.9 Imperial gallon) fuel cell under
the trainee's cockpit and an L-shaped 760 litre
(167.2 Imperial gallon) fuel cell between fuse-
lage frames 9 and 13. The U-shaped 268 litre
(59 Imperial gallon) No 3 integral tank located
under the engine jetpipe between frames 21
and 24 was identical to that of the single-seater.
Total internal fuel capacity was 1,123 litres (247
Imperial gallons)'5 For longer flights, 250 litre
(55 Imperial gallon) or 300 litre (66 Imperial gal-
Ion) slipper tanks could be carried. The arma-
ment initially consisted of one NR-23 cannon
with 80 rounds on the starboard side and one
portside 12.7mm (.50 calibre) Berezin UBK-E
machine gun'· with 120 rounds (some sources
say 150 rounds) mounted on a common
weapons pallet, just like on the single-seater.
In all other structural details the ST-1 was
identical to the production MiG-15 (izdeliye
SV). An ASP-3N gunsight (some sources say
ASP-1 N) was installed in the forward cockpit.
The aircraft had an RSI-6 two-way VHF radio,
signed the general arrangement drawings on an RPKO-10M OF, an AFA-IM reconnaissance
27th February 1949. Somewhat surprisingly, camera and an S-13 gun camera.
the first prototype, ST-1, was built not at Mikoy- The ST-1 underwent initial flight tests from
an's experimental shop (MMZ No 155) but at 22nd June to 18th August 1949 (some sources
the Kuybyshev aircraft factory by converting a say 23rd May to 20th August) at the hands of
brand-new Fagot-A (c/n 104015). Prototype Mikoyan test pilots I T Ivaschchenko, Konstan-
construction proceeded rapidly, and the unse- tin Konstantinovich Kokkinaki and A N Cher-
rialled aircraft was rolled out in late May 1949. noboorov. Between 27th August and 25th
The ST-1 differed from the MiG-15 in having September of the same year the aircraft passed
tandem seating, with the student pilot up front Stage 1 of its State acceptance trials at Nil WS
and the instructor in the rear cockpit. The one- and was returned for modifications.
piece canopy with multiple frames originally In October 1949 the prototype was delivered
envisaged was replaced by a two-piece canopy, to the fighter regiment at Kubinka airbase
the forward portion of the canopy hinging open near Moscow for evaluation which lasted until
to starboard and the rear portion sliding aft. 1st April 1950. After that the ST-1 returned to
Both parts of the canopy could be jettisoned the OKB's experimental shop for maintenance
manually or pyrotechnically in an emergency; and elimination of defects discovered in the
the cockpits were equipped with identical ejec- course of the trials. From 3rd to 15th May, 1950
tion seats of the type fitted to the standard the aircraft was further tested at the OKB; two
MiG-15. The new canopy necessitated changes days 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 under
the service designation UTI-MiG-15 (UTI =
oochebno-trenirovochnw istrebitel' - training
fighter)."
In the West the trainer was code-named,
rather unkindly, Midget. Until the 1970s, NATO
had a habit of allocating reporting names in the
'Miscellaneous' category to trainer versions of
Soviet fighters. Later this gave way to a more
logical approach - the code name of the single-
seat version in the fighter category followed by
a suffix letter.
Apparently, however, Mikoyan - or the WS-
were not quite happy, and soon afterwards the
prototype underwent a series of modifications.
These were relatively minor but numerous
enough to warrant a new manufacturer's des-
ignation, ST-2 (ie, izdeliye ST, version 2). Unlike
the initial-production UTI-MiG-15, the upgrad-
ed prototype had an OSP-48 ILS (with appro-
priate changes to the trainee's instrument
panel) and a KI-11 compass. The NR-23 can-
non was deleted and the ammunition capacity
of the USK-E machine gun was increased to
150 rounds, which necessitated a reduction of
the No 1 fuel cell's capacity to 76 litres (16.72
Imperial gallons); total internal fuel capacity
was 1,104 litres (242.88 Imperial gallons).
Other changes included an ASP-3N gunsight, a
new oil filler and a chemical filter in the cockpit
pressurization/air conditioning system.
After completing manufacturer's flight tests
August 1950 the ST-2 passed its State accep-
tance trials and was recommended for pro-
duction, becoming the standard-setter for
late-production Kuybyshev-built UTI-MiG-15s
from c/n 10444 onwards. The trainer's design
and systems were continuously updated; this
was partly because the MiG-15bis, MiG-17 and
MiG-19 had no trainer versions of their own. For
example, the Afanas'yev A-12,7 machine gun
---...... --
*
was included into the Soviet Armed Forces
inventory in September 1953 and replaced the
USK-E on the Midget shortly afterwards.
In March 1952 a production UTI-MiG-15 was
modified to test several equipment updates.
These included an RSIU-3 UHF radio replacing
the RSI-6K VHF radio, an improved ASP-3NM
gunsight, an SPU-2R intercom and a 3kW
GSN-3000 DC generator replacing the earlier
1.5kW GSK-1500. An SRO-1 Sariy-M IFF
transponder was added and the landing light
was relocated from the air intake splitter to the
port wing. Most of these changes were incor-
porated on late-production Midgets.
A custom-built UTI-MiG-15 was delivered to
the Cosmonauts' Detachment at Chkalovskaya
airbase near Moscow for zero-G training as
part of the training programme for manned
space flight. The aircraft had a reinforced air-
frame to withstand the considerable stress and
strain experienced when the aircraft followed a
special parabolic trajectory to create weight-
lessness. Later it was supplanted in the 'Vomit
Comet' role by three specially-modified Tu-
104AK Camel airliners (46 Red, c/n 8350705;
47 Red, c/n 8350704; and 48 Red, c/n
86601301). There are persistent rumours that
the zero-G Midget now resides at the Russian
Air Force Museum in Monino with the tactical
code 03 Red; the c/n has been quoted as
22013, indicating Khar'kov production.
(
The UTI-MiG-15 was produced in large num-
bers at several plants, staying in service with
the WS well into the 1970s until finally replaced
by the MiG-21 U/US/UM Mongol-A/B. Even after
that, it soldiered on in the weather reconnais-
sance role at Air Force flying schools and in
combat units. It was also operated for a long
time by DOSAAF, an organization that prepared
Soviet youth for service with the armed forces.'·
The UTI-MiG-15 is still in service in third-world
countries.
UTI-MiG-15P interceptor trainer
(izdeliye ST-7 and ST-8)
After the RP-1 Izumrood radar successfully
passed its trials, the Council of Ministers issued
directive No 2460-933 on 24th May 1952, order-
ing the Mikoyan OKS to equip two UTI-MiG-15
trainers with this radar in order to help Soviet
pilots master IFR intercept techniques. This
was followed by MAP directive No 624 to the
same effect on 2nd June.
Originally the Kuybyshev factory was to build
both prototypes pursuant to MAP directive
N0836 (18th July 1952), and the OKS turned
over a set of project documents to the plant in
September. However, the aircraft were never
built there because factory No 1 was terminat-
ing UTI-MiG-15 production and gearing up to
build the Tu-16 Badger bomber. Hence the Min-
istry of Defence Industry (MOP - Ministerstvo
MiG-15 41
 oboronnoy promyshlennostl) requested on
26th March and 24th June,1953 that the Mikoy-
an OKB convert the two aircraft in house. The
OKB reacted quickly. A new set of project doc-
uments for the conversion was completed in
June and the two radar trainers designated
izde/iye ST-7 were rolled out in August.
The ST-7 had a modified forward fuselage
similar to that of the MiG-15bisP (izdeliye SP-5),
but the lower edge of the search antenna
radome was now almost horizontal - in fact,
even slightly upturned. The canopy had a non-
standard sharply-raked extended windshield
providing room for the radar display. The arma-
ment consisted of one UBK-E machine gun,
with a largish fairing on the starboard side
(probably housing part of the radar set) where
the NR-23 cannon used to be.
The first prototype was damaged beyond
. repair in the course of the manufacturer's flight
tests on 15th September 1953, apparently
experiencing problems with spin recovery. This
conclusion can be drawn from the fact that
TsAGI conducted a special wind tunnel pro-
gramme to determine the ST-Ts spinning char-
acteristics in connection with the accident
investigation panel's findings. The second pro-
totype was submitted for State acceptance tri-
als during April and May 1954 and found
unsatisfactory. The reason was that in the
meantime the WS had changed its require-
ments, requesting that a second radar display
and sight be installed in the rear cockpit.
On 9th August 1954 the Council of Ministers
issued directive No 1651-747, followed by MAP
directive No 523 on 23rd August. These tasked
the OKB with developing a version of the UTI-
MiG-15 incorporating the improved RP-3 Izum-
rood-3 radar, ASP-3NM sight and other
changes specified by the military. Designated
iZdeliye ST-8, a UTI-MiG-15 was suitably con-
verted in 1955. Apart from the radar, it differed
from the production Midget in many subtle
ways. The No 1 fuel cell was removed and the
nose gear unit was beefed up to absorb the
weight of the radar. Comms radio, ILS and IFF
42 MiG-15
equipment modules were repositioned, a 6kW
GSR-6000 generator replaced the standard
GSN-3000, and an A-12,7 machine gun was fit-
ted. The cockpit pressurization/air conditioning
system incorporated changes based on the
production MiG-17.
The ST-8 was effectively a testbed for the
RP-3 radar which was fitted to some MiG-17P
interceptors and later evolved into the RP-5
radar.
UTI-MiG-15 drone director aircraft
As remote-controlled target drone conversions
of obsolescent fighters and bombers were
developed and tested, the need for a drone
director aircraft arose. Hence two Kuybyshev-
built UTI-MiG-15s were converted into director
aircraft for Yak-25MSh drones.'· The first aircraft
coded 16 Red (c/n 106216) was converted by
plant No 918, while the other Midget whose tac-
tical code is unknown (c/n 106220) was modi-
fied by L11 personnel.
The radio control equipment evolved from
the land-based MRV-2M transmitter was
installed on the weapons tray and the transmit-
ting whip aerials were located on the horizontal
tail. The drone operator sat in the front cockpit;
part of the standard flight instruments and the
gunsight were replaced by a DK-16RS con-
troller (DK = dahtchik komahnd).
Three Yak-25MSh drones were tested suc-
cessfully from 7th to 22nd December 1959 and
11 th January to 2nd February 1960. The Yak-
25MSh had higher performance than the drones
then in service and the UTI-MiG-15 director air-
craft allowed it to be landed successfully when
the mission was completed (unless, of course,
the drone was actually to be destroyed).
UTI-MiG-15 (izdeliye ST-10)
ejection seat testbed
Experience with first-generation ejection seats
showed that pilots were often injured in high-
speed ejections because the seat offered no
protection from the slipstream. Besides, the
seats were not stabilized and tumbled head
over heels after separation from the aircraft,
increasing the risk of injury. The engineers
examined several means of increasing the
chances of safe egress at high speed, includ-
ing detachable crew modules (as, for instance,
on the General Dynamics F-111). Eventually,
however, it was decided that improved ejection
seats were the cheapest and simplest solution
to the problem. In particular, the second-gener-
ation seat was to be fired together with the for-
ward-opening canopy which would protect the
pilot from the slipstream.
As a first step, a ground rig was built to test
the seats, ejecting dummies at speeds up to
l,OOOkm/h (540kts). This installation verified
the seat's stabilization system ens.uring safe
ejection at high speed. Another ground rig was
used to study the effects of G loads on human .
pilots during ejection. The efficiency of the
canopy doubling as a protective visor was test-
ed on a Tu-2 bomber converted into an ejection
testbed.
In 1954 the first production Kuybyshev-built
UTI-MiG-15 serialled 101' Blue'" (c/n 10101) was
converted by L11 for conducting ejection seat
tests with both dummies and pilots. The aircraft
was designated izdeliye ST-1 O. The aircraft was
flown in two configurations with the experimen-
tal ejection seat fired from the front and rear
cockpits; it is hard to say which came first.
In the former configuration 101' Blue was a
nearly-standard Midget with the prototype seat
installed in the forward cockpit. The hinged for-
ward canopy was replaced by a metal fairing
with a large opening through which the seat
was ejected. This was an attempt to kill two
birds with one stone (to avoid jettisoning the
canopy and facilitate installation and removal
of the ejection seat while reducing turbulence
around the forward cockpit). High-speed cine
cameras were installed in small teardrop fair-
ings on the wing upper surface near the
wingtips to record the ejection sequence. The
aircraft had phototheodolite calibration mark-
ings on the forward and rear fuselage and
upper and lower fin.
The trainee's (left) and instructor's instrument
panels of the UTI-MiG-15. Yefim Gordon archive
Photographs on the opposite page:
Two production UTI-MiG·15s operated by a
Naval 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 converted
from the first production Kuybyshev-built
UTI-MiG·15 (101' Blue, c/n 10101).
Yefim Gordon archive
MiG-15 43
 In its other configuration the aircraft had the
sliding rear canopy replaced by a large shallow
metal fairing extending almost all the way to the
fin.
Initially the ST-10 fired a standard MiG-15
ejection seat suitably modified for the experi-
ment, with a non-standard canopy over the rear
cockpit (ie, inside the abovementioned fairing).
During rotation two clamps on the seat head-
rest engaged two lugs on the canopy, causing
it to rotate up and forward. The front end of the
canopy slid aft along guide rails until it locked
into position on the seat pan, disengaging itself
from the guide rails in so doing; the canopy
now offered protection for the pilot. The seat
complete with canopy weighed 225k.g (4961b)
and was ejected by a telescopic ejection gun at
an initial speed of 18.5 to 19.0 m/sec (60.7 to
62.3ft/sec).
Tests began in the second half of the 1950s.
Several stabilizing systems were tried, includ-
ing stabilizing parachutes on telescopic booms
extending aft of the seat. The programme was
conducted by test pilot Edward V Yelyan and
test parachutist V Golovin. As a result, an ejec-
tion mount with a sliding canopy for pilot pro-
tection from the airflow was recommended for
all Soviet fighters capable of exceeding
1,000km/h (540kts).
The designation ST-1 0 has also been quoted
for two other UTI-MiG-15s converted into ejec-
tion seat testbeds. The second aircraft serialled
102' Blue (c/n 10102) had the prototype seat in
the rear cockpit. The sliding rear canopy was
replaced by a large shallow metal fairing
extending almost all the way to the fin.
As part of the MiG-21 development pro-
gramme, the third UTI-MiG-15 (401' Blue) was
converted into a testbed for its parachute-sta-
bilised SK ejection seat (seeden'ye katapool'-
teerooyemoye - ejection seat, as simple as
that). The forward canopy section complete
with fixed windshield was replaced by a one-
piece forward-hinged canopy developed for
the MiG-21 F Fishbed-A (or perhaps, more pre-
cisely, its immediate precursor - the experi-

The ST·10 ejection seat testbed was converted

from the first production Kuybyshev-built
UTI·MiG·15 (101' Blue, c/n 10101). Note the
calibration markings on the fuselage and fin.
Yefim Gordon archive

Another UTI·MiG-15 (401' Blue, c/n 10401)

converted into an ejection seat testbed by
1I1 firing an 'experimental seat from the rear
cockpit. Note how the canopy acts as a shield
protecting 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 rear

cockpit of the UTI·MiG·15stk with low Perspex
sidewalls instead of the sliding canopy.
Yefim Gordon archive

44 MiG-15
mental swept-wing Ye-2 Faceplate). This was
rather lower than the rest of the Midget's
canopy, resulting in a pronounced step
between it and the sliding rear canopy. 102Y
Blue and 401 Y Blue had similar phototheodolite
calibration markings.
Curiously, the MiG-21 F's bulletproof wind-
screen was not part of the hinged canopy,
being attached to the airframe under the
canopy, and was left behind after ejection. On
401 Y Blue it obviously played no part in the ejec-
tion sequence and was very probably fitted in
lieu of a windshield. With the forward canopy
gone, the turbulent airflow around the forward
fuselage might otherwise have excessively
complicated flying for the man who stayed
behind to land the aircraft!
401 Y Blue also had a different configuration
with a standard forward canopy (including
windshield) and a non-standard rear canopy
resembling that of the Sukhoi Suo? Fitter-A; it
was longer than the Midget's and a new fairing
had to be installed between it and the fuselage.
The rear canopy likewise acted as a protective
visor and the seat was fired by a long telescop-
ic ejection gun. Curiously, the canopy sported
something like a large blade aerial, though this
may have been a sort of stabilising surface. It is
not known which configuration came first.

'UTI-MiG·15stk' Midget ejection trainer

-
WS pilots flying the MiG-15 were apprehensive
about its first-generation ejection seat, fearing
serious injuries in the event of an ejection at low
altitude or on landing when most accidents
happen. To overcome this psychological
obstacle and restore the pilots' confidence in
the aircraft the WS decided that some of the
UTI-MIG-15s were to be used as ejection train-
ers. Referred to by the Soviet MoD's daily
newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) as
'UTI-MiG-15stk' (s treneerovochnoy katapool'-
toy - with training catapult; the designation is
unofficial), these aircraft toured fighter regi-
ments flying the Fagot, Air Force test pilots
demonstrated the ejection sequence to service
pilots and then challenged volunteers to try it.
The back seat had a reduced powder charge
(probably to avoid an almighty kick in the butt
which might scare the ejectee to death!), but
still permitted safe ejection, of course.
Outw'ardly the 'UTI-MiG-15stk' differed from
the standard Midget in having the sliding rear
canopy replaced by low Perspex sidewalls so
that the rear cockpit was an open one. Two air-
craft thus modified, coded 15 Blue and 23 Blue,
have been seen so far.

Top and centre: Sequence of still from a cine

film showing an experimental ejection seat
being fired from Lll's ST·10 testbed (101 Y Blue,
cln 10101). Yefim Gordon archive

Bottom: A trainee is catapulted from the rear

cockpit of a Midget ejection trainer unofficially
known as UTI·MiG·15stk. Yefim Gordon archive

MiG-15 45
 Above left and right: Two views of 32 Red, a MiG-
15bis converted to a MiG-15M (M-15) target
drone. The ventral pannier with guidance
equipment, the probe aerials on the stabilizers
and the fairings on the aft fuselage are clearly
visible. Yefim Gordon archive

Left and below: This MiG-15M coded '30 Red' has

drop tanks to increase range and endurance.
Yefim Gordon archive

..

46 MiG-15

Foreign Production
CHINESE·BUILT MiG·15s
In March 1950, the Chinese government decid-
ed that China should build modern jet aircraft
and turned to 'Big Brother' - the USSR - for
help. Assistance was promptly provided; in
October 1951 (when Soviet and Chinese pilots
had already been flying Soviet-built MiG-15s in
the Korean war for a year), 847 Soviet special-
ists of varying rank were dispatched to China.
They were to assist in organizing China's
nascent aircraft industry - including MiG-15bis
production under licence at the Shenyang air-
craft factory (now the Shenyang Aircraft Indus-
try Complex, SAIC).
However, when everything was ready the
Chinese made a logical decision to build the
more modern MiG-17 which started coming off
the production line at Shenyang in mid-1956.
Thus, contrary to reports by some Western
sources, the MiG-15bis was never built in
China. Yet, during the Korean War, 534 battle-
damaged Fagot-As and -Bs were repaired at
Shenyang. Interestingly, MiG-15s overhauled
at Shenyang incorporated some equipment
items from the MiG-17.
Despite not being built locally, the MiG-15bis
was allocated the local designation Jianjiji-2
(fighter aircraft, type 2), often shortened to Jian-
2 or J-2. Fagot-Bs were still operational in China
in the early 1970s. Some aircraft were later
resold (for instance, to Albania and Cambodia)
under the export designation F-2 (F for Fighter).
Shenyang JJ-2 (FT-2)
Midget advanced trainer
In contrast, the UTI-MiG-15 trainer was pro-
duced in China under the designation Jianjiji
Jiaolianji-2 (fighter trainer aircraft-2), often
shortened to Jianjiao-2 or JJ-2. The RD-45Ftur-
bojet powering it was built under licence in
Harbin as the Wopen-5 (turbojet engine Model
5), often shortened to WP-5 (or TJ-5 for export).
Besides being supplied to China's People's
Liberation Army Air Force, the trainer was
exported to Albania, Bangladesh, North Korea,
Pakistan, Sudan, Tanzania and North Vietnam
under the export designation FT-2 (FT for Fight-
er Trainer).
67973 Red, a Shenyang JJ-2 (Chinese-built
UTI-MiG-15), on display at the Chinese Army
Museum in Peking. Keith Dexter
Chapter Three
CZECH·BUILT MiG·15s
5-102 (MiG-15) Fagot·A tactical fighter
In 1950 the Soviet and Czech governments
agreed to launch MiG-15 production in
Czechoslovakia. The licence agreement was
signed in Moscow on 17th April 1951 and deliv-
eries of manUfacturing documents began in the
following month, coincidentally with the prepa-
rations for delivery of Soviet-built MiG-15s to
the Czech Air Force (CzAF).
At first, MiG-15 production was assigned to
the Rudy Letov plant at Letnany. On 6th May
1951 the Czechs took delivery of a Kuybyshev-
built Fagot-A (c/n 119070) as a pattern aircraft.
Soon after, a further ten fighters were delivered
as completely-knocked-down (CKD) kits for the
assembly of a pre-production batch; the first of
these, bearing the cln 225101, made its maid-
en flight at Prague-Kbely on 6th November
1951.'
After 160 aircraft had been completed by
Rudy Letov, production was transferred to the
newly-commissioned Aero-Vodochody plant at
Vodochody (pronounced 'Vodokhody') 20km
north of Prague in July 1953. Piloted by factory
test pilot Antonfn Bartos, the first MiG-15 built at
Aero-Vodochody (c/n 220503) flew on 28th
April 1953, when the factory - including the run-
way - was still incomplete. Five more aircraft
(c/ns 220505 through 220509) were completed
on the same day but flown at a later date. In all,
Czech production of the Fagot-A totalled 821
aircraft in twelve batches (like in the USSR, air-
craft production in Czechoslovakia was usually
organized in batches containing more or less
equal quantities of aircraft).
Until the mid-50s the CzAF had a habit of
allocating its own designations to foreign-
designed andlor -built aircraft in Czech service.
For example, the Messerschmitt Bf 109G was
manufactured locally as the S-99 (a refined
indigenous version was known as S-199); the
IL-28 Beagle bomber and its trainer version,
IL-28U Mascot, were built under licence by
Aero as the B-228 and CB-228 respectively. In
keeping with this practice the MiG-15 - Soviet-
built and Czech-built aircraft alike - was initial-
ly designated S-102, the S denoting stfhacf
[/etoun] (fighter). However, this designation
was dropped in September 1956 and from then
on the aircraft was referred to strictly as MiG-15,
even though some locally-designed versions
did have suffix letters unique to them.
The RD-45F turbojet was also built under
licence by Zavody Jana Svermy (formerly Wai-
ter; later renamed Motorlet) at Prague-Jinonice
(pronounced 'Yinonitse'). Like the aircraft itself,
the engine had a local designation, M-05 (M for
motor). No fewer than 5,094 engines were
delivered between 1952 and 1962; the reason
was that, apart from the MiG-15, the engine
also powered the 1L-28.
MiG-155B strike aircraft
Under a reorganization and re-equipment pro-
gramme in 1958 CzAF units flying the Fagot-A
converted to the MiG-19S Farmer-C. The MiG-15
was relegated to the strike role and suitably
converted by the overhaul plant at Prague-Kbely.
MiG-15 47
 An air-to-air study of 3668, an 5-103 (MiG-15bis)
built by Aero-Vodochody. Letectvi+Kosmonautika

Czech Air Force technicians performing

maintenance on several 5-1035 (MiG-15bises).
Yefim Gordon archive

A very new and shiny 5-103 with slipper tanks

on the factory apron at Aero-Vodochody.
Yefim Gordon archive

A Czech Air Force 5-103 with the flaps down

and the airbrakes open. (MiG-15bises).
Yefim Gordon archive

Designated MiG-15SB (stfhacf-bombar-

dovacf [letoun] - fighter-bomber), the aircraft
had six wing hardpoints instead of the usual
two. The inboard and outboard ones were used
to carry indigenous 130mm (5.12in) LR-130
HVARs on launch rails (attached directly to the
wing or via 03-40 pylons) or boxy ten-round
SR-55 FFAR pods for 55mm (2.16in) LR-55
FFARs. Alternatively, the 03-40 pylons could be
used to carry four 50kg (110 Ib) AO-50-100M,
FAB-50 or OFAB-50 HE bombs, P-50 or CCP-50
practice bombs, four 1OOkg (220 Ib) FAB-1 00 or
OFAB-100M bombs or two 250kg (551Ib) FAB-
250M-46 HE bombs or RBK-250 cluster bombs
with eight AO-1 0 bomblets each. 2
The standard centre hard points were usually
occupied by 400 litre (88 Imperial gallon) drop
tanks but could also be used to carry OFAB-
100M bombs or experimental FFAR pods of
Czech design looking like slipper tanks. These
pods housing LR-55 rockets probably did not
progress beyond the trials stage. An additional
PBP-1 P sight was installed in the cockpit for
aiming the unguided weapons.
Normal take-off weight was 5,826kg
(12,844Ib), rising to 6,270kg (13,822Ib) in over-
loaded condition. Hence the MiG-15SB was
unique among the Fagot's many versions in
having provisions for jet-assisted take-off
(JATO). Two SRP-1 JATO bottles could be fitted
to the aft fuselage sides for high gross weight
take-offs (SRP = startovacf raketa pomocnii -
auxiliary take-off rocket). A brake parachute
was provided to shorten the landing run. Start-
ing in 1964, they were gradually supplanted by
Sukhoi Su-7BMK Fitter-A fighter-bombers but it
was not until 1983 that the MiG-15SB was finally
retired.

MiG-1ST target tug

Several Fagot-As were converted for target tow-
ing duties. The MiG-15 was to work with the
L-03 airplane-type target of all-wooden con-
struction towed on a 2,000m (6,561ft) cable at
750kmjh (405kts). After a series of tests with
quarter-scale and half-scale models towed by
cars, Avia C-2 (Arado Ar 96B) primary trainers,
Avia B-33 (licence-built IL-10) attack aircraft
and finally MiG-15s it became clear that a 45-hp
winch would be needed to fly with the real
thing. The MiG-15's electric system could not
provide enough power; an independent power
source was required.

48 MiG-15
 Czech engineers devised an elegant solu-
tion. The standard weapons tray was replaced
by a modified one with a winch and cable cut-
ter. The winch was powered via reduction gear
by a 40-blade ram air turbine housed in a largish
fairing immediately aft of the nose gear unit, the
cable exiting from a smaller fairing further aft.
After completing its trials programme the
L-03 target entered production in 1957. The
aircraft 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. The
L-03 was placed on a dolly and hooked up to
the aircraft with the towing cable at minimum
extension (200 m/656ft). Then the MiG-15T
took off, lifting the target off the dolly, and paid
out the cable to its full 2,000m length. The L-03
was equipped with a landing skid so that it
could be recovered and re-used, unless it was
shot to pieces. The MiG-15T landed at 280km/h
(151 kts); as soon as the target touched down a
lock in its nose released the cable and a brake
parachute was deployed, bringing the target to
a halt in 500m (1 ,640ft). The target could also
be released in the air if necessary.

5-103 (MiG-15bis) Fagot-B tactical fighter

The MiG-15bis originally had the Czech desig-
nation S-103' and the later version with more
comprehensive avionics was built under
licence at Aero-Vodochody. The first aircraft
(c/n 143051) first flew on 4th January 1954, and
ten batches totalling 620 aircraft had been built
when production ended in July 1957. The VK-1
turbojet was also produced by Zavody Jana
Svermy (Motorlet) under the designation M-06,
albeit on a much smaller scale; 1,028 engines
were delivered between 1954 and 1957.
A curious feature of some Czech bises (S-
103s) was the hooks near the cannons' case
ejector chutes. These were used to attach
spent case collectors which looked every bit
like shopping baskets! Apart from serving the
domestic market, licence-built Fagot-Bs were
exported to East Germany, Egypt and Syria.

MiG-15bis with PPZ-1 ILS

Several CzAF Fagot-Bs, including 3058 (c/n
143058) and 8806, were fitted experimentally
with the indigenous PPZ-1 ILS (pfesne pfista-
vacf zaffzenf - accurate landing equipment).
Outwardly these aircraft could be recognized
by the bullet-shaped dielectric fairing of the ILS
antenna, usually painted dark blue, projecting
from the intake splitter where the landing light
used to be on early-production MiG-15s. These
were not really avionics testbeds, as the aircraft
are known to have been used operationally.

S-103 '3911' (c/n 423911) in an unknown German

museum. Helmut Walther

These views of the MiG-15bisSB show the extra

pylons inboard and outboard of the drop tanks
for carrying unguided rockets.
U§tectvi + Kosmonautika

MiG-15 49
MiG-15bisSB strike aircraft
This was a fighter-bomber conversion of the
Fagot-B similar to the MiG-15SB, except for the
lack of JATO bottles and brake parachute. Nor-
mal TOW was 5,634kg (12,420 Ib) and MTOW
6,241 kg (13,758Ib). Conversion began in 1968.
MiG-15bisSB weapons testbed
Under a contract with North Vietnam Aero-
Vodochody developed a version of the MiG-
15SB/MiG-15bisSB armed with R-3S (AA-1
Atoll) air-to-air missiles. The AAMs were carried
on pylons borrowed from the MiG-21 F Fishbed-
A installed at the usual drop tank positions; the
N-37D cannon was replaced by an infrared
search and track (IRST) unit. A single CzAF
MiG-15bisSB serialled 3950 (c/n 713950) was
converted to test the new armament but the
idea was not pursued further; it is not known if
the tests were successful.
MiG-15bisR photo reconnaissance aircraft
The CzAF operated two PHOTINT versions of
the Fagot-B under the Soviet designation MiG-
15bisR. One was identical to the Soviet aircraft
of the same name with one AFA-IM or AFP-
50 MiG-15
21 KT vertical camera installed on the gun
mount in place of the inboard NR-23 cannon.
This aircraft was also referred to in some
sources as MiG-15bisR-F1, MiG-15bisF (foto-
pruzkumna verze - PHOTINT version) or, in air
force slang, simply as 'fotobis'.
The other version, MiG-15bisR-F3, differed
from its Soviet counterpart in having two verti-
cal cameras on the gun mount and two oblique
cameras mounted one behind the other in the
centre fuselage beneath the main fuel tank,
resulting in a slight decrease in internal fuel
capacity. Each of these two cameras had its
own protective doors (the forward camera was
closed by one door opening to starboard and
the rear camera by double doors). The inboard
NR-23 cannon was likewise removed. Depend-
ing on the mission, the aircraft could be config-
ured with AFA-IM, AFA-21, AFP-21 KT, AFA-39
and AFA-40 day cameras or NFP-02 night
cameras.
MiG-15bisT target tug
This was a target tug conversion of the Fagot-B
similar to the MiG-15T. One aircraft serialled
3906 (c/n 623906) has been identified to date.
MiG-15/MiG-15bis target drone
As in the USSR, time-expired Czech Fagots
were converted into remote-controlled target
drones similar to the Soviet MiG-15M.
MiG-15V target drone
One Czech source mentions that MiG-15s were
converted into towed target drones designated
MiG-15V (= vlecny terc - towed target).
CS-102 (UTI-MiG-15)
Midget advanced trainer
Licence production of the UTI-MiG-15 trainer at
Aero-Vodochody began in July 1954, initially
under the designation CS-102 (cvicny stfhacf
[Ietoun] - training fighter). The first aircraft (c/n
142600) was flown on 28th July. The trainer was
by far the most numerous version; no fewer
than 2,013 were built and the last aircraft off the
line (c/n 022727) was delivered on 5th January
1961. Most Czech-built UTI-MiG-15s were
exported; customers included most of the
countries operating the MiG-15, MiG-17 and
MiG-19. In fact, Czechoslovakia became the
biggest Midget manufacturer outside the Sovi-
et Union.
Speaking of exports, a lot of Czech-built UTI-
MiG-15s were delivered to the Soviet Air Force.
Later, as service units re-equipped with more
modern trainers, they were turned over to
DOSAAF. Crews recognized that these aircraft
showed a higher level of workmanship than
their Soviet counterparts due to the higher skill
and ingrained working discipline of workers
and engineers and the high level of European
technology. In contrast, many Soviet plants had
to make do with pre-war equipment well into
the 1970s!
Czech-built Midgets were also used in the
USSR for cosmonaut training. It was in a such
an aircraft coded 18 Red (callsign '625') that
Yuriy Alekseyevich Gagarin, the first man in
space, and instructor pilot V S Seryogin were
killed in an accident on 27th March 1968.
Above: OK·10 (c/n 612744), the second CS·102
used as an ejection seat testbed by VZLU.
Letectvi+Kosmonautika
Top left: An array of armament laid out in front of
a MiG·15bisSB. Lerectvi+Kosmonautika
The removed camera tray of a MiG·15bisR
reconnaissance aircraft. The aircraft was also
known simply as fotobis. Letectvi+Kosmonautika
Caught by the camera seconds before becoming
airborne, this Aero CS-102 '2601' (c/n 142601)
was probably the second UTI-MiG-15 to be
built in the Czechoslovakian factory.
Uitectvi+Kosmonautika

An unmarked CS-102 (c/n 142614) destined

for the Soviet Air Force at the factory airfield
in Vodochody. The Soviet Union was a major
customer for Czech-built Midgets.
Letectvi + Kosmonautika

A brand-new CS-102 (UTI-MiG-15) on the factory

apron. Yefim Gordon archive

UTI-MiG-15 with PPZ-1 ILS

Several CzAF UTI-MiG-15s, including 2726 (c/n
0227267), were fitted with the PPZ-1 ILS with its
distinctive bullet-shaped dielectric fairing on
the intake splitter.

UTI-MiG-15P radar trainer

To fill a Czech MoD order, two late-production
UTI-MiG-15s - 2626 (c/n 722626) and 2826 (c/n
7228267) - were converted into radar trainers
designated UTI-MiG-15P' in 1959 for training
MiG-17PF pilots. The conversion was under-
taken by the military overhaul plant in Ceske
Budejovice. The first aircraft received the tem-
porary registration OK-10 during manufactur-
er's flight tests.
Outwardly the Czech UTI-MiG-15P differed
from its purpose-built Soviet namesake
(izdeliye ST-7) in having a slightly thicker for-
ward fuselage housing a different radar (RP-5
Izumrood-2, not RP-1), no S-13 gun camera
and a standard windshield (because the radar
display was located in the rear cockpit rather
than up front). Thanks to an intensive weight-
saving effort the converted aircraft was only
143.61 kg (316.6Ib) heavier than the standard
UTI-MiG-15, with virtually no deterioration in
performance. Range and endurance were
decreased slightly due to less internal fuel (the
forward fuel tank's capacity had to be reduced
by 7.7% to provide room for the radar set). experimental seat was fired from the rear cock- POLlSH·BUILT MiG·15s
The Czech UTI-MiG-15P passed its tests pit which had a non-standard rear fairing. Only
successfully but did not enter production. This the first aircraft, 2528 (c/n 722528), wore mili- Lim-1 Fagot-A (produkt C) tactical fighter.
was considered uneconomical, since both the tary markings. It also had photo calibration In the early 1950s, coincidentally with the
MiG-17PF and the MiG-19P equipped with the markings in the form of stripes and crosses on beginning of the Korean War and the resulting
RP-5 radar were supplied by the USSR and not the forward fuselage and fin and no less than increase in international tension, Poland began
built urider licence in Czechoslovakia; besides, 45 mission markings on the fin to mark suc- a major upgrade of its air force and heavy
the MiG-17PF was by then considered a stop- cessful ejections. This aircraft was destroyed in industry. The Yak-17 Feather and Yak-23 Flora
gap until more capable interceptors became a crash on 30th April 1971. first-generation jet fighters gave way to the
available. One of the two converted trainers, The other two examples wore two-or three MiG-15 which was delivered to the Polish Air
2626, now survives at the Czech aerospace digit civil registrations indicating test status. Force (PWL - Polskie Wojsko Lotnicze) in mid-
museum (VM VHU, Vojenske muzeum Vojen- The second aircraft, OK-10 (c/n 612744), was 1951. Hence the Polish authorities decided the
skeho historickeho ustavu - Military Museum of hardly luckier than the first one, being dam- time was ripe for Poland to build its own com-
the Military Historical Society) at Prague-Kbely aged beyond economical repair and relegated bat jets. Licence production was the obvious
airport. to ground tests. The third testbed, OK-Ota (c/n choice under the circumstances. Since the
822210), was used to test the indigenous VS- MiG-15 was much more advanced and had the
UTi-MiG-15 ejection seat testbeds 1BRI zero-zero ejection seat developed for the potential to remain the backbone of the fighter
In the early 1970s three Czech-built UTI-MiG- Aero L-39 Albatros advanced trainer (VS = force in the foreseeable future, the original
15s were converted into ejection seat testbeds vystfelovaci sedacka - ejection seat) and the plans to build the Yak-23 were abandoned and
by VZLU (Vyzkumni a zkusebni letecky utvar - later VS-2 model. It served on until supplanted manufacturing rights for the MiG-15 obtained.
Flight Test and Development Unit) in Prague, in this role by a MiG-21 US (OK-004, ex-CzAF Manufacturing documents were supplied in
the local equivalent of L11. On all three the 0241). mid-May 1951, and the Polish aircraft industry

MiG-15 51

association WSK PZL (Wytw6rnia sprzf!tu
komunikacyjnego - Panstwowe zaklady lot-
nicze, Transport equipment manufacturer -
State aircraft factories) began gearing up for
production. The PZL plant in Mielec (pro-
nounced 'Melets') was chosen to build the air-
frame, while the plant in Rzesz6w (pronounced
'Zheh-show') would manufacture the RO-45F
engine. Production of the MiG-15 benefitted
not just the aviation industry but the entire
heavy industry in Poland, nurturing a highly-
skilled cadre of workers and engineers.
As in Czechoslovakia's case, several CKD
kits were shipped to WSK Mielec as a 'starter
set', along with a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15 (c/n
113074) as a pattern aircraft. On 17th July
1952, Maj Eugeniusz Pniewski successfully
test-flew the first MiG-15 assembled in Poland
(c/n 1A 01-001).5 Five more aircraft (up to cln 1A
01-006) were completed before the year's end,
and production from locally-manufactured
components began in January 1953, starting
with batch 2. Twelve batches totalling 227 air-
52 MiG-15
craft had been built when production ended on
to 1st September 1954.
Again, as in Czechoslovakia's case, the air-
craft was produced under a separate designa-
tion. The Polish-built MiG-15 was designated
Lim-1 (licencyjny mysliwiec -licence-built fight-
er), while the RO-45F was produced as the
Lis-1 (licencyjny silnik - licence-built engine).
(A different presentation, liM and liS, would
have been more logical perhaps -Auth.) Some
Polish documents also referred to the aircraft
as 'produkt C'. This code was derived from the
Mikoyan OKB designation 'izdeliye S' and was
thus a case of misunderstanding, since the
Cyrillic letter S is identical to the Roman C!
Lim-2 Fagot-B (product CD) tactical fighter
The MiG-15bis joined the PWL inventory in late
1953. Concurrently with the first deliveries of
Soviet-built Fagot-Bs it was decided to launch
production of the type at WSK Mielec as the
Lim-2; accordingly, the VK-1A engine would be
built by WSK Rzesz6w as the Lis-2. Like the
These views of one of the two UTI-MiG-15Ps
show the radar installation clearly. Note that
the machine gun appears to be missing.
Vefim Gordon archive
S-103, the Lim-2 was a copy of the late-
production MiG-15bis with an improved avion-
ics suite (OSP-48 ILS, Bariy-M IFF etc).
Once again, a Kuybyshev-built MiG-15bis
was supplied as a pattern aircraft for licence
production; the cln has been quoted in a
Polish source as 1370086 but the correct ren-
dering is probably 137086. The first Lim-2
(c/n 1B 001-01) was rolled out on 11th Sep-
tember 1954, seventeen days after the last Lim-
1. The aircraft was also referred to as 'produkt
CO' (a corruption of the OKB designation
'izdeliye SO'). Originally Lim-2s were powered
by Soviet-supplied VK-1 engines; the first air-
craft to receive a locally-manufactured Lis-2
turbojet was 602 Red, the second aircraft of
batch 6 (c/n 1B 006-02) completed on 24th
February 1955.
The 500th and final Lim-2 (1914 Red, cln 1B
019-14) rolled off the production line on 23rd
November 1956. After that, WSK Mielec
switched to the MiG-17F which was built in
Poland as the Lim-5.
Lim-1,5 tactical fighter
Later, many Lim-1 s were upgraded to Lim-2
standard as regards avionics. The conversion
took place at the Polish Air Force's overhaul
plants. The upgraded aircraft were known unof-
ficiallyas Lim-1,5! (One can only guess what
code name the ASCC guys would have allo-
cated to this 'one-and-a-half' aircraft - Fagot-
A +, perhaps.) Outwardly such aircraft could be
recognized by the blade aerial of the Bariy-M
IFF atop the fuselage.
Lim-2R photo reconnaissance aircraft
Some Lim-2s were built as PHOTINT aircraft
designated Lim-2R (rozpoznawczy - recon-
naissance, used attributively). They featured an
AFA-21 camera installed in a bulged ventral
fairing aft of the portside 23mm cannons.
Lim-1/Lim-2 target tug
A number of Lim-1 sand Lim-2s were adapted
for target towing duties. The modifications were
nowhere near as serious as with the Czech
MiG-15T/MiG-15bisT. Quite simply, the inboard
NR-23 cannon was substituted by a lock for
towing sleeve-type targets which protruded
downwards aft of the nose gear unit.
Lim-2 smugacz demonstration aircraft
For airshow performances, Lim-2s often carried
smoke generating pods with electrically-ignited
solid charges under the wings. However, these
worked inadequately; the smoke trail was
either too thin and broken or too dense and
smudgy, preventing the spectators from follow-
ing the aerobatic manoeuvres.
 In order to resolve this problem, engineer
Zenon Klimkowski developed a version of the
MiG-15bis known as 'Lim-2 smugacz' (smoker,
pronounced 'smoogahch'). The aft integral fuel
tank was deleted to make room for two pres-
surized bottles containing pure engine oil (for
generating white smoke) or ditto with red dye
added (Poland's national colours are red and
white -Auth.). The contents of the bottles were
sprayed into the engine jetpipe; maximum con-
tinuous operation on one and two bottles was
two minutes and five minutes respectively. The
installation was tested successfully on Lim-2
'1127 White' (c/n 1B 011-27) at the Polish Air
Force's Technical Institute (ITWL - Instytut
Techniczny Wojsk Lotniczych). Several Lim-2s
were modified to this standard.
Production of the Lim-1 and Lim-2 gave the
Polish aircraft industry valuable experience in
building state-of-the-art jets. The Lim-1 and
Lim-2 were not exported.
SBLim-1 Midget advanced trainer
The UTI-MiG-15 was not manufactured in
Poland, being delivered to the PWL from the
USSR and Czechoslovakia. However, to meet
an urgent need for trainers in the late 1950s,
some Lim-1 s were rebuilt at military overhaul
plants to become SBLim-1 operational trainers
(szkolno-bojowy licencyjny mysliwiec -Iicence-
built fighter trainer).
The SBLim-1 had minor structural and equip-
ment differences from the UTI-MiG-15. For
example, some aircraft were armed with two
portside NR-23 cannons instead of the single
UBK-E or A-12,7 machine gun while others
appear to have only one cannon.
SBLim-2 Midget advanced trainer
In the mid-70s, Poland's stock of Lis-1 engines
ran out. Hence, starting in 1975, Lim-2s were
similarly converted into SBLim-2 trainers pow-
ered by Lis-2 engines and having enlarged air-
brakes. Some original UTI-MiG-15s were also
converted to this standard by replacing the
engine and aft fuselage. The SBLim-2 had just
one NR-23 cannon (or machine gun, depend-
ing on the aircraft's original identity).
Also, it appears that some Lim-1 s were con-
verted (or SBLim-1 s updated) to SBLim-2 stan-
dard. Such aircraft have enlarged Lim-2-style
airbrakes but retain their original Lim-1 con-
struction numbers commencing 1A. Aircraft
confirmed as converted in this fashion include
2004 Red (c/n 1A 02-004),6010 Red (c/n 1A 06-
010) and 8020 Red (c/n 1A 08-020).
In the type's latter days the engine was der-
ated to 2,400kgp (5,291 Ibst) to save fuel and
engine life. This derated engine was desig-
nated Lis-2SB.
SBLim-1Art and SBLim-2Art artillery spotter/
reconnaissance aircraft (SBLim-1A and -2A)
Some Polish Midgets were modified for battle-
field reconnaissance and artillery spotting.
Depending on the original version, these air-
craft were designated SBLim-1 Art and SBLim-
2Art (for artilleryjski); this was later changed to
SBLim-1A and SBLim-2A.
The SBLim-1A was equipped with a single
AFA-21 A camera on the gun tray, while the
SBLim-2A also had an AFA-39 camera in a
prominent ventral fairing amidships (immedi-
ately ahead of the fuselage break point). The
camera installation necessitated a reduction of
the internal fuel capacity, so the SBLim:2A
always carried 600 litre (132 Imperial gallon)
drop tanks.
The rear cockpit was occupied by the navi-
gator/camera operator, hence the flying con-
trols in the rear cockpit were deleted. Some
aircraft featured a rear view mirror on the for-
ward canopy frame. The aircraft was armed
with two NR-23 cannons.
SBLim-2M advanced trainer
In the late 1970s, after years of operational use,
some SBLim-2As were reconverted for the
training role with the camera pack removed
and full dual controls reinstated. Such aircraft
were redesignated SBLim-2M (modyfikowany-
modified). The two 23mm guns were retained.
SBLim-1 ejection seat testbeds
Two SBLim-1 s were used by the Polish Institute
of Aeronautics (instytut Lotnictwa) in Warsaw
for ejection seat trials. One aircraft serialled
1018 Red (c/n 1A 10-018) was a virtually stan-
dard Midget with the sliding rear canopy por-
tion removed for easy installation and removal
of the ejection seat. The other aircraft, 002 Red
(c/n 1A 05-002), was extensively modified
under the PZL 1-22 Iryda (Iridium) advanced
trainer/light attack aircraft development pro-
gramme. It carried an 1-22 forward fuselage
mockup over the fuselage on a lattice-like
structure; the mockup featured a cockpit with a
fUlly functional ejection seat. This aircraft is now
preserved in Warsaw.
10 Red (c/n 1A 11-010). a fairly late-production
Lim-1, at a Polish airbase. WAF
MiG-15 53

The MiG·15 in Action
or The Aluminium Rabbit Goes to War'
When a MiG-15 prototype took part in the fly-
past at Moscow's Tushino airfield in July 1948,
making the type's public debut, Western intelli-
gence experts paid little attention to the new
fighter. Western thinking was focused on the
vast Red Army with its thousands of tanks and
Stalin's fanatical soldiers, rather than the Sovi-
et air arm. However, Western observers were
soon proven wrong.
As noted earlier, the MiG-15 attained IOC
with the WS in 1949. The 324th Sveerskaya
IAD2/29th GvlAP commanded by Lt Col A V
Pashkevich, Hero of the Soviet Union (HSU),
54 MiG-15
Chapter Four
and based at Kubinka AB near Moscow was the
first unit to master the new fighter. The 324th,
then commanded by the famous Col Ivan Niki-
tovich Kozhedoob (triple HSU), the top-scoring
Great Patriotic War ace with 62 'kills' to his credit,
was something of a 'showcase division'. This
was because Kubinka was the nearest fighter
base to Moscow and was thus regularly
inspected by various top officials. The base still
hosts the Russian Air Force's new equipment
display centre named after I N Kozhedoob.
The first ten or fifteen aircraft for the 29th
GvlAP arrived on 22nd February 1949; these
were Batch 1, 2 and 3 aircraft delivered by rail
from Kuybyshev. The fighters were promptly
assembled and service trials began, in parallel
with preparations for the traditional May Day
parade.
Very soon the USSR demonstrated its capa-
bilities to the West as far as military aviationwas
concerned, including its impressive rate of
modern fighter production. 45 production
MiG-15s flew over Moscow on 1st May 1949.
On 17th July in the same year, 52 of the new jets
were seen at Moscow-Tushino. On 7th Novem-
ber 1949 (the October Revolution anniversary),
no fewer than 90 flew over Red Square, and on
May Day 1950, 139 MiG-15s took part in the
show.
The introduction of the MiG-15 into the WS
inventory was a true technical revolution. The
first Soviet jets - the Yak-15, Yak-17 and MiG-9
- had an extremely limited production run (a
few hundred units each) and could not be used
to re-equip the VVS. The backbone of the fight-
er force was made up by piston-engined air-
craft - the ultimate versions of the Yak-3 and
Yak-9, the La-7, the postwar La-9 and La-11 and
a few Bell P-63 Kingcobras (operated mainly by
the PVO). The Fagot was a huge step ahead in
comparison with any of these types.
Pilot conservatism has become an old
adage but, understandably enough, pilots and
tech staff who were used to flying and handling
prop-driven aircraft were initially wary of the
MiG-15. To begin with operations were limited
to daytime visual flight rules (VFR) conditions;
aerobatics and spin entry were out of the ques-
tion at first. This was clearly unacceptable;
flight and ground crews had to trust and mas-
ter the aircraft completely if its potential was to
be used to the full.
Urgent measures were taken to remedy this
situation. The Mikoyan OKB speeded up devel-
opment of the UTI-MiG-15 trainer, and a large
group of qualified flying instructors (OFls) with
intimate knowledge of piloting techniques and
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the
type was trained. Additionally, Nil WS test
Top: 302 Blue, a MiG·15bis of unknown origin.
Initially Soviet Air Force Fagots often had the air
intake lip and/or fin cap painted in squadron
colours 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 share
their considerable experience with service
pilots. Special blind/night landing courses for
officers were established. Everybody, from
sergeant technician to regiment commander,
undertook their training. This crash programme
evoked memories of 1941 when similarly fever-
ish conversion training had taken place in the
face of the German aggression.
Well-trained commanders were placed in
charge of conversion training in MiG-15 units,
building up pilot trust in the new aircraft by per-
sonal example; this approach undoubtedly
saved many lives. Combat manoeuvres and
spin recovery techniques were gradually mas-
tered as the WS built up the numbers on the
Fagot.
Some time later, VVS flight inspection groups
were created in different regions of the USSR.
Their main objective was to train pilots and
monitor operations in different regions, check-
ing uniformity of procedures and tactics. These
groups were headed by very experienced mili-
tary test pilots. For example, the Far East
inspection group was headed by Maj Gen P
Stefanovsky. Hero of the Soviet Union, who had
been first to master aerobatics in the first Soviet
production jet fighter, the Yak-15.
The MiG-15 became fully operational in a
remarkably short time. By mid-1950, some WS
units flying the type were combat ready; by
1952, all MiG-15 units were deemed combat
ready. The aircraft soon earned a good reputa-
tion for rugged simplicity, reliability and ease of
maintenance, all invaluable qualities in a war -
of which the MiG-15 would see plenty. The nick-
name bestowed on it by its crews, samo/yot-
so/daht (soldier aircraft), has to be regarded as
the ultimate praise.
Soon after the MiG-15's service entry an aer-
obatic team - the first Soviet jet display team -
was formed at Kubinka AB in 1950. It was led
by Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev who was to gain
fame in the Korean War. The team's five Fagot-
Bs - 490 Red, 502 Red, 568 Red, 573 Red and
588 Red - had the upper surfaces painted
bright red, giving rise to the unofficial name

A MiG·15bis takes off in the midst of a snow-

covered landscape somewhere in the USSR. The
tactical code is probably blue, which means the
aircraft belongs to a PVO unit.
Yefim Gordon archive

Armourers cleaning an N-37D cannon removed

from a WS MiG·15bis. Note the black walkway
on the wing. Yefim Gordon archive

The MiG·15 was also actively operated by the

Naval air arm. Here, a Midget and two Fagot-Bs
sit on an unpaved parking area while the crews
pore over tactics. Yefim Gordon archive

One of the few surviving Fagot-Bs at MAPO·

MiG's Lookhovitsy plant (LMZ) which now builds
the MiG-29 Fulcrum. Note the almost complete
Interavia 1·1 L light aircraft in the backg'round,
another LMZ product. Yefim Gordon

MiG-15 55

Krasnaya pyatyorka (the Red Five), and smoke
generators fitted under the wings. This team
later flew the MiG-17 Fresco-A, MiG-19S
Farmer-C and MiG-21 PF Fishbed-D in a similar
colour scheme. Later, however, this flamboyant
paint job was dropped (and apparently the
whole idea as well); it was not until 1990 that
display teams with eyecatching colour schemes
started making a comeback in the Soviet Air
Force.
In the early 1950s, several MiG-15 units were
permanently deployed outside the USSR - for
example, in Poland and East Germany, serving
with the 4th VA and the 16th VA respectively,
until replaced by later types. In Poland the
MiG-15 and UTI-MiG-15 was operated, eg, by
the 229th IAD/42nd Tannenbergskiy GvlAp3 at
Zagan AB, the 239th Baranovichskaya IAD/
159th Novorossiyskiy GvlAP' at Kluczewo (Star-
gard) AB which had 28 Fagots by January 1954.
East German bases used by GSVG5 MiG-15s
were Altenburg (N6bitz),s Brandenburg-Briest,
Brandis, Cottbus, Damgarten (PDtnitz), Erfurt
(1953), Falkenberg (Alt L6nnewitz), Finow
(Eberswalde) (1951-54), Finsterwalde, GroBen-
hain, HaBleben, JOterbog-Altes Lager, Kothen,
Uirz, Leipzig-Mockau, Merseburg, Neuruppin,
56 MiG-15
66 Red, a 159th lAP UTI·MiG·15 stationed at
Kluczewo AB, Poland, taxies in past a line of
MiG·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 beside
their mount, a Czech·built UTI·MIG·15 (85 Red,
cln 512357). Air Zone
Neu-Welzow, Oranienburg, Parchim, Peene-
mOnde, Templin, Wittstock and Zerbst.
Altenburg was occupied by the 294th ORAP
flying MiG·15bisRs, Falkenberg by the 6th
GvIAD/31 st Nikopol'skiy GvIAp, JOterbog-Altes
Lager by the 833rd lAp, Kothen by the 126th
IAD/73rd GvIAp, Merseburg by the 6th GvIAD/
85th GvIAp, Neuruppin and Templin by the
234th IAD/787th lAp, PeenemOnde by the 16th
Gv1AD/33rd lAp, Zerbst by the 126th lAD/35th
lAP. The 125th ADIB/2Oth GvAPIB was consec-
utively based at Neu-Welzow, Damgarten and
Parchim, while the 105th ADIB/559th APIB
moved from Falkenberg to GroBenhain,
Altenburg and finally Finsterwalde.'
MiG-15 operations in Germany were not alto-
gether without incident. Two 20th GvAPIB
Fagots collided in mid-air and crashed near
Parchim AB in 1958. A UTI-MiG-15 of the same
unit was lost in a crash between Templin and
Brandenburg on 12th January 1976. Another
Midget (this time a 787th lAP aircraft) crashed
near Bad Freienwalde in the summer of 1981.
Yet another UTI-MiG-15, a 559th APIB aircraft
built in Ulan-Ude (72 Red, c/n 10994003), was
damaged beyond repair at Finsterwalde.
As the MiG-15bis was relegated to the fight-
er-bomber role, new tactics began appearing.
Generally the Fagot-B employed a wider range
of tactics when used as a strike aircraft in com-
parison with the dedicated attack aircraft used
hitherto. These included bombing in level flight
at 300 to 500m (984 to 1,640ft), bomb.ing in a
10 to 20° or 50 to 60° dive, firing cannons and
FFARs in a 5 to 15° or 20 to 30° dive, night
bomb/FFAR/cannon fire attacks against illumi-
nated targets in a 15 to 30° dive.
New tactics pioneered on the MiG-15bis
were toss bombing in a 45° or 110° climb, a
bomb/cannon fire attack in a 30 to 40° or 50 to
60° dive after making a yo-yo manoeuvre or a
half loop, and ditto after making a loop over the
target. The toss bombing manoeuvre was
devised with a view to using tactical nuclear
bombs which had just become available to
Soviet fighter-bomber units.
Knowing the Fagot-B's vulnerability to ground
fire, the pilots tried to complete their attack as
quickly as possible by firing all weapons in a
single pass. If the first attack failed, a second
pass was made after one or two U-turns or a
270° turn.
Besides destroying predetermined targets,
MiG-15bis fighter-bombers could operate as
'duty bombers' summoned as required and as
'hunters' attacking targets of opportunity. Dur-
ing strike missions, roles were distributed
between aircraft; some aircraft did the actual
'mud-moving' while others reconnoitered and
designated the targets, still others took out the
air defences and a fourth group flew top cover
in case enemy fighters showed up. The Fagots
were also to assist regular tactical fighter units
in fending off massive enemy air raids.
As a fighter-bomber, the MiG-15bis was of
crucial importance to the VVS. Even though it
was never used operationally in this role, it
helped to train a highly skilled cadre and per-
fect techniques which were used with great
success in the 1960s to 1980s when dedicated
fighter-bombers and attack aircraft such as the
Su-17M and Su-25 entered service (and saw
action in the Afghan war).
Trial by fire
Whatever doubts the West may have had con-
cerning the MiG-15 were dispelled soon
enough when the aircraft first saw action. Earli-
er in this book, it has been called the Alumini-
um Rabbit. Note that this is an allusion purely
to numbers, not to timidity of character; the
MiG-15 is a fighting plane if there ever was one!
Indeed, it was this aircraft that brought the
Mikoyan OKS world fame as a fighter maker.
 Contrary to popular belief, the MiG-15
received its baptism of fire in China, not in
Korea - flown by Soviet pilots. When differ-
ences between Mao Tse-tung's Communist
Party and Chiang Kai-shek's nationalist Kuom-
intang Party escalated into an outright military
conflict, the Nationalists were soon confined to
Taiwan and the adjoining islands. From there
the Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF) could
still launch air raids against the mainland with
which Mao's People's Liberation Army Air
Force (PLAAF) could not cope. Mao turned to
Moscow for help, and a treaty on (among other
things) military cooperation was signed on 13th
February 1950.
In the spring of 1950 the 29th GvIAp, then fly-
ing Novosibirsk-built Batch 3 Fagot-As, was
detached to China from Kubinka AB and sec-
onded to the 106th lAD PVO under Lt Gen P F
Batitskiy. Its mission was to protect Shanghai
from ROCAF raids and keep Taiwanese ships
from going up the Yangtse River. Besides being
a major industrial centre, Shanghai was a base
from where the Chinese People's Liberation
Army prepared to launch an invasion of the
Chowshang Islands occupied by the Kuom-
intang - 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 for
appearance's sake and the pilots wore Chinese
uniforms, since the Soviet Union was not offi-
cially 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, the
unit's deputy CO, damaged a Taiwanese Lock-
heed P-38 Lightning reconnaissance aircraft
which crashed on the Chowshang Islands. On
the night of 12th May, a flight of MiGs intercept-
ed three Consolidated B-24 Liberator bombers
and Capt I I Shinkarenko destroyed one of
them at close range.
There was also a red-on-red incident8 on 9th
August 1950 when a PLAAF Tu-2 bomber flying
from Nanking to Shanghai entered the area
protected by the 29th GvlAP without clearance
or warning. Two fighters scrambled to intercept
and promptly shot it down, mistaking it for
an ROCAF North American B-25 Mitchell; the
Chinese military acknowledged their fault.
No MiG-15s were lost to, enemy fire. How-
ever, on 29th March one MiG-15 crashed at
Hsuichow AB during a training flight; the pilot,
Lt P V Prosteryakov, was killed. The cause of
the accident was never found.
At a later stage of the conflict, when Taiwan
signed a defensive pact with the USA in March
1955, the Chinese MiGs occasionally had to
deal with USAF aircraft. For example, on 10th
May 1955 eight F-86s based in South Korea
overflew Antung on a reconnaissance mission.
They were immediately pounced upon by
PLAAF Fagot-Bs; in the ensuing dogfight one of
the Sabres was shot down and two more were
damaged.
The best-known conflict in which the MiG-15
participated 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 in
Kuybyshev on 24th May 1950 during a factory test flight with M V
Yermolenko at the controls. A burst hydraulic line prevented the landing
gear from extending normally. Yefim Gordon archive

Above left: Another new MiG-15bis - this time an aircraft built in

Komsomol'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 the
engine quit. Yefim Gordon archive

Above right: A 39th GvlAP MiG-15bis based at Vasil'kov in a sorry state after
making 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 extend
the landing gear while landing in this Tbilisi-built MiG-15bis
(c/n 31530504). The fuel tanks were ruptured in the resulting belly landing
and 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 in
post-Second World War conflicts, including
Korea, was something the man in the street was
not supposed to know about, and combat
reports etc were highly classified. Conversely,
Korean War stories and 'kill' statistics were
widely publicised in the West in order to win
public support for 'GI Joe saving the free world
from the Reds' (which inevitably affected the
portrayal of victories and losses). Hence, until
the recent spate of publications by Russian his-
torians and 'Korea vets', the only information
58 MiG-15
could be obtained from books by Western his-
torians and USAF pilots (read: 'imperialist
aggressors') - which were somewhat one-
sided, to say the least. Air Power as a Decisive
Force in Korea by James T Stewart, published
in the USSR in 1959, was perhaps the most
objective source available to Soviet readers on
American and, to a certain extent, Soviet oper-
ations in Korea. The following is an attempt to
describe those events as seen by the Soviet
side, including actual participants - Soviet
fighter pilots who flew MiG-15s in Korea.
Before speaking of MiG-15 operations in the
Korean War, a brief account has to be made
Left: 29th GvlAP Fagot-As lined up at Dachang in
the summer of 1950. The aircraft are painted in
Chinese markings for appearance's sake; note
the red/white striped rudder.
Yefim Gordon archive
Below left and right: Preparing for another sortie at
Dachang. Yefim Gordon archive
Bottom: 29th Gv1AP/2nd Sqn technicians in front
of one of the unit's fighters.
Yefim Gordon archive
of the developments prior to the type's
appearance on the Korean theatre of opera-
tions. When Soviet and US occupation troops
withdrew from Korea in 1948, they effectively
left behind two different nations - the pro-Com-
munist North Korea (Korean People's Democ-
ratic Republic) led by Kim II Sung and the
pro-Western South Korea (Republic of Korea)
led by Li Sun Man. This turned Korea into a time
bomb ready to explode.
When the Communists came to power in
China in 1949 and the Soviet Union success-
fully tested its first atomic bomb in the same
year, the Soviet leaders felt confident it would
be easy to take control of the entire Korean
peninsula and face the world with a fait accom-
pli. Thus, massive arms deliveries to North
Korea began in the spring of 1950; given the
North Korean Army's impressive numerical
superiority, the objective to take over South
Korea within two or three days seemed easy
as pie.
On 25th June 1950 North Korean troops
crossed the border, quickly advancing south
and seizing the South Korean capital of Seoul
in four days - just as planned. What the strate-
gists in Moscow had not counted on, however,
was the quick reaction of the West. On 25th
June the United Nations Security Council held
an emergency session, calling for intervention
in the conflict; eight hours later the first aircraft
of the USAF's 5th air force were pressed into
action. On 29th June, USAF aircraft bombed
North Korean airbases, knocking out the Com-
munists' air arm; now the UN coalition forces formed in late November from WS, PVO and speak Chinese or Korean on the radio (!), but
enjoyed complete air superiority. Pacific Fleet Air Arm units specifically for fight- this stupid requirement was later withdrawn. 'At
On 4th July the UN Command under Gen ing in Korea. Besides fighter units, it included first we were prohibited to speak Russian' on
Douglas MacArthur was established. Until mid- anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), air traffic control and the radio, - pilot G K Kormilkin recalled. - We
September, UN aviation 9 kept North Korean communications, and support units. This fairly started studying Chinese and sat in the class-
troops at bay along the Pusan perimeter in the large group was initially commanded by room memorizing the basic commands in Chi-
extreme south - all that was left unoccupied by Stepan Krasovsky who had a lot of experience nese. All of us had Chinese pseudonyms (as
the Communists. Meanwhile, the coalition leading air units in the Great Patriotic War. callsigns - Auth.). At first, everything seemed
steadily built up forces within the perimeter; The main function of the 64th IAK was the OK and we spoke Chinese - until our first
by mid-September the 70,000-strong North defence of bridges and power stations on the encounter with the Americans. But when it
Korean group besieging the Pusan perimeter Yalu River. In December 1950 the 28th lAD was came to real combat and our aircraft started
was outnumbered by a factor of two. At the relocated to Xingdao and assigned the task of going down in flames, the Chinese commands
same time, USAF Boeing B-29 Stratofortress training Chinese and Korean jet fighter pilots were interspersed with Russian ones, including
bombers pounded North Korean cities and which joined the fray in the summer of 1951 as a good many f-words. When we came back, we
industrial centres with impunity. the Joint Chinese/Korean Air Army (JAA). The said: no thank you, we won't speak Chinese.
On 15th September the UN coalition 151 st GvlAD was also assigned to training Chi- It's nowhere near like sitting in the classroom;
launched a counter-offensive, inflicting heavy nese and Korean pilots for a while, during up there you get shot at and even killed. From
losses on the Communists, coupled with the which time the 50th lAD was left to shoulder the then on, it was Russian all the way.'
Inchon amphibious landing. The North Korean tasks of the war alone. Soviet MiGs were also prohibited from oper-
Army was virtually wiped out; according to Both sides operated under rigid restrictions ating over the sea. These restrictions did not
Western reports, nearly 100,000 were taken imposed by the UN on one side and by the apply to Chinese and North Korean pilots,
prisoner. By late October UN forces had taken Soviet Union's reluctance to expand the con- which could fly pretty much anywhere but suf-
the capital of Pyongyang and reached the Yalu flict (and reveal its involvement) on the other fered heavy losses when Soviet pilots were not
River which is the border between Korea and side. UN pilots were prohibited from crossing close at hand to protect them.
China. The tables were turned; the North Korean the Yalu, while the Soviet MiG-15 pilots were Apart from orders, Soviet operations were
government addressed the USSR and China ordered to stay behind an imaginary line drawn severely restricted by the lack of suitable air-
for help. between Pyongyang and Wonsan in central fields. Antung AB located in the mouth of the
The first MiG-1 5s arrived in Korea in Novem- North Korea. The area between this line and the Yalu was the only available airbase in the for-
ber 1950. It has to be said that North Korean Yalu River soon became universally known as ward area until early 1951 . Later, it was supple-
MiG-15s were largely flown by Soviet Air Force 'MiG Alley'. mented by Angshan, Miaogow, Dapu and
units; thus the North Korean markings'O were In a rather na'ive attempt to hide their true Dagushan;" there were other airfields as well,
usually applied just for appearance's sake, identity, Soviet pilots were initially ordered to but these were occupied by Chinese units.
since the Soviet Union was not officially
involved in the conflict. MiG-15 deliveries to
Soviet and Chinese/Korean units fighting in
Korea were so great that the USSR was forced
to slow the pace of re-equipping its units in
Europe and postpone new equipment deliver-
ies to its Warsaw Pact allies.
The participation of Soviet MiG-15 pilots in
the war can be divided into three stages:
November 1950 to April 1951, April 1951 to
January 1952 and January 1952 till the end of
the war (27th July 1953). Stage One began
when the first Soviet units hastily relocated to
bases in China across the Yalu River were put
into action against the UN forces in an attempt
to strip them of air superiority over Korea. They
succeeded in checking the advance of their
adversary, but only until the F-86 came on the
scene.
The 28th lAD (comprising the 139th GvlAP
and 67th lAP), 50th lAD (29th GvlAP and 177th
lAP) and 151st GvlAD (28th GvlAP and 72nd
GvIAP) were the first to arrive. These three divi-
sions became the first components of the 64th
IAK (istrebifel'nyy aviakorpoos - fighter corps)

The crew chief reports to the pilot that the

aircraft is ready to fly, Dachang 1950.
Yefim Gordon archive

The serial almost obliterated by crude green

camouflage, 351st lAP MiG-15bis '546 Red'
(c/n 53210546) is prepared for a sortie at Antung
AB in the autumn of 1952. This aircraft was flown
by Maj I P Golyshevskiy. Yefim Gordon archive

MiG-15 59
 Attempts to use 34 airfields in North Korean ter-
ritory failed, as these were systematically
destroyed by UN bombings as soon as they
were rebuilt or at the first sign of MiGs being
based there.
The MiG-15's first encounter with USAF fight-
ers in Korean skies was on 1st November 1950
- and its combat tally was opened on that occa-
sion. A group of 151st Gv1AD/72nd GvlAP
Fagot-As intercepted a flightof North American
P-51 Ds near the Yalu River and Lt (sg)'2 Chizh
destroyed one of the Mustangs. Western
sources, however, deny the loss of any P-51 s
that day; moreover, the MiGs have been
misidentified in some sources as Chinese
ones.
According to Western reports, the first jet-
versus-jet battle in world history took place a
week later, on 8th November - and, as the read-
60 MiG-15
~----~=~--------~--------
er has surely guessed, the reports state that the
MiGs lost it. Western accounts of this battle
vary, but a 'generic' description is as follows.
That day the USAF had planned a major raid
against Sinuiju and a bridge on the Yalu River.
Prior to the main strike, P-51 D Mustangs and
F-80C Shooting Stars attacked North Korean
positions on the southern bank of the Yalu, with
two flights of 51 st Fighter Interceptor Group
(FIG)/16th FigHter Interceptor Squadron (FIS)
Shooting Stars from Kimpo AB flying top cover
at 6,000m (19,685ft).
Six MiG-15s (29th GvlAP aircraft led by Capt
Afonin -Auth.) took off from Antung, climbed to
9,000m (29,527ft) and engaged one flight of the
top cover F-80s. The American pilots turned
head on, splitting up the attackers, then dived,
trying to lure them down to low altitude where
the F-80 could outturn the MiG. One MiG-15
Top left: Maj I P Golyshevskiy in the cockpit of
his 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 metal
finish is prepared for a sortie at Antung in the
autumn of 1952. Lt (sg) Iskhangaliyev is sitting
in the cockpit. Yefim Gordon archive
went for the bait and Lt Russell J Brown, seeing
the enemy aircraft below him, gave chase. The
heavier Shooting Star dived faster and closed
in on its quarry, and Brown ripped up the MiG's
fuselage with a five-second burst of machine-
gun fire. Pieces flew off the MiG and it dived into
the ground, trailing smoke.
 Russian aviation historians and WS records,
however, give a totally different account. Firstly,
Western authors describing the famous battle
rarely mention the fact that five out of six
machine guns on Brown's aircraft jammed."
This alone makes the 'kill' very doubtful indeed,
since the MiG-15 has exhibited high resistance
to 12.7mm (.50 calibre) bullets; Sabre pilots
sometimes reported that 'the MiG absorbed the
entire ammunition supply and still got away'.
While the 'entire ammunition supply' statement
seems a bit exaggerated, it was certainly hard
to shoot down a MiG-15 with just one Browning.
Secondly, Soviet military archives show that
no Soviet (ie, quasi-North Korean) aircraft were
lost on 8th November 1950. Since Soviet units
were the only ones operating against UN avia-
tion at the time, Russell J Brown could not pos-
sibly have shot down a Chinese or North
Korean pilot, which means he did not shoot
down anyone at all.
Still, Brown had reasons to believe that he
had scored a 'kill'. The most probable explana-
tion is this. When Capt Afonin's flight made for
home, five of the six aircraft made a climbing
turn towards Chinese territory. Lt (sg) Kharitonov,
however, dived after an F-80 and was, in turn,
attacked by Lt Brown. When he realised he was
under attack he jettisoned his drop tanks and
made for home at low altitude (according to
some sources, Kharitonov's aircraft was hit but
landed safely at Antung).
Now the first thing a fighter pilot does before
entering a dogfight is jettison his drop tanks.
However, Soviet pilots in Korea started doing
so only a week or two after they joined the
action - simply because drop tanks were in
short supply at first and the pilots were reluc-
tant to jettison them. Lt Brown probably did not
expect his adversary to begin a dogfight with
the drop tanks still in place. When the tanks fell
away, streaming fuel, and hit the ground in a
cloud of dust and kerosene mist, Brown was
probably confused and believed the MiG had
disintegrated in mid-air. Thus one can hardly
accuse him of inventing the whole story; even
more serious mistakes are known to have hap-
pened in the heat of the battle all over the world.
While we are on the subject of the first jet vic-
tory, 72nd GvlAP reports contain an even more
interesting statement. According to these doc-
uments: on 1st November 1950 the unit
engaged in two aerial battles, not one. The
report reads as follows:
'Between 14:12 and 15:31 (Peking time -
Auth.) a flight of four MiG-15s (flight leader Maj
Bordoon, wingmen Lt Khominich, Lt Sookhov
and Lt Yesyunin) was out on a sortie to intercept
enemy aircraft near Antung. 25 minutes after the
flight had reached the Antung area there were
still no enemy aircraft in sight and the flight was
ordered to return to base. Two or three minutes
later the pilots were ordered by radio to head
back for Antung and repel an enemy strike.
Three MiG-15s led by Maj Bordoon (Lt Yesyunin
was Iowan fuel and had to return to base
because he had no drop tanks) returned to the
Antung area. Following a heading of 1600 to
170 0 magnetic, Lt Khominich spotted ten F-80
Shooting Stars in his left front quadrant. They
were flying at 4,500m [14, 763ft] - four F-80s up
front, followed by a pair 800 to 1,000m [2,624 to
3,280ft] behind and 100m [328ft] higher and
another four F-80s 800 to 1,000m behind the
pair; the aircraft were in echelon starboard for-
mation with 50 to 70m [164 to 230ft] intervals.
Reporting enemy aircraft in sight, Lt Khominich
made a left turn and attacked the lead four F-80s
out of the sun in a dive from behind. He shot
down one F-80 with a three-second burst, open-
ing fire at 800m and ceasing fire at 200m [656ft]
range, and climbed away sharply, breaking left.
Maj Bordoon's pair attacked the four F-80s
bringing up the rear which attempted an attack
on Lt Khominich as he completed his firing
pass, but unsuccessfully. As a result the enemy
fighters broke formation and left the scene
singly or in pairs. '
Thus the first jet battle actually took place on
1st November 1950. It is an honour to win a
fight with a new and potent adversary - and
winning on the very first occasion makes the
victory even more honourable. Small wonder
that matters of national prestige almost
inevitably affect the facts (putting it mildly). The
Western world probably regards 8th November
1950 as the· day of the first jet battle just
because Lt Russell J Brown was credited
with a 'kill' that day (to quote Col Yevgeniy G
Pepelyayev who ranked second-highest among
Soviet aces in Korea, 'not everything that is
credited is actually shot down'!). There is no
other possible explanation why the F-80 pilots
'failed to notice' the MiGs attacking them a
week earlier (with the result that the Shooting
Star became a Shot-Down Star).
Yet, if we are to be perfectly honest, we can-
not regard Lt Khominich as the world's first pilot
to score a jet-versus-jet 'kill' with absolute cer-
tainty. The USAF acknowledges the loss of one
F-80 on 1st November but claims it was shot
down by AAA during the morning raid on SinQi-
ju AB. The results of this raid were unsatisfac-
tory, leading the USAF to make a second attack
on SinQiju in the afternoon. As the F-80s mak-
ing this second attack approached the target,
the dogfight between Mustangs and 72nd
GvlAP MiGs mentioned earlier took place.
Since Lt Khominich made his attack after this
dogfight, the F-80 credited to him must be a
different one.
Possibly the USAF chose not to acknowl-
edge the loss of a second Shooting Star that
day for some reason, but we cannot say for
sure until documents confirming or discounting
this loss are available. Also, the 72nd GvlAP
report does not say what exactly happened to
the supposedly Shot-Down Star; the aircraft
may have simply gone back south, trailing
smoke - and made a safe landing.
Thus the first confirmed jet-versus-jet 'kill'
took place on 9th November, when the MiG-15
had its first encounter with US Navy aircraft. At
10 am eighteen 139th GvlAP Fagot-As attacked
a group of 20 Vought F4U-4 Corsairs and
Douglas AD-1 Skyraiders bombing a bridge
across the Yalu River near SinQiju. They were
immediately pounced upon by the escorting
two flights of Grumman F9F-2 Panthers which
were ideally positioned for attack. The MiGs'
disadvantage was compounded by poor visi-
bility (it was a misty morning) and poor team-
work. The latter was due to the fact that part of
the unit's personnel had been transferred to the
newly-formed 67th lAP; thus many established
pairs (see tactics section below) had been sep-
arated and new ones had not yet formed.
According to Soviet sources, in the ensuing
battle the MiGs destroyed six strike aircraft,
three of the 'kills' being credited to Capt Mikhail
Grachov, Commander of the unit's 1st Sqn.
Unfortunately, Grachov was killed immediately
afterwards - he got separated from his wing-
men and was shot down by Lt Cdr William T
Amen ofVF-111 .
(It has to be said here that 'MiG-15 vs US
Navy aircraft' statistics remain extremely con-
fused. For example, there is no evidence of any
Panthers being shot down by MiGs, but they
could have been misidentified as Shooting
Stars in the heat of the battle.)
On'the same day the MiGs claimed the first
B-29s destroyed in the war. The heavy bombers
were considered priority targets, since they
inflicted heavy damage on North Korean and
Chinese ground troops. On 9th November, N I
Podgornyy (67th lAP) and Maj A Z Bordoon
(72nd GvIAP) shot down one B-29 each; Pod-
gornyy also damaged an RB-29 but had to
break off the attack when his fighter was hit and
the oxygen system damaged. (According to US
sources, the MiG-15 first met the Superfortress
on 4th November when four MiGs attacked and
damaged an RB-29.) The MiG-15's cannons
proved deadly for the B-29 and could literally
rip a wing off the bomber; conversely, the
B-29's defensive armament was of little use
against the MiGs.
The improved MiG-15bis came to Korea
almost simultaneously with the basic MiG-15;
the 50th lAD was the first unit to fly it. 29th
GvlAP Fagot-Bs flew their first sorties in the war
on 30th November from Angshan AB and had
their first dogfight the next day. Other Soviet
units which came to Korea flying the Fagot-A
quickly converted to bises (mostly Kuybyshev-
and Novosibirsk-built), passing their old aircraft
on to Chinese and North Korean units; later
those, too, began receiving the new model.
Originally Soviet pilots had to deal with pro-
peller-driven aircraft or early straight-winged
jets such as the F-80C (dubbed krest, 'cross',
because of its cruciform shape) and the Repub-
lic F-84E/G Thunderjet, which were no match
for the MiG-15. The first encounter with the
F-84 was on 21 st January 1951 when a flight of
Thunderjets attempting to bomb a bridge
on the Hangan River was intercepted by six
177th lAP MiG-15s. Capt M Ya Fomin and Capt
Andryushin each claimed one 'kill'; the two
remaining Thunderjets fled.
MiG-15 61
 Also, at first UN pilots knew almost nothing
about the Reds' new fighter. Western experts
did know something after the MiG-15's Tushino
debut but dismissed it as 'Russian, ergo sub-
standard', and there was hell to pay for this
approach. Soon, however, the heavy losses
inflicted by MiGs caused the USAF to hasten
the delivery of the brand-new swept-wing North
American F-86A Sabre to the Korean theatre of
operations, and things began to change.
The first battle between the F-86A and MiG-15
took place on 17th December 1950. The Sabre
came out on top that day. Expending about
1,500 12.7mm (.50 cal.) rounds, Lt Col Bruce
Hinton (4th FIG/336th FIS) flying an F-86A-5-NA
named 'Squanee' (49-1236I'FU-236') shot
down the first MiG-15 in Korean skies, a 29th
GvlAP aircraft. The pilot, 50th lAD inspector
pilot Maj Yakov Yefromeyenko, was killed. Four
days later the MiGs retaliated; Capt Ivan
Yourkevich from the same unit became the first
MiG-15 pilot to shoot down an F-86 on 21 st
December." Soviet and American accounts of
that battle vary widely; Soviet sources claim
that three Sabres were destroyed and two MiGs
lost, whereas US sources state six MiGs and
one Sabre.
The first 'big day for UN pilots' was 22nd
December 1950 when the Sabres had several
skirmishes with 50th lAD MiGs. The sides
claimed the destruction of five F-86As and six
MiG-15s; actual losses were one Sabre and two
MiGs. By the end of December the Americans
claimed eight MiG-15s shot down, with the loss
of only one Sabre in 76 dogfights. While these
figures are grossly exaggerated (only three
MiGs were really destroyed), consider this.
According to Soviet sources, MiG-15 units lost
three aircraft in the six weeks before the Sabre
came on the scene - and just as many in two
weeks after that. The F-86 certainly did change
the situation in Korean skies.
The USAF noted little MiG activity in January
to April 1951. Consequently the F-86s were
shifted to strike duties, supporting UN ground
troops engaged in bitter fighting with the Chi-
nese 'volunteers', as they were known (in
reality, regular People's Liberation Army units).
The explanation is this. The first group of
Soviet pilots in Korea still had little combat
experience in the MiG-15, and individual pilot
training often needed improvement. It was easy
to shoot down P-51 sand F-80s, but the F-86
was a far more formidable enemy. Thus, know-
ing their tactical disadvantage, MiG-15 pilots
often turned tail when confronted by Sabres, as
confirmed by Col Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev. Still,
one has to remember that the main objective of
Soviet fighter units was to neutralize USAF
bombers; from this point of view, avoiding com-
bat with the F-86 can be justified.
The fi rst stage of MiG-15 operations in Korea
ended when the first group of Soviet pilots
left Antung and returned to the USSR as a unit
in April 1951. This first stage had been very
difficult, as testified by the fact that Soviet
pilots were honoured with the HSU title, the top
62 MiG-15
Soviet military award, after destroying just
three or four enemy aircraft. The Order of Lenin,
or alternatively the Order of the Red Banner of
Combat, was given merely for flying a certain
number of sorties. However, because this first
group gained combat experience at a great
cost, pilots who replaced them had it easier.
And the newer pilots were better trained, going
to Korea as volunteers with no illusions, pre-
pared to confront an experienced and well-
equipped opponent.
The Soviets rotated whole units into and out
of combat at once. This approach had an inher-
ent flaw; newcomers went into battle without
experienced colleagues beside them and
'stepped on the same rake' (from a Russian
joke about repeatedly making the same mis-
takes). Pilots who completed a tour of duty
could pass along their experience to newcom-
ers only orally. There was a decline of MiG activ-
ity after each turnaround of pilots, and one
consequence was increased losses.
This rotation scheme typifies the way Soviet
leaders, military and civil, approached any
activity. If something did not succeed, shallow
decisions, often not touching the cause of
the problem, were usually taken. If F-86s won
a battle against MiG-15s, Soviet pilots and
commanders were blamed and replaced. The
Americans, in contrast, rotated individuals, not
squadrons; experienced 'high-timers' coached
newcomers and protected them during missions.
Stage Two of the air war was characterised
by a major Communist offensive (Chinese
troops under Marshal Peng Te-huai advanced
south as far as Seoul and recaptured it) and
hence intensified bombing by the USAF. These
bombings also served another purpose. In July
1951 the belligerent parties began peace talks,
and the systematic flattening of North Korea's
cities and communications was intended to
exert constant pressure on the enemy, tiring
out the North Koreans and Chinese and per-
suading them to give up the fight.
The second group of Soviet pilots sent to
Korea at this stage was selected more care-
fully than the first. It was formed in the autumn
of 1950 and started towards Manchuria in
November. The 324th lAD under Col Kozhedo-
ob (comprising the 176th GvlAP and the 196th
lAP) was equipped with experienced pilots who
had a lot of jet flying time (by Soviet standards)
- also in the MiG-15; many of them were Great
Patriotic War veterans. The 324th lAD relocated
to Antung AB in April 1951.
The 303rd lAD under Maj Gen Gheorgiy
Ageyevich Lobov, HSU (later succeeded by Col
Aleksandr Koomanichkin when Lobov was pro-
moted to 64th IAK Commander) was formed at
the same time. It comprised the 18th GvIAp, the
17th lAP and the 523rd lAP. The 18th GvlAP
joined the action in early May, initially operating
from Antung; in mid-June the other two regi-
ments started flying from the new airfield at
Miaogow (other sources state Manpo).
303rd and 324th lAD MiG-15s introduced
quick-identification markings (red noses and
fin tops). This was because, in the heat of a
dogfight, a natural metal F-86 could for a few
seconds look like a MiG and do a lot of damage
before the MiG pilot realised his mistake; con-
versely, there were cases when MiGs fired on
their own aircraft, mistaking them for Sabres.
(Not to be outdone, some USAF pilots painted
the noses of their Sabres red, trying to fool the
enemy into thinking they were MiGs!) How-
ever, these markings were relatively shortlived,
giving way to various camouflage patterns in
February 1952.
Now the domination of American air power in
Korea was reversed; the MiGs seized air super-
iority over the Yalu River area. Each time UN
aircraft entered that area, they sufferE!d heavy
losses.
True, the new group also learned a few
things the hard way. The 176th GvlAP lost three
aircraft on its very first sortie. The 196th lAP
commanded by Col Pepelyaev was more lucky,
losing no aircraft or pilots in its first skirmishes
but also claiming no 'kills' initially. Pepelyaev
coached his pilots harshly, so the old Russian
motto 'tough in training, easy in combat' was
trueforthem. As for the 'kills', these did not take
a long time coming.
The biggest achievement made by the Soviet
fighter units during this stage of the war was
putting an end to the daytime activity of B-29
bombers. The Superfortresses suffered their
first major defeat on 12th April 1951. This is how
historian Robert Jackson describes the day:
'It was a different story on April 12th when
8-29s of the 19th, 98th and 307th Groups (40
aircraft in all - Auth.) were once again ordered
to attack the bridge at SinOiju, which still stub-
bornly refused to collapse despite the battering
it had received. Close escort was once again
provided by the 27th Wing (27th Fighter Escort
Wing flying F-84Es -Auth.), which put up 39 air-
craft, while Sabres of the 4th Wing flew top
cover. With the target still several minutes' flying
time away the bomber formation was savagely
attacked by about 50 MiG-15s which qUickly
destroyed one 8-29 of the 19th Group and dam-
aged five others. This attack had scarcely
ended when another was launched by 20 more
MiGs which sent the Thunderjets scattering in
all directions as they dived vertically through
them on to the bombers. This time it was the
307th Group's turn to be hit. One of its 8-29s
spun down to explode on the ground and a sec-
ond was so severely damaged that it had to
make a crash landing at Suwon. A small number
of MiGs also attacked the 98th Group, which
was bringing up the rear, but all its 8-29s came
through unscathed. On the credit side the
Sabre pilots claimed four MiGs destroyed and
six damaged, while the gunners of the 8-29 for-
mation claimed the destruction of ten enemy
fighters, although the latter claim was in all
probability greatly exaggerated. The Thunderjet
pilots also claimed three MiGs probably
destroyed. Nevertheless, the price of three
8-29s destroyed - the one that crash-landed at
Suwon 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 being
damaged in combat on 12th April 1951. The
aircraft sits on a special 'beaching gear'; note
the red-painted nose for quick identification.
Most MiGs damaged in combat over Korea were
quickly restored to active status by the
technicians. 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 Joint

Chinese/Korean Air Army, including 518 Blue.
Yefim Gordon archive

badly damaged was too high, and on General

[George E] Stratemeyer's orders all further 8-29
raids in the Sinuiju area were called off until
some really effective means of escorting the
bombers could be found. ' 15
Six months later, on 30th October - a day
which came to be known as Black Tuesday, -
came a battle which completely changed B-29
operations in Korea. That day a large formation
of 307th BG(H) B-29s escorted by nearly 200
assorted fighters made for Namsi airbase in the
heart of 'MiG Alley'. The enemy aircraft were
spotted by ground pickets, and forty-four 303rd
lAD and 324th lAD MiG-15s scrambled to inter-
cept. The pilots were ordered to destroy the
bombers and not to tangle with the fighters if at
all possible. Once again, the MiGs dived
through the escorting fighters, causing them to
take violent evasive action, and went for the
bombers.
According to Maj Gen G A Lobov, the Soviet
pilots destroyed twelve B-29s and fourThunder-
jets for the loss of only a single MiG-15. (A more
recent Russian publication says ten B-29s and
no MiGs shot down!) Also, many of the remain-
ing Superfortresses were damaged, with casu-
alties in almost every crew. (American records
show that three 8-29s were lost, four more were
damaged and forced to divert, and only one
returned to its home base; also, only one F-84
is listed as lost. Two MiG-15s were claimed gun camera while attacking an F-86. It was 'the Meteors as such had no major importance
destroyed by the F-86s flying top cover, one quickly established that the Meteors were flown in the huge intervention force [in Korea] repre-
more by the F-84s providing close escort, and by the RAAF's 77 Sqn which had been in action sented primarily by the USA. However, inflicting
three more by 8-29 gunners.) in Korea since 29th June 1950 (originally flying a defeat on a US ally could have some political
The 'shock caused by the Black Tuesday P-51 s and converting to Meteors in April to June effect. We decided to wipe out the Australian
was so great that not a single USAF aircraft 1951). squadron with one blow.'
appeared in 'MiG Alley' for the next three days. The first battle between 77 Sqn Meteors and To this end Lobov calculated where and
A month later three 8-29s attempted a daytime 303rd lAD/17th lAP MiGs took place soon after when the Meteors were most likely to make a
raid on the bridges across the Yalu, but all three this first sighting, on 25th August. Maj Grigoriy major raid on North Korean positions. A for-
were shot down by MiGs. That did it - from I Poolov, 17th lAP CO, and Lt (sg) Nikolay V ward command post was deployed near Anshu
then on the Superfortresses became strictly Sootyagin (who went on to become top-scor- on the outskirts of 'MiG Alley' to direct 176th
nocturnal. ing Soviet ace of the Korean War) shot down GvlAP MiG-15s at the Meteors. Lobov went to
Also during the second stage of the air war, one Meteor each. Generally the Meteors did great lengths to maintain security, telling 324th
Soviet fighter units encountered an adversary not stand much of a chance against the MiGs; lAD CO Kozhedoob nothing about the impend-
other than USAF aircraft - namely Royal Aus- by 3rd November 1951, 303rd lAD pilots had ing operation and personally briefing the pilots
tralian Air Force Gloster Meteor F.8s. The MiG-15 destroyed 18 of them, after which the 324th lAD just two hours before the mission. 'Perhaps I
first met the Meteor in mid-August 1951 when picked up where the 303rd had left off. was being a little over-cautious' he reminisced,
by pure chance a 303rd IAD/523rd lAP pilot, 64th IAK Commander Maj Gen Lobov per- 'but I had my reasons. Anyway, this made for
Capt G Kh. D'yachenko, got a twinjet fighter of sonally prepared the operation aimed at taking 100% stealth and surprise. And of course, we
a type hitherto unknown to Soviet pilots on his the 77 Sqn out of the picture. As he put it later, had a bit of luck, too; had the Americans begun

MiG-15 63

Gun camera shots from Capt"Soochkov's MiG·15
showing 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
Shots from Col Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev's gun
camera showing a Sabre under attack on 28th
November 1951. Yefim Gordon archive
their attack an hour earlier or an hour later, the
whole plan would have gone down the drain.'
On 1st December 1951 a group of sixteen
Fagots led by 176th GvlAP CO Guards Col 8 F
Vishnyakov took off at the planned time and
began loitering high over 'MiG Alley', waiting
for the target to come. Right on schedule, six-
teen Meteors escorted by Sabres put in an
appearance. Suddenly they found themselves
attacked by MiGs which dropped on them from
above. What came next can only be described
as mayhem. Only four of the Meteors made it
back across the Pyongyang - Wonsan line; the
Sabre escort was so shocked that it gave no
assistance, and the attackers got away
unscathed. 'Considering the Australians' previ-
ous losses, the 77 Sqn can be regarded as
completely devastated that day', Lobov con-
cludes. (Later Russian research, however,
shows that the claim of ten Meteors destroyed
on 1st December 1951 was grossly exaggerat-
ed. Only three Meteors were actually shot down
in that battle; Sgt Bruce Thompson and 8gt
Vance Drummond ejected and were taken pris-
oner, while Sgt Ernest Armit was killed.)
The French magazine Le Fana de I'Aviation
states that after 1st December 1951 the 77 Sqn
was led by Wg Cdr Ronald Susans, suggesting
that the unit's previous leader Wg Cdr L T
Spence was shot down (and probably killed) in
that battle. According to the sarne source, from
January 1952 onwards 77 8qn Meteors were
used only in the ground attack role and did not
venture into 'MiG Alley', which is surely a fair
indication concerning the unit's condition!
According to Soviet sources, 324th lAD
pilots shot down 13 Meteors plus one 'proba-
ble'; another 'kill' was scored by a 216th lAD
pilot. On the other hand, by the end of the war
77 8qn had claimed six confirmed MiG-15 'kills'
plus seven 'probables'; most of these were JAA
aircraft flown by Chinese or Korean pilots.
RAAF pilots with MiG 'kills' include Fg Off Bruce
Gogerly (on A77-15 'Elyana'), George Hale (on
A77-851 'Halestorm') and Fg OffW Simmonds.
In passing, it may be noted that one of the
Meteors, A77-446 'Black Murray' flown by PIO
Kenneth Murray, probably holds the Korean
War record, having flown 333 sorties..
According to Soviet sources, by the end of its
Korean tour (February 1952) the 324th lAD had
destroyed 207 enemy aircraft, 103 of them shot
down by the 176th GvlAP and 104 by the 196th
lAP. The 303rd lAD destroyed another 303 UN
aircraft - a nice coincidence. Thus Soviet pilots
scored 510 'kills' in less than a year of the con-
flict. Soviet losses totalled 22 aircraft in the
324th lAD and about 30 aircraft in the 303rd
lAD, ie, about 50 MiG-15s. Thus, the 'kill' ratio
was 10:1 in favour of the MiG-15 with Soviet
pilots during this period, if we count all UN air-
craft shot down and not just F-86s. (The loss
records of the UN forces indicate that the allies
lost about 40 aircraft, not 510, during the first
year of the MiG-15's involvement.)
The third stage of the Soviet involvement ran
from January 1952 until the end of the Korean
war. The 324th lAD returned to the USSR and
was replaced by the 97th lAD (PVO) under Col
Shevtsov comprising the 148th GvlAP and 16th
lAp, while the 303rd lAD was succeeded by the
190th lAD (256th lAp, 494th lAP and 821 st lAP).
Though officially ready for battle, the 97th was
staffed with inexperienced pilots. To make mat-
ters worse, its debut in Korea coincided with a
massive improvement in equipment and train-
ing on the part of its adversaries as a result of
the hammering they had taken during the sec-
ond stage; for instance, new versions of the
Sabre were introduced (the F-86E in August
1951 and the F-86F in March 1952).
The result was predictable: in March and
April the 97th lAD suffered heavy losses; the
Americans resumed massive raids on North
Korean communications and other vital targets,
engaging Soviet MiGs even over China. By May
the 97th lAD had learned its lessons the hard
way and was beginning to regain control, but
the preceding months of all-out combat had
overtaxed its resources; further participation in
the war could lead to high and unwarranted
losses. Hence in July 1952, four days after re-
inforcements in the shape of the 133rd lAD
(comprising the 147th GvIAp, 415th lAP and
726th lAP) had arrived at Antung and Dapu, the
97th lAD was transferred to the second echelon
of Soviet forces and relocated to Mukden.
The 303rd Division's 494th lAP was just
about the unluckiest of all Soviet units partici-
pating in the war. On one occasion a group of

64 MiG-15
494th lAP MiGs was attacked by Sabres while
getting ready to attack a group of Thunderjets;
in the ensuing fight seven MiGs were downed
for the loss of only one USAF aircraft. By the
end of the war, the unit's 3rd Sqn alone had lost
eleven aircraft and two pilots.
Additional Soviet fighter units - the 216th lAD
(comprising the 51Bth lAp, 676th lAP and B7Bth
lAP) and the Pacific Fleet's 32nd lAD (compris-
ing the 224th lAp, 535th lAP and 913th lAP) -
reached Korea near the end of the war, but their
level of combat readiness was also low. Con-
sequently they scored fewer kills of UN aircraft
and sustained higher losses than the second
group (the 303rd lAD and 324th lAD). Still,
although with flaws, MiG forces maintained an
effective defence, and UN air power could not
restore the supremacy it had enjoyed earlier.
UN fighter-bombers flying daytime sorties
were one of the main targets for Soviet pilots
during this stage. And keep in mind that USAF
fighter-bomber units were now equipped with
F-86Fs instead of Shooting-and-Bombing
Stars. Combatting them wasn't at all easy.
USAF heavy bombers remained the other
major target. Switching to night operations did
not stop the B-29s from suffering losses. Two
independent fighter regiments - the 29Bth lAP
and 351 st lAP - and one squadron in each of
three other regiments (the 147th GvIAp, 224th
lAP and 32nd IAD/535th lAP) were transformed
into night fighter units at this stage. Initially,
obsolete piston-engined La-11 s were used in
the night fighter role but soon found to be totally
inadequate. Not only were they too slow, their
machine guns were located on the upper side
of the engine cowling - with the result that the
muzzle flash blinded the pilot for several sec-
onds, causing him to lose sight of the target.
Maj Anatoliy M Karelin (351st lAP) became
the first MiG pilot to score a night 'kill', shooting
down a Superfortress caught in AA search-
lights in late May 1952; he finished the war as a
'night ace' with six B-29s to his credit. Inciden-
tally, an instance in early December 1951 when
Karelin could not catch up with a B-29 per-
fectly illuminated by searchlights When flying a
La-11 was exactly what prompted the Soviet
command to use the MiG-15 for night intercept
missions.
Contrary to Robert Jackson's claim, no 'MiG-
15s equipped with airborne interception radar'
were used on such missions.'6 The fighters
were guided to their targets by GCI stations
and then sought visual contact with the target
with the help of AA searchlights. Pilots also took
advantage of moonlight or exhaust flames,
if any.
In addition to the B-29, the USAF made
active use of the Douglas B-26C Invader light
bomber for night bombing raids. At least three
B-26Cs were reportedly shot down by MiGs,
though Western sources deny the loss of any
Invaders in Korea.
Now B-29s were escorted by USAF Lock-
heed F-94B Starfires and US Marines Douglas
F3D-2N Skyknights equipped with powerful
radars, so that nocturnal combat was filled with
drama for both sides. The first encounter
between the MiG-15 and the Skyknight took
place on 3rd November 1952 when Maj Strat-
ton ofVMF(N)-513 attacked a 133rd IAD/147th
GvlAP aircraft, which he misidentified as a
Yak-15 (!), and set it alight. Of course, he was
credited with a 'kill'; in reality, however, the MiG
pilot, Capt Vishnyak, managed to extinguish
the fire and bring the fighter home. The aircraft
was completely repaired and flying again
within a few days.
Still, the first real night victory against a MiG
was indeed scored by a VMF(N)-513 pilot, Capt
Oliver Davis. On the night of Bth November he
shot down Lt (sg) Kovalyov (unit unknown);
Kovalyov ejected safely. According to US
sources, Skyknight crews destroyed six MiGs.
It is not known if any Skyknights were claimed
destroyed by Soviet pilots, though they niay
have been misidentified as F-94Bs (of which 13
were reportedly destroyed).
Even without radar, MiG-15s were some-
times guided by Gel stations so precisely that
they accidentally rammed their targets. For
example, on 7th November 1952 Lt (sg) I Kova-
Iyov - possibly the same one I - collided with an
F-94B at 10,000m (32,BOBft) in pitch darkness.
Both aircraft burst into flames and the crews
ejected safely. However, American sources do
not confirm this incident; USAF records list one
F-94B as shot down and two more as missing.
Maj Karelin's fourth B-29 'kill' scored in the
autumn of 1952 also happened in highly unusual
circumstances. GCI guidance to the target was
so precise that Karelin's MiG-15bis struck the
B-29's tail turret with its gun; fortunately, there
was no damage, but stealth had gone to the
winds. Then the B-29's tail gunner made a seri-
ous blunder: he started firing wildly, unable to
see the MiG. Having identified the target by the
muzzle flash from its tail gun, Karelin shot the
bomber down at point-blank range.
After a massive raid on the Supung dam and
power station on 12th January 1953, a 20th
AF/31 st Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron
RB-29 (44-62217) based at Kadena AB, Oki-
nawa, flew over Antung on a post-strike recon-
naissance mission. Lt (sg) YaZ Khabiyev (32nd
IAD/535th lAP) intercepted it and set it ablaze
with his first burst. The RB-29 started falling
after the second attack, and eleven of the 14
crewmen bailed out. Among them were Col
Knox Arnold, Jr., and 31 st SRS CO Maj William
Horl Bowmer. (USAF sources claim that the air-
craft was shot down by AAA, not by a MiG.)
Speaking of reconnaissance aircraft, the
MiGs managed to score two jet-versus-jet vic-
tories as well. The USAF denies the loss of any
North American RB-45 Tornados in Korea. Yet
one such aircraft was shot down over Antung
by four 50th lAD/29th GvlAP MiGs on 14th
December 1950; the crew bailed out and was
captured. In April 1951 N K Shelomonov (324th
IAD/196th lAP) flying MiG-15bis '231 Red' (c/n
122031) seriously damaged another RB-45
which force-landed near Pyongyang.
On one notable occasion in January 1953,
Capt Yuriy N Dobrovichan shot down two B-29s
on a single night. He was awarded the Order of
Lenin for this double victory.
Throughout the Korean War the MiG-15 was
updated and improved. Some changes, such
as the enlarged airbrakes, RHAWS, new can-
nons and gunsight, improved ejection seat and
armour protection, have been described in the
previous chapter. One urgent modification
made in the first few weeks of combat was the
reinforcement of the stabilizer tips and outer
elevator hinges because the elevators buckled
during high-G manoeuvres (this even caused
two fatal crashes in the 50th lAD). Some improve-
ments were local ones; for instance, Capt
Sergey M Kramarenko, one of the Korean War
aces, installed half a pair of binoculars beside
the gunsight of his MiG-15 (!) so that he could
tell friend from foe at long range. (Twenty years
later, in 1972 McDonnell Douglas introduced
the Northrop AN/ASX-1 Target Identification
System, Electro-Optical [TISEO] on the F-4E+.
'Ain't nothing new'?)
A few words have to be said about Chinese
and North Korean MiG-15 operations in the
Korean War. As mentioned earlier, the Joint
Chinese/Korean Air Army (JAA) went into battle
inmid-1951. Most Chinese MiG-15 pilots were
novices freshly trained by Soviet instructors.
However, there were exceptions; some were
veterans who had fought against the Japanese
during the Second World War.
As Soviet pilots noted, the PLAAF pilots
fought bravely but often grew careless in com-
bat and consequently suffered high losses. On
one occasion they spotted a B-29 formation
over the sea and took off to intercept it without
contacting the nearby Soviet unit and request-
ing cover. The Chinese regiment CO leading
the attack (his name is unknown) shot down
three Superfortresses, one after another, but
was in turn shot down by Sabres and killed. His
aircraft lay on a shoal for several days until it
was recovered by a US Navy ship (which, inci-
dentally, gave a cannon salute as it departed
with its booty).
Lack of experience led to many take-off and
landing accidents. Even worse, Chinese pilots
often suffered G-Ioc (gravity-induced loss of
consciousness) in high-G manoeuvres because
food was strictly rationed, with the result that
the pilots were chronically malnourished. The
oft-quoted 10: 1 'kill' ratio in favour of the F-B6
mostly reflects dogfights between American
and Chinese pilots, and the latter can hardly be
blamed for this.
PLAAF MiG-15s were mostly after the bombers
and strike aircraft. In a meeting with Sabres,
they had little chances of survival because the
hastily trained Chinese pilots were up against
real pros - experienced American opponents,
many of whom were Second World War aces.
On one occasion twelve Sabres lined up
behind eight PLAAF 4th Fighter Division MiGs
and shot them all down; the pilots, to use a
common expression, never knew what hit them!
MiG-15 65
 Not being encumbered by bans on flying
over the sea, the PLAAF formed a special unit
tasked with hunting US Navy/Marines and
Royal Navy aircraft, and it had a measure of
success in doing so. On 26th July 1952 a flight
of 'naval hunter MiGs' jumped four No 852 Sqn
Fairey Firefly 5 attack aircraft from HMS Ocean
and shot down two of them; a third was dam-
aged but made it back to the carrier. Another
Firefly 5 of No 812 Sqn from HMS Glory was
downed on 6th February. Yet the lack of experi-
ence among Chinese pilots led to losses even
in encounters with prop-driven aircraft. For
example, on 9th August 1952 eight MiG-15s
attacked a flight of Hawker Sea Furies which
fought back, destroying one MiG and damaged
another; the 'kill' was scored by Lt P Carmichael
(N0802 Sqn, HMS Ocean). Five more MiGs
were damaged by Sea Furies over the next two
days. On 10th September five MiGs attacked
two VMA-312 Vought F4U Corsairs and shot
one down but lost one of their own.
Still, the Chinese pilots were not as clumsy
as Western publications may lead one to believe.
Little by little they gained experience, and some
of them even became aces. Wang Hai and
Chao Bao-tung had nine 'kills' each, Liu Ming
and Fang Wang-chow had eight, and Sun
Shen-ku had six.
The North Koreans did not fly the MiG-15
until late 1952. Like the Chinese, they suffered
heavy losses, and the Soviet command soon
relegated them to the second echelon of
defence in order to conserve valuable cadre
which would rebuild the North Korean Air Force
after the war. Captured USAF pilots noted that
groups of North Korean pilots differed percep-
tibly in training level; there were skilled airmen
which the Americans were reluctant to tangle
with, and there were ill-trained ones which they
hunted and shot down.
Remarkably, the (real) North Korean Air
Force was the only one in the world to have
female jet fighter pilots. One of them, Tha Sen
Hi, rose to squadron leader and was honoured
with the Hero of the Korean People's Democra-
tic Republic title. On one occasion a group of
eight MiGs led by Tha Sen Hi acted with purely
feminine cunning, tailing a group of Thunder-
jets covered by Sabres across the 38th parallel
and all the way to their home base. As the
Sabres, apparently oblivious of the MiGs,
departed for their own base, the F-84s started
coming in to land. Not expecting to see MiGs
so far behind the frontlines, the Americans
probably believed this was a case of mass
defection and did not open fire. When they
realised their mistake, it was too late; the un-
invited guesIs shot down seven Thunderjets
and hightailed it home at treetop level.
North Korean pilots also managed to score a
few Sabre 'kills'. The squadron commanded by
Kim Di Sanh claimed 36 Sabres destroyed and
ten damaged; Kim Di San h was responsible for
six and one of these respectively. Cam Denh
Dec became the top-scoring Korean ace with
eight 'kills' to his credit.
66 MiG-15
Regarding the question of statistics and 'who
killed whom', Soviet sources state that by the
end of the war 64th IAK pilots - mostly flying
MiG-15s - had destroyed 1,106 enemy aircraft
(including 651 Sabres) in 1,182 air-to-air
engagements. Another 271 aircraft, including
181 Sabres, were reportedly destroyed by the
JAA in 366 engagements. The Americans claim
954 Soviet, Chinese and North Korean aircraft
destroyed, including 792 MiG-15s (some sources
even state 827!), but this figure is definitely
exaggerated.
The USAF recorded 'kills' by gun camera evi-
dence only; according to K V Sookhov (HSU),
this system was about 75% effective. Many of
the MiG-15s apparently shot down in flames
were only damaged, landing at their home
bases. For example, out of four 176th GvlAP
MiGs reportedly shot down on 3rd April 1951
only one was actually lost and the other three
damaged. Such aircraft were usually repaired-
and possibly 're-shot down', and re-repaired
and so on until finally they were really
destroyed.
The Soviet side had a stricter system of
recording aerial victories. Pilot reports were
barely taken into account. Confirmation from
ground troops or civil authorities was required
in addition to gun camera film if the 'kill' was to
be credited; material evidence, especially man-
ufacturer's plates from the downed aircraft,
rated even higher. If a UN aircraft downed by
MiGs fell into the sea or outside 'MiG Alley' and
could not be retrieved, the 'kill' was often not
credited. (A possible reason is that Soviet
pilots, too, received combat pay - 1,500 rou-
bles for each 'kill' - and Soviet officials were
unwilling to 'squander the people's money'!)
Even so, 'kill' statistics by both sides seem
equally inflated.
Measuring losses is an equally tricky thing,
and both sides downplayed losses. American
sources list 971 USAF aircraft lost in the Korean
War to all causes (shot down by enemy fighters
and destroyed by AM, and accident attrition),
including 78 Sabres shot down in air-to-air
combat and 26 more gone missing. Soviet
sources acknowledge that 335 Soviet MiGs
were shot down and 120 pilots killed in action;
the JAA lost 231 aircraft (though the proportion
of MiGs is not known) and 126 pilots.
Fifty-two 64th IAK pilots became aces. They
made up 15% of the 347 Soviet pilots scoring
'kills' in the Korean War but destroyed 416
enemy aircraft, or 37.6% of the total 'kills'. By
comparison, 365 Sabre pilots ofthe 5th AF shot
down a total of 818 enemy aircraft. 39 of them
became aces, scoring 305.5 'kills', or 37.3% of
the total 'kills' scored on Sabres.
Twenty-two of the Soviet pilots earned the
Hero of the Soviet Union title. Oddly, many
pilots who scored up to ten 'kills' did not gain
this title for some reason. A partial list of Soviet
MiG-15 aces is given opposite.
Other MiG-15 pilots who earned the Hero of
the Soviet Union title in Korea but did not
become aces were Maj Gen Gheorgiy A Lobov,
Maj Stepan Nazarenko (Deputy Squadron
Leader) and Lt (sg) Yevgeniy M Stel'makh, who
was honoured posthumously for personal
heroism (one 'kill' in 15 sorties)." Lobov gained
his high rank during the Second World War
where he flew 356 combat missions, scoring 19
personal 'kills' and eight shared 'kills'. He was
awarded the HSU title in recognition of his role
as 64th IAK CO.
Interestingly, Col Ivan N Kozhedoob, the
popular Commander of the 324th lAD, was
expressly forbidden to fly combat missions in
Korea (the Soviet leaders obviously felt they
could not risk losing him!), and Maj Gen Lobov
rarely flew combat missions. Thus, the four
F-80s he shot down in 15 sorties when he was
still 303rd lAD CO can be regarded as 'quite an
achievement.
Yevgeniy G Pepelyayev had the best 'kill'
ratio, or number of victories per sortie, 0.21. On
average, he shot down one enemy aircraft in
every four missions; by comparison, it took the
top-scoring ace Nikolay V Sootyagin six mis-
sions to bring down one aircraft.
The aces also got shot down sometimes, just
like ordinary pilots. Lev K Schchookin, then in
the rank of Lieutenant Senior Grade, was even
shot down twice - on 17th June 1951 (by
Samuel Pesacreta, 4th FIG) and 11th January
1952 - and lived to tell the tale. On the latter
occasion MiG 'kills' were credited to Col Fran-
cis S Gabreski (51st FIG CO), Maj William T
Whisner Jr. (51st FIG/25th FIS CO), 1st Lt Earl
S Payne (51 st FIG/16th FIS) and 1st Lt Thiel M
Reeves (51st FIG/25th FIS), but it is not known
who downed Schchookin.
On 18th June 1951 eight MiG-15s led by
Capt Serafim P Soobbotin engaged a group of
16 Sabres. Shortly after shooting down the lead
Sabre Soobbotin was attacked by another F-86
piloted by Capt William D Crone. After taking
several hits the MiG's engine quit and the fight-
er spiralled earthwards. Crone, however, was
not content and followed the stricken MiG,
hammering away at it at close range. Then
Soobbotin deployed his airbrakes; taken by
surprise, the Sabre pilot had no time to take
evasive action and the two fighters collided.
(One Russian author describing the incident
claims that Soobbotin wilfully caused the colli-
sion in order to teach the insolent Yankee a les-
son!).
Crone must have been wounded by the
impact and made no attempt to eject as his
aircraft spun into the ground, its starboard
wing partially demolished. The damaged MiG
started rolling uncontrollably and Soobbotin
was thrown clear of the aircraft, parachuting to
safety.
Not all of the aces survived a shootdown,
however. Lt (sg) Fyodor Shebanov was mortally
wounded by a .50 calibre bullet from an F-80
and passed out, his aircraft diving vertically into
the ground, out of control. Lt (sg) V I Stepanov
made it back to Antung in his crippled fighter
but died when the aircraft overran due to brake
failure and burned out beyond the runway.
Soviet MiG·15 Aces
Entries 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 191
Captain 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 166
Major Dmitriy POs'kin (HSU) 303rd IAD/523rd lAP RegtCO* 150
Captain Nikolay GDokashenko (HSU) Flight Leader 148
Captain Grigoriy UI'yanovich Okhay (HSU) 303rd IAD/523rd lAP Deputy Regt CO 122
Captain Mikhail SPonomaryov (HSU) Squadron Leader* 140
10 Captain Grigoriy IGes' (HSU), 324th IAD/176th GvlAP Squadron Leader* 120
Lieutenant (senior grade) Dmitriy ASamoylov (HSU) 303rd IAD/523rd lAP 161
Captain 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 Leader
Captain Stepan AFedorets 32nd IAD/913th lAP
Captain NVBabonin 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP
I MZaplavnev
Lieutenant Colonel Grigoriy I Poolov (HSU), 303rd lAD/17th lAP Regt CO* 120
Major Anatoliy MKarelin (HSU) 351 st lAp, Deputy RegtCO 50
Captain Arkadiy SBoytsov (HSU) 97th lAD/16th lAP Deputy Squadron Leader
Lieutenant (senior grade) Fyodor Akimovich Shebanov (HSU) 324th IAD/196th lAP KIA 26·10·1951 150
Lieutenant Colonel SFVishnyakov 324th IAD/t 76th GvlAP RegtCO
Captain NMZameskin 216th IAD/878th lAP
Captain PFNikoolin 324th IAD/176th GvlAP
Boris VBokach
APNikolayev
VMKhvostontsev
5 Lieutenant (senior grade) Boris AObraztsov (HSU) KIA (date not known)
Major Nikolay I Shkodin 133rd IAD/147th GvIAP*
Captain Boris Sergeyevich Abakoomov, 324th IAD/176th GvlAP t
Captain Grigoriy NBerelidze 32nd IAD/224th lAP
Captain VPLepikov*
Captain SI Naoomenko
Captain Gherman Timofeyevich Shatalov 303rd IAD/523rd lAP KIA 28·11·1951
Lieutenant (senior grade) VI Stepanov 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP KIA 6-1·1952
AT Bashman
VI Belousov
GI Bogdanov
NIGherasimenko
SDDanilov
GLKorniyenko
AMKochegarov
VANazarkin
NKShelomonov 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 Sabre
Os'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 Boris
Shkodin. Stepanvich, not Boris Sergeyvich.

MiG-15 67
The situation in Korea was anything but calm in
the immediate postwar years, and the Soviet
MiG-15 units stayed there until 1954. Among
other things, USAF and Republic of Korea Air
Force (ROKAF) aircraft intruded into North
Korean airspace every now and then. These
incursions peaked in 1955, resulting in several
clashes in which both sides chalked up a few
'kills'. For example, on 2nd February 1955 eight
North Korean MiG-15s intercepted a USAF
North American RB-45C Tornado recce aircraft
escorted by sixteen Sabres over the Yellow
Sea. In the ensuing battle the Americans shot
down two MiGs with no losses for themselves.
To catch a MiG
Of course, faced with a potent adversary in the
shape of the MiG-15, the West was eager to
obtain a sample for detailed examination, if
nothing else. The most desirable option, of
course, was to obtain a flyable example so
that USAF pilots could be trained in anti-MiG
tactics.
The 'acquisition' operation was code-named
Operation Mullah. It reportedly gave the first
results in July 1951 when a downed MiG-15
was lifted from about 5m (16ft) of water off the
Korean coast by Royal Navy ships. The aircraft,
an early-production Kuybyshev-built Fagot-A,
was handed over tb the USAF for examination
at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (Da.yton,
Ohio). However, ·this aircraft could not be
restored to flying condition.
A year later another MiG-15 was located in
the mountains of North Korea in good condi-
tion. A US Army team in a Sikorsky H-19 heli-
copter was sent to retrieve it but could not
extract the MiG in one piece. The team was
forced to 'dismantle' the fighter by means of
saws and hand grenades (!). The pieces were
sent to Cornell Aero Lab, Buffalo, New York.
The first intact Fagot reached the West on 5th
March 1953 - the day Stalin died - when
Porucznik (Lt) Franciszek Jarecki of the Polish
Air Force's 28th Fighter Regiment defected in
his MiG-15bis serialled 346 Red, taking off from
Siupsk and landing at Ronne airport on the
Danish island of Bornholm. The West was not
allowed to keep the fighter; after detailed
inspection the aircraft had to be returned on
22nd May aboard a Polish merchant ship. How-
ever, two days earlier, on 20th May, another
28th Fighter Regiment pilot, Podporucznik (Lt
[jg]) Zdzislaw Jazwinski, defected to the same
location in another MiG-15bis!
(It should be noted this was not the last
defection. On 7th November 1957 a 31 st Fighter
Regiment MiG-15bis, 1919 Red, flown by Pod-
pOrucznik Kozuchowski escaped to Sweden,
making a belly landing on Halland Island.)
At the same time, the UN allies were scatter-
ing leaflets over North Korean territory offering
a $100,000 reward and political asylum to
anyone who would deliver a MiG-15 to the UN
side. No one responded to that alluring offer
until two months after the end of the war, on
21 st September 1953, when Lieutenant Ro Kim
68 MiG-15
Suk '8 (who claimed not to have heard about the
offer, but collected the $100,000 anyway) flew
his MiG-15bis to Kimpo AB near Seoul. The air-
craft (2057 Red, cln 2015357) underwent
detailed evaluation at Kadena AB in 1953,
where it was flown by test pilots Tom Collins
and Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, among others,
and throughout the following year at Wright-
Patterson AFB and Eglin AFB (Florida).
Kadena is often plagued by foul weather,
and, as Gen Albert Boyd, Chief of the US Air
Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC), put it, 'the tri-
als of the Russian MiG showed what Chuck
could do. It was dangerous work, flying in that
beastly weather. Collins and Yeager tossed a
coin on the first day to decide who would fly
first; much to Chuck's disappointment, Tom
won. We knew that the MiG climbed well but did
not know its service ceiling. Tom reached
48,000ft [14,630 m] and got oxygen supply
problems. When he landed we started thinking
what to do next. Chuck said he could go higher
than that. I said OK, providing I would escort
him in a Sabre and tell him to descend at the first
signs of hypoxia.
We climbed to 51,000ft [15,545 m], which
was as far as the Sabre would go, and still
Chuck kept. climbing; possibly he was using
much less oxygen than Collins. Chuck reached
55, 600ft [16,950 m], and the MiG could easily
fly at that altitude. Jesus Christ, that was
amazing.
We quickly realized that the Sabre was a
much better aircraft, as it had better equipment
and armament. (While the equipment part is
true, the 'better armament' allegation is a state-
ment open to doubt - Auth.) However, the MiG
had certain advantages: a better climb rate, a
higher service ceiling, quicker acceleration.
After these trials we advised service pilots to
engage the MiG at at least Mach 0.8, thereby
neutralizing the Russian fighter's advantage in
acceleration.
Many service pilots believed the MiG could
crack the sound barrier. We decided to prove
that it could not. Yeager accomplished this mis-
sion, the most dangerous hitherto. I said: 'OK,
Chuck, we'll climb to 50,000ft [15,240 m] and
dive together. I will call out Mach readings on
the radio because our instruments may be more
accurate.' We knew damn well that the MiG
might lose pitch control at high Mach numbers;
the Russians had programmed the speed-
brakes for automatic deployment at Mach 0.94.
Control could only be regained at 18,000ft
[5,486 m] where the air was thick enough. I
counted on Yeager's instinct for danger. 'Chuck,
this is again a great risk, and I won't blame you
if you refuse. ' His reply was, 'No, Sir. What the
hell did I go through all this trouble with the ejec-
tion gun, then?' (Chuck Yeager personally
checked and armed the ejection seat, not trust-
ing the mechanics at Kadena to do it - Auth.)
So we took off, climbed to 50,000ft and went
into a vertical dive. The MiG started shaking like
mad and the ailerons became totally inefficient
at 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 [4,876
m] and the aircraft leveled out at 12,000ft [3,657
m] in the middle of a layer of storm clouds.
We concluded this most dangerous experiment
by landing together in pouring rain. General
Cannon (Pacific Air Force C-in-C - Auth.) was
amazed that we managed to test the MiG thor-
oughly in these appalling conditions. '
(NOTE: The above extract is taken from Gen
Chuck Yeager's autobiography which he wrote
together with Leo Janson (Bantam Books,
1985). In response to this, Lt Col Stepan A
Mikoyan, Artyom I Mikoyan's nephew, wrote:
'I do hope that it was Yeager's co-author and
not Yeager himself who was responsible for the
false statements [in this book]. After reading
Yeager's account of his flights in the MiG" 15...
and Gen Boyd's story I'd like to make a few
comments ... I logged several hundred hours in
various versions of the MiG-15 and performed a
lot of test programmes; thus I am in a position to
say that most of Yeager's claims concerning this
aircraft are wrong. He writes that I asked him in
surprise, 'For God's sake, did you really dive in
this plane? Every time its nose goes down my
heart is about to stop. ' This is ridiculous; I dived
dozens of times [in the MiG-15], including a
special trials programme when we dived verti-
cally from 15,000m [49,212ft] to 3,000m [9,824ft],
reaching Mach 0.98 (Boyd was 'sure as hell that
no Russian test pilot ever reached that speed in
that thing'!)
There was never any loss of pitch control in
the MiG-15, nor any 'unexpected pitch and yaw
oscillations'. The ailerons did become ineffi-
cient at critical Mach numbers, but this pre-
sented no danger, since this was only
encountered in a steep dive at full power. The
MiG-15 was fairly easy to fly and it killed no more
pilots than any other fighter.
Our pilots never had any problems with oxy-
gen supply at high altitude. Incidentally, Gen
Boyd quoted too high a figure for the MiG-15's
service ceiling; in reality it is about 51,000ft
(15,500 mY. ... The MiG-15 was reluctant to
spin; spin entry was mild and the aircraft warned
[of an impending spin] by rocking its wings -
except at high altitude or during high-G maneu-
vers. '9 True, it could not recover if the pilot
messed up the spin recovery procedure by
moving the stick in the opposite direction to the
spin - which is exactly why we painted a white
line down the middle of the instrument panel
[for aligning the stick during spin recovery]. If
you did everything right, the aircraft recovered
without any problem; I did it many times. I read
an American report about the F-4 Phantom's
spinning behaviour and realised that [the Phan-
tom] was much more dangerous in this respect
than the MiG-15.
As for the warning not to switch on the emer-
gency fuel pump because it could trigger an
explosion and tear off the tail, this is complete
bullshit. I have never heard of any such inci-
dents. Yeager writes that the MiG-15 is 'a primi-
tive death trap, and no one would have been
surprised if I had got killed'. Then how does he
think have thousands of ordinary service pilots
flown it for thirty years in many countries of the
world? In this connection I'd like to quote an
American pilot who had fought in Korea. When
asked by the same magazine (Aviation Week -
Auth.) whether he'd like to fight in the Sabre or
in the MiG-15, he said, "I'd like a MiG-15
equipped with the gunsight from a Sabre". ')
According to USAF specialists, there was
nothing unusual in the MiG-15's structure - 'no
magic'. The verdict was that it was a well-built
and reliable combat aircraft but with no finesse
such as special fuel, new structural materials or
other innovations. Western experts noted that
the aircraft was lighter than contemporary
swept-wing fighters (35% lighter than the F-86F
and 47% lighter than the Hawker Hunter). They
liked the neat weapons arrangement and ease
of engine change but criticized the MiG's over-
sized inlet, low rate of fire and lack of a gun
ranging radar which reduced the chances of a
'kill'.
As the well-known aviation writer Roy M
Braybrook noted back in the 1960s, for all its
shortcomings the MiG-15 made the West
rethink its approach to fighter design. The
Fagot's high-altitude performance, excellent in
its day, influenced the design of such aircraft as
the Folland Gnat, Fiat G-91 and Lockheed
F-104 Starfighter.
There were also cases when Soviet Air Force
aircraft (including MiG-15s) made emergency
landings in West Germany due to naVigation
errors. The first information on the latest Soviet
aircraft often reached the West from Germany
because WS units in East Germany were first
to convert to up-to-date aircraft.
To catch a Sabre
The USSR was also interested in obtaining an
F-86A, preferably a 'live' specimen, for much
the same reasons. Of particular interest was the
equipment associated with the Sabre pilot's
G-suit. However, there was little hope of cap-
turing a Sabre. If the aircraft was badly shot up
but still flyable, the pilot would try to reach
Korea Bay where rescue was guaranteed, and
recovering the aircraft from the sea was out of
the question. If the F-86 was so badly damaged
that it came down on North Korean territory,
'the wreckage told no more about the plane
than the ashes of a burnt book could tell about
its contents', as one Russian writer put it.
Offering a reward, as the UN side did, was
not the solution. Nobody was going to waste
money trying to corrupt American pilots. The
Soviet government seemed to guess that no
one with common sense would fly towards the
Soviet territory. What F-86 pilot would want to
F-86A-5·NA 49-1319 shot down by Col Yevgeniy
G Pepelyayev on 6th October 1951. This aircraft
was transported to the Soviet Union and
examined in detail. Yefim Gordon archive
spend the rest of his days in Siberia or get a bul-
let into his nape?
Soon" however, someone in the Soviet lead-
ership thought he knew the answer. In Apr'i1
1951 a group headed by Nil W$ Director Lt
Gen A Blagoveschchenskiy arrived in China by
special order of the WS Coin-C. It included
twelve Nil WS test pilots - Lt Col Dzyubenko,
Maj Trofimov, Maj Goolyayev, Maj Mitoosov,
Maj Perevozchikov, Capt Makhalin, Capt Koor-
ashev, Lt (sg) Alikhnovich, Lt (sg) Bobonin, Lt
(sg) Semyonenko, Lt (sg) Serdyuk and Lt (sg)
Tikhomeerov. Hence this task force was alter-
nately referred to as 'the Blagoveschchenskiy
group', 'the Nil WS group' or, most often, as
'Comrade Dzyubenko's group' because Dzyu-
benko led it on actual sorties.
The mission of the Blagoveschchenskiy
group was to force a Sabre to land at a Soviet
airbase. After a month's preparations the group
arrived in Antung and was seconded to the
196th lAP on 29th March, 'borrowing' the fight-
ers of one of the unit's squadrons. The unit's
CO Col Yevgeniy Pepelyayev was against the
idea from the outset. '[Blagoveschchenskiy's
pilots] started cajoling me, saying, 'We'll give
you all the 'kills' we score', - Pepelyayev
recounted later. - I said, 'I don't need it. And
there will be no 'kills'; you'll be lucky if you
come back alive.'
He was right; the test pilots were well-trained
but had no combat experience and no know-
ledge of tactics. The result was deplorable. On
the very first attempt on 31 st May, twelve MiGs
engaged four Sabres escorting a pair of B-29s
over Anshu (now Anju - Auth.). In the resulting
melee one MiG-15 was shot down, Maj
Perevozchikov losing his life, and two others
damaged by Sabres.
The attempt was repeated on 5th June
after several tactical training sessions with
Pepelyayev. However, once again the mission
ended in tragedy. On final approach to Antung
in a strong crosswind Lt Col Dzyubenko hit
wake turbulence from his wingman's MiG; his
aircraft rolled, struck the ground with its wingtip
and overturned, killing him. This was the last
straw: the Blagoveschensky group returned to
the USSR. Some of its pilots, however, stayed
in Korea and fought well (with proper training).
For example, Maj A I Mitoosov, who was
Pepelyayev's next in command, became an
ace and was nominated for the HSU title;
Mitoosov eventually became 196th lAP CO
when Pepelyayev was promoted after the war.
The efforts to obtain a Sabre finally bore fruit
on 6th October 1951, and it was none other
than Pepelyayev who bagged the g~me. The
aircraft, a 4th FIG/335th FIS F-86A-5:-NA (49-
1319I'FU-319'), was hit by a single 37mm shell
just aft of the cockpit that dart)aged the engine
and the ejection seat. UnaQle,to eject, the pilot
made a belly landing on a, sand bank in the
mouth of the Chonchongi Rive,r 13km (8 miles)
west of Pyongwong and':was rescued by a
USAF helicopter. The aircraft was recovered by
the Russians, delivered to),n.tung and sent to
Moscow., ,
There the F-86 was exam'ined in detail by var-
ious MAP divisions. Wind ~tunnel models were
manufactured and tested 'at TsAGI to investi-
gate the Sabre's aerodyns,'mics and handling.
The Mikoyan OKB studied the control system
on a special test rig. Elements of the Sabre's air
conditioning system were installed in a modi-
fied MiG-17 designated izdeliye SI-91 and tested
at altitudes up to 12,OOOm (39,370ft). The gun
ranging radar was carefully studied; the results
of this investigation accelerated the develop-
ment of the first Soviet gun ranging radars (the
SRD series). Other design areas, such as elec-
tric equipment and structural materials, yielded
valuable data forthe improvement of Soviet avi-
ation technology and manufacturing standards.
The examinations were completed by early
May 1952, and ajoint MAP/WS report was sub-
mitted to the Council of Ministers on 23rd May.
TsAGI specialists noted that the F-86A handled
satisfactorily in all flight modes up to Mach 0.93
to 0.94. Wind tunnel research showed that
Mach tuck manifested itself at Mach 0.8 and
elevator efficiency was sharply reduced above
Mach 0.9, necessitating the use of stabil izer trim.
According to TsAGI specialists, 'the aircraft's
general arrangement and aerodynamics are of
little interest, with the exception of: (a) ailerons
MiG-15 69
 --

Above: Ro Kim Suk's Fagot-B (ex-2057 Red, c/n

2015357) shortly after 'delivery' with 'MiG-15'
nose titles and spurious markings with a Soviet
Air Force star on the fin.
Yefim Gordon archive

Left and below left: The 'donated' MiG was

extensively tested by the USAF - first at Kadena
AB, Okinawa, and then at Wright-Patterson AFB.
Here, it is duly repainted in USAF markings with
the last three of the USAF serial on the fin and
nose. Yefim Gordon archive

Below: The MiG's armament is being examined

by USAF specialists. Yefim Gordon archive

70 MiG-15
of relatively large chord and span ensuring
good roll control at both low and high speed;
(b) large airbrakes increasing the aircraft's drag
approximately three times without affecting lon-
gitudinal 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 identi-
callitt/drag ratios at angles of attack up to 14°.
The F-86A is larger, has a higher gross weight
and a lower engine thrust rating than the MiG-1S;
hence, according to calculations, the MiG-1S is
slightly superior to the F-86A in top speed at low
altitude and markedly superior in rate of climb
throughout the altitude range. Diving speeds
with airbrakes deployed are almost identical;
however, in level flight the F-86A's airbrakes are
more effective than the MiG-1S's. The F-86A. ..
is stressed for approx. 12 Gs, which corre-
sponds to the limits set for aircraft in this class
by our structural strength norms. '
In essence, the MAPNVS report recom-
mended adopting some of the Sabre's design
features for new Soviet aircraft. There wasn't
even the remotest hint at copying the F-86A
completely and producing it in the USSR, as
had been the case with the B-29/Tu-4. This is
hardly surprising - MAP and WS leaders
agreed that, given the availability of the MiG-
15bis and MiG-17 (and despite all their short-
comings), copying the Sabre in 1952 was
pointless. Besides, some of the F-86A's fea-
tures (gun ranging radar integrated with optical
gunsight, large airbrakes, powered elevators
etc) were then being introduced or tested on
the MiG-15bis and MiG-17.
At a late stage of its evaluation the captured MiG
received full USAF insignia. The TC-prefixed
buzz number is said to denote Tom Collins, one
of the test pilots who flew the jet.
Yefim Gordon archive
Not all Soviet military leaders, however,
thought the MiG-15 was better. Lt Gen Yevgeniy
Yakovlevich Savitskiy, C-in-C of the PVO's fighter
element, expressed his alarm to the Soviet gov-
ernment regarding the condition and prospects
of the Air Defence Force after inspecting the
64th IAK in Korea. At least twice (in February
1952 and April 1953) he addressed the Council
of Ministers with an analysis of the 64th IAK's
operations, stressing that the MiG-15 was inef-
fective against the F-80 and F-84 at low altitude
and inferior to the F-86NE at low and medium
altitude. Savitskiy proposed the development
of a special tactical fighter optimised for dog-
fighting at low and medium altitude; quite pos-
sibly his opinion did have an influence on later
fighter development in the USSR.
Meanwhile, things took an interesting turn. In
May 1952 one Vladimir V Kondrat'yev, a TsAGI
employee, wrote a letter to Stalin, proposing to
'build the F-86A Sabre in quantity, retaining a
complete likeness to the original' (= copy it)
with a view to 'critically amassing the American
[engineering] school by improving this aircraft
with the purpose of modification' (! - sic). He
cited the Sabre's better manoeuvrability as the
reason for this approach and concluded his let-
ter with the generous offer to appear as chief
project engineer for this programme.'o (No
comment.)
Apparently the idea appealed to the 'Peo-
ples' Father'. Kondrat'yev was given a group of
specialists and started work at the former
Sukhoi OKB's facilities (Pavel Osipovich
Sukhoi's OKB had been eliminated in 1949).
The group later became part of the Sukhoi OKB
when the latter was resurrected in 1953 and
started working on jet fighters and fighter-
bombers for which it is now famous. As for the
reverse-engineered Sabre, it never appeared.
To the best of the author's knowledge the cap-
tured F-86A was never flown in the USSR, and
its ultimate fate is unknown.
Good guy, bad guy
Now we come to the perennial question:
'MiG-15 vs F-86: which was better?' This issue
has been partly addressed in the preceding
paragraphs. Seldom have two fighters so simi-
lar in history and performance faced each other
in combat - in fact, so similar that there have
been uninformed allegations that 'the Soviets
copied the Sabre'! (The alleged Soviet custom
of copying Western designs was a common
subject in the Cold War years, but that is a sep-
arate issue which lies outside the scope of this
book.)
Both aircraft first flew in 1947 (the MiG-15 on
30th December, the XP-86 on 1st October);
both entered production in 1948 and were built
by the thousand in their home countries and
abroad. Both fighters were developed into
numerous versions and served with the air
forces of many nations, becoming true sym-
bols of the jet age in military aviation.
The MiG-15 and F-86 were somewhat similar
in general arrangement. They were all-metal,
single-seat monoplanes with wings swept back
35° at quarter-chord, swept tail surfaces and
hydraulically-retractable tricycle landing gear.
Both were powered by a single turbojet buried
in the rear fuselage, which was detachable for
engine maintenance and change.
But here the similarity ended. The MiG-15
was a mid-wing monoplane, while the F-86 was
a low-wing monoplane. The Sabre's wing tor-
sion box was a rigid structure because the
mainwheels were housed in the fuselage, not
the wings; consequently, the wing drop prob-
lem that plagued the MiG for a long time was
unknown to the F-86.
The MiG-15 had a higher wing thickness/
chord ratio than the F-86; this difference
became even greater when the F-86F came on
the scene. Early versions of the Sabre had lead-
ing-edge slats for better manoeuvrability. On
the F-86F-25 the slats were deleted and wing
MiG-15 71
chord increased by extending the leading edge
6in (152.4mm) at the root and 3in (76.2mm) at
the tip (hence the term '6-3 wing'). This
reduced thickness/chord ratio even more,
increasing top speed by 10km/h (5.4kts).
Both fighters had a swept tail; however, the
MiG-15 had cruciform tail surfaces while the
F-86 had a conventional tail unit with low-set
stabilizers. This difference was associated with
the difference in wing design (mid-wing vs. low-
wing). The Sabre's vertical tail area was rather
smaller.
The MiG-15 was powered by a centrifugal-
flow turbojet and the F-86 by an axial-flow tur-
bojet. This meant that the Sabre's fuselage had
a smaller cross-section and created less drag.
All F-86 versions used in. the Korean War had
non-afterburning engines, although water
injection was introduced on the E to increase
thrust. (In passing, it can be noted that the
General Electric J47 turbojet was extremely
smoky at high rpm, leading Soviet pilots to
believe that the Sabre was equipped with an
afterburner!) The water-injection method was
not tried by the Mikoyan OKB.
The F-86 had powered ailerons and eleva-
tors while the MiG-15 had manual controls or,
at best, powered ailerons only (on the MiG-
15bis). Also, like the MiG, the initial F-86A had
conventional stabilizers and inset elevators, but
the E introduced one-piece slab stabilizers
(stabilators) giving better pitch control. This
feature found its way to Soviet fighters only in
1955 on the MiG-19S.
There was a striking difference in armament.
The MiG-15 had a powerful battery of one
37mm and two 23mm cannons. The rate of fire
of the 37mm cannon (400 rounds per minute)
and 23mm cannons (800 to 950rpm) made
them a marginal weapon against other fighters
when handled by ordinary pilots, but experi-
enced pilots like Yevgeniy Pepelyaev think
that, when used skilfully, the cannon battery
was good enough. The heavy cannons were
reliable 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 aircraft
could expend their ammunition supply in 15
seconds.
The MiG-15's durability and survivability
became a legend in the Soviet Air Force. The
aircraft proved extremely resistant to 12.7mm
slugs; MiGs came home with up to 204 bullet
holes! In May 1952 a 190th IAD/821 st lAP
Fagot-B (688 Red, c/n 0615388) piloted by Lt
(sg) Veshkin was shot up in a dogfight. The
wounded pilot flew 11 Okm (59nm) to his home
base and was almost there when the engine
quit and the fighter made a belly landing 5km
(2.7nm) from the airfield. The awed mechanics
counted 154 bullet holes; no fewer than 39
heavy slugs had hit the engine, bending every
single compressor and turbine blade, and still
the engine held! The aircraft was back in ser-
vice in eight days.
72 MiG-15
On 16th September in the same year a
32nd IAD/535th lAP MiG-15bis (928 Red, c/n
2915328) flown by Maj Karatayev took 119 hits
in a dogfight. 24 bullets hit the engine, punc-
turing two combustion chambers out of nine
and bending 16 turbine blades. The forward
fuel cell was punctured, the aft fuel tank explod-
ed and the port airbrake burned away; the
hydraulic tank was also hit, causing complete
hydraulics failure. Still, the pilot made it back to
Dagushan and landed normally; the aircraft
was rebuilt and flying again in 16 days.
In late November 1951 Col Yevgeniy
Pepelyayev did a half roll to dive at a Sabre fly-
ing almost directly below him and exceeded
the aircraft's G limits in so doing. When he land-
ed his MiG-15bis (325 Red, c/n 1315325) was a
strange ~ight. The wing anhedral had disap-
peared and there were pronounced creases in
the skin of both wings and the centre fuselage;
Pepelyayev must have pulled more than 12 Gs
as he went after his prey! Still, the aircraft had
stayed in one piece. The wings were removed
and sent to TsAGI for analysis, and 325 Red
returned to service on 7th December with a
fresh set of wings.
Perhaps the most striking illustration (no pun
intended) of the MiG's ability to take a lot of
punishment and still bring the pilot home - and
of excellent airmanship as well - was the inci-
dent on 20th June 1951 involving 176th GvlAP
MiG-15bis '785 Blue' (c/n 0715385). Squadron
Leader Capt Grigoriy I Ges' attacked a P-51 D at
less than 100m (328ft) range. The Mustang
blew up in mid-air and its port wing struck the
MiG's tail, slicing off part of the starboard
tailplane and jamming the elevators. At that
moment Ges' and his wingman Lt (sg) Niko-
layev were attacked by a flight of Sabres and
Nikolayev's aircraft was hit. Even though his
own aircraft was almost barely controllable,
Ges' covered his wounded wingman until they
were out of immediate danger. Then he started
experimenting with the controls and found that
by 'playing' with the throttle, flaps and air-
brakes he could control descent speed. Ges'
managed to land the MiG in one piece; he fin-
ished the was as an ace with eight 'kills' to his
credit.
The F-86 also exhibited high resistance to
23mm shells from the NR-23 cannons, but even
a couple of hits from the 37mm cannon usually
destroyed it. Maj Stephen L Bettinger (4th
FIW/335th FIS), who was shot down on 20th
July 1953 and taken prisoner, later said, 'You
have to give credit to the enemy's 20mm and
37mm guns. One hit from the 37mm gun can
be enough to take a wing or the tail off or to
blow up the engine.'
The gunsight was of great importance for
both aircraft. The Sabre had an automatic sight
linked to its gun ranging radar, giving it an
advantage in adverse weather conditions and
at night. The Soviet fighter also had an auto-
matic sight but no ranging radar; besides, the
ASP-3N sight was troublesome, often failing
during high-G manoeuvres, so pilots used it as
a simple collimating sight. Working with this
disadvantage demonstrates the high profes-
sionalism of Soviet pilots who succeeded in
shooting down Sabres in high-G combat.
The Sabre offered good cockpit visibility. The
pilot sat high and the large bubble canopy was
of single glass, with a simple frame. In contrast,
the MiG-15 pilot sat low under a smaller canopy
optimised for low drag and high strength. It had
double glazing, and pilots were constantly
bothered by annoying reflections from the
canopy. The canopy was also prone to misting
because water penetrated between the two lay-
ers of glass and froze at high altitude, making
the pilot practically blind to the rear from where
he was usually attacked by Sabres. All mea-
sures taken by the Mikoyan OKB to cure the
problem, such as placing silica gel cartridges
between the layers of glass, were of little effect.
Finally, the rather complex canopy frame
impaired cockpit visibility.
The MiG-15's ejection seat was reliable and
no cases of pilot death caused by its failure
were recorded. But at first it had a considerable
shortcoming: it could only be fired with the right
hand. If this hand was injured in combat, the
pilot had to reach across with his left hand,
which was certain to lead to an incorrect posi-
tion during ejection and hence to injury. A sec-
ond ejection handle was added on the left side
of the seat in July 1952.
As for performance, the MiG-15 had a higher
lift/drag ratio than the Sabre (13.9 versus 11;
the bis did even better at 14.6) and a higher
thrust/weight ratio. Consequently the MiG
could outclimb the Sabre. At sea level, they had
virtually the same rate of climb but, starting at
approximately 6,000m (19,685ft), the MiG had
an advantage and this superiority grew as
altitude increased.
On the other hand, the F-86 could outdive
the MiG because it had a smaller fuselage
cross-section (thanks to the axial-flow engine)
and a lower wing thickness/chord ratio, creat-
ing less drag. Hence the heavier F-86 picked up
speed in dive more quickly and recovered with
less loss of altitude. The increased thrust of
later Sabres gave them an advantage in speed;
the MiG-15bis and F-86F had approximately
equal engine thrust, but the F-86F was 35km/h
(19kts) faster.
All F-86 versions had better horizontal
manoeuvrability because of their lower wing
loading; the Sabre's leading-edge slats and
large airbrakes helped a lot. The original Fagot-
A's airbrakes were definitely too small. Airbrake
area was increased on the MiG-15bis, but this
was not enough, as the Korean War showed. In
1952 the Fagot-B's airbrakes were enlarged still
further; yet the MiG never reached the Sabre's
level of efficiency in this respect. This was taken
into account when designing the MiG-17 and
MiG-17F, where airbrake area was increased
once again.
Sabre pilots were equipped with G-suits - a
luxury MiG-15 pilots could only dream of; this
was another reason why the Sabre could pull
tighter turns! True, the PPK-1 G suit was tested
on the MiG-15bis in 1952 but never made it to
the Korean war.
Summing up, one might say that the two air-
craft were about equal when flown by experi-
enced pilots. A lot depended on tactics,
experience and the pilots' personal qualities.
Here, it is worth quoting another passage from
Gen Chuck Yeager's autobiography in which
Gen Albert Boyd describes the trials of the cap-
tured MiG-15 at Kadena:
'There was a funny episode on our last day at
Okinawa involving Chuck and two Air Force
pilots who had ferried the Sabre we used as a
chase plane from Korea. One of them, a Lieu-
tenant Colonel, asked Chuck why we had not
performed a mock combat session between the
MiG and the F-86. Yeager said it was pointless-
the result depended not so much on the aircraft
as on the pilot. The man did not believe him.
Then Chuck offered him fly the MiG in a mock
combat session against the Sabre. The Lieu-
tenant Colonel agreed; Chuck briefed him on
how to fly the MiG and they took off. Very soon
Chuck fastened himself onto the MiG's tail and
stayed glued to it. Then they landed and
switched planes, and the scenario was repeat-
ed; Chuck kept mercilessly polishing his oppo-
nent's tail. When they landed the other man
looked very embarrassed. 'I had no idea that so
much depended on the pilot', he said. Chuck
replied with a smile, 'A more experienced pilot
will always get the better of you, no matter what
you're flying. It's dead simple.' The man
became famous in the Force, since the story of
his dogfight with Yeager spread far and wide.
Yet, he lost to the best pilot I have ever known. '
MiG-15 tactics in Korea
The MiG-15s fought in basic units of two air-
craft, or pairs. The leader of a pair and his wing-
man always stuck together, since a single pilot
left without cover was very vulnerable. A pair
usually comprised pilots with equal tactical
skills, able to switch attack and cover functions
as per necessity. Full psychological compati-
bility and a shared understanding of the logic of
the combat made a pair of MiG-15 pilots formi-
dable in combat.
At an early stage of the Korean War the MiG-
15s operated in groups of eight (or, in Soviet
terminology, two flights, since the Russians
view a flight as two pairs). This was deemed a
suitable size for supportive interaction in air-to-
air combat. Starting in 1951, Soviet MiG-15
pilots began to fly in groups of six rather than
eight at high altitudes - a tactic later adopted by
the Sabres as well. A group of six offered flexi-
bility and safety.
Quick-reaction alert (QRA) duty was per-
formed in two-hour shifts, each shift being per-
formed by a squadron of MiGs; thus the three
squadrons in a regiment relieved each other.
When the duty shift received the 'Readiness
No l' signal from the control tower the pilots
would climb into their fighters, ready to scram-
ble. While on the ground, unit commanders
tried to keep the pilots sitting in their cockpits
as little as possible to save their strength in the
hot, wet climate. Two sorties per day was the
average for MiG-15 pilots during the Korean
War.
In the Korean War, a Soviet squadron was
divided into three groups for different tactics
and purposes: attack, cover (known in Ameri-
can terms as CAp, or combat air patrol), and
reserve. The attack group included at least one
flight and was tasked with destroying the
enemy's main force. The cover group was to
protect the attack group and act as reinforce-
ment in case of need; this made for concen-
trated firepower when stopping a major enemy
air raid. The reserve (one or two pairs) sup-
ported these groups and repelled any fresh
enemy fighters trying to join the fight. If not
needed, the reserve stayed on the ground.
The cover and attack groups were usually
arranged above one another. Separation
equalled the vertical distance that the aircraft
routinely needed during a yo-yo manoeuvre;
this facilitated coordination between the
groups. The same principle applied to the
groups of six MiGs used from 1951 onwards,
with the attack, CAP and reserve functions filled
by one pair each.
After take-off, the MiGs often loitered above
the objective they were defending, such as the
power stations and bridges on the Yalu River.
The MiG flights were arranged in two levels.
GCI operators informed the pilots about
approaching enemy aircraft. The upper group
of MiGs moved against the enemy with the
advantage of altitude and speed. The escorting
Sabres would then try to prevent the MiGs from
attacking Allied strike aircraft.
The GCI alert system was based on a
scheme tried and tested in the Great Patriotic
War. The main GCI station monitored the situa-
tion by receiving target data from air defence
radars and called the alert when enemy aircraft
appeared. Forward pickets would be deployed
in the battle area to monitor the situation visu-
ally and advise the MiG pilots of new targets
and/or threats.
After a fight, the results were analyzed in
preparation for the next sortie or shift. Much
importance was attached to the analysis of
enemy tactics which frequently changed. After
a period of intensive fighting the Americans
would take a breather to correct errors and
work out new tactics, and the Soviet pilots had
to keep up with these.
Unlike the MiG-15 with its air defence role,
the Sabres were free to choose the time and
methods of their attacks, so the initiative
belonged to them. Interestingly, the American
pilots felt that it was the MiG-15s that held the
initiative, since they operated close to their
bases, remaining behind the Yalu if they chose
to, and could begin a fight with the advantage
of higher altitude.
The strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft
flown by the opposing sides determined the
tactics. 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 a
spiral, trying to gain an advantage in altitude so
as to dive down on the enemy. Knowing that,
USAF pilots tried to force a turning fight on the
MiGs, using the Sabre's su~erior manoeuvra-
bility. Another favourite Sabre tactic was to roll
inverted and dive sharply when under attack.
MiG pilots found it difficult to repeat this
manoeuvre because speed built up quickly
and the aircraft began experiencing control
problems at Mach 0.92; the Sabre had a higher
Mach limit than the MiG.
The most common tactic used by MiG-15
pilots in Korea was the hit-and-run tactic. After
receiving target information from a GCI station
the MiGs typically began a head-on engage-
ment. They usually had the initial advantage of
higher altitude and used it by diving on the
enemy at high speed, pair after pair. If the
enemy broke formation and began defensive
manoeuvres as the first pair attacked, the sec-
ond pair changed course and chose the most
vulnerable target. After attacking, the MiGs
immediately climbed away, using the speed
gained during the dive. They tried to avoid sus-
tained combat, but repeated the diVing attack
whenever possible. Success depended on
good timing and, when well-executed, this
method made it hard for the enemy to counter-
attack, since the Sabre did not have enough
thrust to climb after the MiGs. A variation on this
tactic involved diving on the target out of the
sun and exiting toward the sun after making a
firing pass.
A tactic called 'roundabout' was used during
point defence of ground targets. Two pairs of
MiG-15s formed a circle and the pilots covered
each other. There were two or three such cir-
cles, one above the other, and the upper pair
moved toward the enemy. Sabres usually
attacked the lower echelon; then, a hit-and-run
attack was launched against them from above
and the MiGs went into a new circle after break-
ing off the attack. This tactic called for good
coordination between the pairs.
A 'pincers' tactic was sometimes used. Two
flights of MiG-15s headed south on slightly
diverging headings at 10,000m (32,808ft). The
flights were separated beyond visual range, so
their their actions were coordinated by ground
control. Before meeting the enemy the MiGs
descended to 4,500 to 6,000m (14,763 to
19,685ft) and turned north, heading towards
each other. On the way back the flight searched
for enemy fighter-bombers and small groups of
Sabres heading back to their bases. At a pre-
determined time a third flight (sometimes a
pair) of MiG-15s entered the 'pocket' created
by the other two flights and shot down the
enemy aircraft. In some cases, this flight or pair
had the added purpose of covering MiGs
returning from a mission with limited fuel.
The tactic known as 'distraction' was fairly
demanding, and MiG pilots used it only after
gaining enough combat experience. The inten-
tion was to lure the patrolling Sabres away from
MiG-15 73
their zones and clear the way for MiG-15s head-
ing south to engage USAF attack aircraft. A
ground picket monitored the situation and gave
the OK for the strike group when the way was
clear. The distracting group could also engage
the Sabres as part of the main objective of air
defence.
The 'snare' tactic was an active method. The
Soviet commanders knew well that Sabre pi lots
delighted in hunting lone stragglers or pairs
which had become separated from their
groups, and they used this to set the trap.
A squadron of MiGs formed a 'ladder', flying in
pairs, flights, or sixes, the bottom one being
nearest to the enemy. This lower echelon con-
sisted of separate pairs that acted as baitforthe
patrolling Sabres. When attacked, the bait
group turned tail and climbed away towards
the other MiGs. The pursuing Sabres now
found themselves at a disadvantage, facing
attack from above.
The 'jaws' tactic was similar to the snare. If
the Sabres tried to climb after the MiGs acting
as bait, the main group of MiGs formed a lad-
der in two echelons, one above the other, and
the Sabres were attacked by the lower echelon.
74 MiG-15
The 'hit from underneath' tactic was used
against Sabres and fighter-bombers at low alti-
tude. Pairs of MiG-15s flown by the most skilled
pilots entered the combat area at treetop level,
destroying any enemy aircraft they detected.
When counterattacked they disengaged quick-
ly, flying nap-of-the-earth in the mountainous
terrain. These tactics required careful planning;
every possible option had to be calculated.
The Americans, too, tried to set devious
traps for the MiGs - for instance, going on the
air in flawless Russian, trying to give the Russ-
ian pilots false instructions. But, as Capt Boris
S Abakoomov wrote in his book View from a
MiG's Cockpit, 'they could never duplicate Ivan
Nikitovich's guttural bass. Every single one of
our pilots knew those inimitable tones. Then
they tried false beacons - and also failed. They
set the powerful transmitters of their ships to the
same frequency as our outer marker beacon in
order to throw the MiGs off course. Naturally,
our instruments would give funny readings and
we were forced to navigate by the sun, flying
above the clouds. The compass and the inner
marker beacon helped us to avoid those traps
when in clouds.
Knowing our daily routine, the Americans
timed their attacks to our meals, believing we
would find it hard to fly and fight with a full stom-
ach (consider the G loads). Ivan Nikitovich
responded by also playing radio games with the
Americans, and with considerable success.
The method was this. R Ye Milyukov, the [324th
lAD's] communications section chief, set up
several radios at forward locations for ground/
air communication. Three pairs of MiGs would
take off, using the callsigns of the leaders of
large groups to fool the enemy into thinking we
had put up a massive fighter shield. The six air-
craft would cruise at high altitude and demon-
stratively communicate for the world to hear,
listening to our forward radios at the sa'!'e time.
After being advised by ground control that
enemy aircraft had appeared in force in a pre-
determined area the leader of one pair (ie, sup-
posedly a large formation) would call out
'Enemy in sight. Prepare to attack', even though
he could not actually see a single Sabre. Then
he would order another pair to attack from right
etc, knowing that the Americans were listening.
Ground control then told us that the Sabres
were hastily jettisoning their drop tanks and
preparing to engage the enemy, even though
there was not a single MiG in sight.
We then continued communicating with the
third pair which allegedly sees the Sabres jetti-
soning their drop tanks and takes evasive
action, preparing to attack them from below.
The enemy is now frantic; the Americans'
ground radars can't see any targets. Judging by
the Russians' talk, the attack was about to
begin; in reality, we - a mere six MiGs - were far
away and invisible to them. Thus, the enemy's
plans were foiled without a single shot; the
Sabres would get low on fuel and head for
home in great confusion. '
Soviet pilots put the proximity of their bases
to the Yalu River to good use. This enabled
them to save fuel at the early stages of the air
war. In contrast, the Sabres had already burned
most of their fuel by the time the MiGs engaged
them.
Though USAF pilots were officially prohibit-
ed from crossing the Yalu River, they often did
when in hot pursuit of a MiG (such incursions
were known as 'Maple Special', courtesy of Col
Francis S Gabreski). In these cases the attack
usually continued until the MiG touched down;
then a kind of unwritten law took effect and the
attack was broken off. In mid-1952, however,
the Sabres started attacking the MiGs on their
airfields in China. Western analysts observed
that if the USAF had bombed the Chinese
bases, MiG activity would have fallen sharply or
dropped to zero, as shown by the way the
Americans wiped out the abovementioned 34
airfields in Korea.
Left and opposite: Russian MiG-15s sent to Korea
seen before being repainted in Korean markings.
Yefim Gordon archive
 In early September 1952 the Sabres sharply
stepped up their MiG base blocking and
search-and-destroy missions over southern
China. It seemed that the spirit of noble air-to-
air duels, Baron Manfred von Richthofen-style,
was gone forever; the temptation to shoot
down the enemy on take-off or landing when he
was vulnerable was too strong.
The Sabres patrolled above Korea Bay and
the mouth of the Yalu in pairs or flights at high
altitude. Their pilots had an excellent view of the
Soviet airbases and the tell-tale dust cloud
revealing that the MiGs had started their
engines. After spotting it the Sabres immedi-
ately entered a steep dive, cracking Mach 1 by
the time the MiGs became airborne, made one
firing pass and headed for the sea at top speed.
Zero-zero ejection seats had not yet been
invented, and a pilot shot down at a couple of
hundred feet had no chances of survival. Nor
was there any chance of a belly landing, since
the airfields were surrounded by hills. Nearly
half of the 64th IAK aircraft lost in September
1952 were shot down in this fashion.
Lt (sg) Nikolay I Ivanov (133rd IAD/726th lAP)
was one of the few pilots to survive such an
attack - and possibly the only one to shoot
down his attacker as well. 'Finding an answer
to this Sabre tactic was extremely hard, and
often the only option for the Soviet pilots was to
stay on the ground', he recalled. On 5th Sep-
tember, Ivanov and his wingman were the lead
pair of several MiGs lined up for take-off when
the incoming Sabres were spotted, dropping
down on them like thunderbolts. The rest of the
group immediately aborted the take-off, but the
lead pair was too far down the runway and the
only way was up.
'j had one hand on the catapult when I took
off, - Ivanov recalled. - I never purposefully
studied that trick, nobody even talked to me
about it, but when I heard them yelling on the
Rff, 'You're under attackl', and it was too late to
stop-I'd hit the hills if I did, -I dumped my drop
tanks. Perhaps that was what saved me. The
guys on the ground told me afterwards that my
take-off looked impressive as hell. Well. ..
I don't know. I was not impressed.
I was lucky; I was only hit by a single bullet
and my wingman was not hit at all. We had
quite a bit of cloud that day, and as I broke
through the clouds a pair of Sabres whizzed
over me, heading for the bay (Korea Bay -
Auth.). And I shot down one of them - that's for
sure. It was right over the airfield, and every-
body saw it.'
For this action Ivanov was promoted to Major
and received the Order of Lenin. Incredibly,
however, he was not credited with this 'kill' due
to lack of material evidence! The Sabre fell into
Korea Bay and the gun camera film was over-
exposed, as Ivanov was heading right into the
sun when he fired. 133rd lAD documents state
that virtually every man in Antung watched the
Sabre 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 sadly
for the Americans. On 23rd January 1953 Maj
Edwin L Heller, the well-known CO of the 51 st
FIW/16th FIS, was shot down over Antung by Lt
(sg) II Karpov21 (32nd IAD/913th lAP) and taken
prisoner. By then he had scored 3.5 'kills' in
Korea, plus another 5.5 in the Second World
War.
Heller's shootdown had far-reaching conse-
quences. As noted earlier, incursions into Chi-
nese airspace were officially forbidden but
widely practiced; wing commanders pretend-
ed there were no incursions and the Far East-
ern Air Force (FEAF) headquarters pretended
they believed it. Now there was no hiding the
fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff resolution
about the Chinese border was being blatantly
disobeyed. To make matters worse, Heller had
been shot down before the eyes of the Chinese
delegation at the peace talks, and the delega-
tion promptly lodged a formal protest.
51 st FIW CO Col John W Mitchell found him-
self in hot water. The next day, 5th Air Force CO
Gen Glenn 0 Barcus arrived at Suwon, the 51 st
Wing's home base, and chewed him out.
Mitchell, a Second World War ace with 11 'kills'
to his credit, was thoroughly disliked by his
men, earning epithets like 'the maddest
Colonel of all'. One 51st FIW pilot said, 'With
some officers I'd go to hell and back, but I will
not raise a glass of free booze to this one's
health.'
Now Mitchell needed a scapegoat, and he
quickly found one. Capt Dolphin D Overton III,
one of Heller's wingmen, had scored at least
seven 'kills' (all of them in 'forbidden territory',
ie, over China) and was unlucky enough to be
there when his squadron leader was shot
down. Mitchell vented his wrath on Overton,
deciding not to give him ace status and limit his
score with four MiGs. The higher command did
not agree with Mitchell; yet Overton was credit-
ed with five 'kills' and kicked out of Korea.
Unable to bear the insult, he resigned after
returning to the States.
MiGs at work elsewhere
Apart from the war in Korea, the MiG-15 was a
major irritant for the West all over the world in
the 1950s and 1960s. It was a time when the
East and West expected the Cold War to turn
hot any moment, and an encounter with the
MiG-15 spelled trouble for any Western aircraft
- military or otherwise. The MiGs mercilessly
shot down anything unlucky enough to be
caught in the aiming reticle of their sights so as
to obtain hard evidence of the Western imperi-
alists' aggressive intentions.
Most peacetime incidents and shootdowns
in which the MiG-15 was involved happened in
the Soviet Far East, a highly sensitive area with
numerous military installations, and the Baltic
republics, all of which were the subject of con-
stant attention by Western reconnaissance air-
craft. The first incident in this 'secret war'
probably took place on 26th December 1950
when a USAF RB-29 Superfortress was detect-
ed by Soviet air defences over the Tyumen'-
Oola River in the Far East. Two 523rd lAP
Fagots flown by Capt S A Bakhayev and Lt (sg)
N Kotov scrambled to intercept, attempting to
force the intruder down on their home base, but
were fired upon by the RB-29's gunners and
returned fire, destroying the aircraft.
1952 was a busy year for spyplanes and
interceptors alike, with no less than 34 incur-
sions into Soviet airspace. On 11 th May 1952,
a pair of MiG-15s intercepted a US Navy Martin
PBM-5 Mariner flying boat over the Sea of
Japan, making six attacks but inflicting only
minor damage. On 13th June, Baltic Fleet
Fagots destroyed a Swedish Navy Consolidat-
ed PBY Catalina flying boat which had been
pestering Soviet air defences for quite a while.
On 15th July a USAF Martin RB-26 Marauder
weather reconnaissance aircraft was attacked
over the Yellow Sea. Sixteen days later, Pacific
Fleet MiG-15s attacked another PBM-5 in the
same spot.
On 15th April 1953 a pair of Pacific Fleet
MiG-15s intercepted a USAF Boeing RB-50
MiG-15 75
reconnaissance aircraft near Petropavlovsk-
Kamchatskiy. The intruder refused to obey
orders to land and opened fire first; the result is
predictable - the RB-50 was shot down near
the village of Zhoopanovo and the crew went
missing in action (MIA).
On 7th November 1954 an RB-29 entered
Soviet airspace over the Sea of Japan. The
Americans probably believed the Russians
would be celebrating, full of vodka and out of
condition to react; their suppositions were
badly misplaced. Two MiG-15s scrambled to
intercept and attacked the RB-29 over Tan-
fil'yev Island (one of the Kurile Islands). The
damaged Superfortress returned fire and got
away, crash-landing near Nokkegun village on
Hokkaido Island, Japan. On 22nd June 1955 a
US Navy (VP-19) Lockheed P2V-5 Neptune was
attacked and damaged by a MiG-15 over the
Bering Strait, crash-landing on St Lawrence
Island in the Bering Sea. According to some
sources, the MiG pilot did not make it back to
base, running out of fuel and ejecting near the
coast of Chukotka.
On 18th April 1955 MiG-15 pilot Capt
Korotkov shot down a USAF Boeing RB-47
Stratojet near the Bering Islands. In July 1956 a
group of 7th lAD (Pacific Fleet) Fagots attacked
another P2V near Nakhodka, killing one crew
member. The damaged Neptune ditched in the
Sea of Japan and sank; the remaining crew
was rescued by a US Navy rescue team.
Not all such episodes ended well for the
MiGs. On 18th November 1952 a fierce fight
broke out near Vladivostok in the Far East
between four Pacific Fleet!781st lAP MiG-15s
and three VF-718 Grumman F9F-2 Panthers
from the aircraft carrier USS Princeton. Two of
the MiGs were shot down, pilots Belyakov and
Vandalov went MIA. The pilot of a third MiG-15,
Pakhomkin, was mortally wounded but man-
aged to make an emergency landing on the
coast. The 'kills' were scored by Lt I D Middle-
ton and Lt E R Williams; one of the Panthers
was damaged.
There was also a tragic red-on-red incident in
the summer of 1954 when a spyplane entered
Soviet airspace near Nakhodka and was 'paint-
ed' by Soviet air defence radars. Immediately
afterwards the intruder descended to sea level
and made for home, which the radar operators
failed to detect. Unfortunately, a group of Pacific
Fleet/46th MTAp22 Tu-14T torpedo bombers
was returning from a training sortie at that very
moment - and by the greatest bad luck the
rearmost aircraft's IFF transponder was out of
order. The PVO officers decided that the intrud-
er was tailing the torpedo bombers, and Capt
Pyotr Byvshev (32nd IAD/535th lAP) was
ordered to intercept it. Spotting a 'twinjet air-
craft of unknown type with no identification
markings', as he reported, Byvshev received
the order to fire and shot down the Tu-14 with
his 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 Soviet
Navy, was unfamiliar to Air Force and Air
Defence Force personnel. Also, the star
insignia were barely visible, not to mention the
malfunctioning IFF transponder. Incidentally,
Capt Byvshev was killed in an accident soon
afterwards, colliding with high ground in poor
weather when returning from another sortie.
Call it fate's revenge, if you like.
WS MiG-15s stationed outside the Soviet
Union had their share of hunting, too. The most
publicised incident took place on 29th April
1952 when a MiG-15 - reportedly a 73rd GvlAP
aircraft based at K6then in East Germany -
attacked an Air France Douglas DC-4-1009
(F-BELI) over the Berlin corridor. The airliner
landed at Berlin-Tempelhof airport with 89
holes in the aft fuselage; fortunately, no one
was hurt. The incident caused international
air traffic to West Berlin to be suspended for a
while.
On 4th June of that year an aircraft carrying
the US Supreme Commissioner in Austria was
forced down at a Soviet airbase by a MiG-15bis.
On 8th October the same thing happened to a
USAF Douglas C-47 Skytrain flying over the
Berlin corridor. An RAF Avro Lincoln bomber
(reportedly converted for signals intelligence
duties) fared even worse. On 12th March 1953
the aircraft was intercepted outside the Berlin
corridor; ignoring orders to land, the bomber
tried to get away and was shot down, killing five
crewmen and seriously injuring a sixth.
Soviet and North Korean Fagots were not the
only ones to fire in anger. For example, Alban-
ian Air Force Fagots 'arrested and detained'
two intruders in December 1957 - a British
Overseas Airways DC-4 and a USAF Lockheed
T-33A Shooting Star (51-4413). The latter air-
craft was never returned and was to become a
museum exhibit in Gjirokastra.
On the night of 9th September 1954 a Bul-
garian Air Force MiG-15bis piloted by Lt Iliya
Yelenski shot down an unidentified aircraft
which had intruded into Bulgarian airspace.
The MiG-15's career in Bulgarian service was
marred by a tragic incident on the night of 27th
July 1955 when two fighters on quick-reaction
alert intercepted an intruder. This turned out to
be an ex-USAF Lockheed C-69 (L-049 Constel-
lation) operated by the Israeli flag carrier EI AI
(4X-AKC, c/n 1968); apparently the airliner was
behind schedule and the crew decided to make
up for time lost by taking a short cut across Bul-
garian territory. Probably mistaking it for a
USAF C-121, the MiG pilots shot the Connie
down near Petrich with the tragic loss of all on
board.
Chinese MiG-15s were constantly in action
against ROCAF and USAF/USN aircraft.
According to Chinese official sources, PLAAF
MiGs destroyed or damaged around 200
enemy aircraft between 1954 and 1958, includ-
ing 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, half
of these victories were claimed by AAA crews.
The biggest operation in which PLAAF
Fagots participated after the Korean War was
the Taiwan crisis of late 1958 which almost
resulted in a new major war. In the course of the
conflict the MiGs fighters shot down or dam-
aged 42 ROCAF aircraft, with the loss of 15 of
their own. The Taiwan crisis marked the first-
ever operational use of air-to-air missiles; using
this new weapon, Taiwanese fighters shot
down four MiGs in a single battle.
Later, The MiG-15 was used for reconnais-
sance flights over Taiwan, which led to more
shootdowns. Incidentally, the reconnaissance
street was a two-way one. A number of Fagot-
Bs were delivered to Taiwan in 1958-1991 by
defecting Chinese pilots, and many of these
and other aircraft obtained in this fashion were
used for recce flights over mainland China,
masquerading as bona fide PLAAF aircraft. The
MiG-15bis was also used operationally by the
PLAAF as a fighter-bomber - for instance, in the
suppression of the 1959-60 Tibetan uprising
and in the invasion of the Paracel Islands in
January 1974.
Czech Air Force MiG-15s also managed to
score a few 'kills'. On 10th March 1953, a pair
of USAF F-84s entered Czech airspace after
taking off from Bitburg AB in West Germany.
Two 5. SLP (5th Fighter Regiment) Fagot-Bs
piloted by Jaroslav Sramek and Milan Forst
took off to intercept. Sramek shot down one of
the Thunderjets, the other got away. We'll let
Porucik (Lt) Sramek tell the story:
'The shootdown occurred on 10th March at
about 1100. It was an ordinary training session
and I was practicing formation flying and stan-
dard attack manoeuvres with my wingman
Forst, a young lieutenant, in the Prestice - Stod
- Merklin area. We were flying at about 3,000 to
4,000m [9,842 to 13,123ft) and the visibility was
generally good. Suddenly I spotted a pair of
aircraft heading towards us on the left at about
2,000 to 2,500m [6,561 to 8,202ft]. At first, when
they were about 5km [3.1 miles) away, I could
not identify them, but they sure were not MiG-
15s. At about 4km [2.48 miles) I could see they
were straight-winged aircraft; I thought they
were Yak-1 01 s (sic - probably Yak-11 s, since
there 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 as
Thunderjets.
I called the tower, describing the situation,
and said that I intended to attack. The radio was
silent for a minute, then the ATC officer began
issuing instructions how to perform the attack,
reminding me to cock the guns, to get within
close range before firing etc. I was worried
about my wingman possibly getting separated
from me, since I didn't have much flying expe-
rience at the time. The ATC encouraged me,
'Hang on! Stay together!'.
All these instructions came within 20 sec-
onds, and by then the enemy aircraft were
almost right below us. Apparently they did not
see us, as they seemed to be heading either for
Plzen or for the local airbase. We made a right
tum to get on their tails, and then they spotted
us. The Thunderjets began a defensive manoeu-
vre, the flight leader breaking left and the wing-
man right; we followed the leader. We had
every possible advantage, since we saw them
first and we were flying higher, which enabled
us to gain speed quickly; thus we quickly got
into firing position. I selected the guns, got the
target into my sights, squeezed the trigger and
- nothing happened! I had forgotten to cock
the guns!
I cocked them and lined up on the target
again, squeezing off a burst. The shells hit the
American fighter's wing; the fighter rolled
inverted and dived straight down. I climbed and
waited to see what would come next. The Thun-
derjet did not lose control, it turned on a
southerly heading and made off, and I had no
choice but to follow. I got within about 300m
(984ft) - closer than the first time - and fired
another burst, registering good hits on the,fuse-
lage; black smoke poured out of the fighter,
followed by flames.
My wingman Milan Forst told me that he saw
the other [enemy] aircraft and was following it,
but he lost sight ofthe target in clouds. Then we
headed for home. On the way back I remem-
bered the Soviet fighter pilot [Guards Col Alek-
sandr I.] Pokryshkin's24 words: 'Success in
air-to-air combat depends on altitude, speed,
manoeuvring and firepower'.
Until then I had been calm, but as we
approached the base I got a sort of nervous
reaction. My hands started shaking and I
messed up the first approach; only on the sec-
ond try did I manage to land.'
Almost exactly a year later (the exact date is
unknown), Lt Zdenek Voleman of the same unit
shot down another intruder, one of two un-
identified multi-engine propeller-driven aircraft,
in a MiG-15bis. (The aircraft were no doubt
bombers, since they had a tail gunner's station
and a dorsal turret; however, Voleman reported
that 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 reduce
speed, and attacked. The tower was telling me
we were getting close to the border, and there
was not much room for doubt.
I ope'ned fire at 500m (1 ,640ft), breaking off
the attack at 100m (328ft); for a moment I
thought we would collide! (Subsequent inspec-
tion at the airbase showed that the N-37D can-
non had to be replaced, as it had overheated
during that first long burst.) One thing amazed
me. I could clearly see my rounds exploding all
over the target's fuselage, yet the aircraft flew
on; nothing happened. Then suddenly flames
erupted from the aft fuselage and something
fell off. I passed just 10m (33ft) over the target;
I could see the gunner in the dorsal turret track
me with his weapons but I don't know if he fired
or not.'
The burning aircraft dived into the nearest
cloud 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; the
intruder dived into clouds and was gone. A
massive search effort was mounted which
turned up pieces of metal from the damaged
aircraft but no crash site. There was nothing
else to do but go back to the base, tune in to
Radio Free Europe and wait. The 'voice of the
enemy' reported that 'an American aircraft was
attacked and shot down over Bavaria by the
Communist enemies'. That said, it can be
assumed the mission had been successfully
completed.
Between 1954 and 1965, a standing task for
Czech MiG-15s was to seek and destroy drift-
ing balloons carrying reconnaissance equip-
ment and printed matter. The total number of
such objects launched eastward was esti-
mated at 150,000. NadporuCik (1 st Lieutenant)
Jaroslav Novak earned ace status by destroy-
ing five of them!
Intercepting the balloons was no easy task
because such a balloon'has a very small radar
cross section and had to be acquired visually.
Besides, the fighter' closed on the slowly drift-
ing balloon at an enormous rate; the pilot had
time to fire just a short burst, and then the shells
just pierced the thin skin of the balloon without
exploding. Finaily; the damn balloons took a lot
of killing - they didn't burst when hit but deflat-
ed slowly, being made up of several indepen-
dent sections like an orange for greater
survivability. The pilot had to expend almost all
the ammunition to make sure the intruder was
shot down.
Shooting the balloons down was imperative
- for two reasons. Firstly, they could survey
secrets or deliver subversive Western literature
to gullible Socialist readers. Secondly (and
even more importantly), they presented a seri-
ous danger for civil and military aircraft, espe-
cially because the balloon's equipment
container was painted blue for low visibility. For
example, in the mid-60s a Soviet Air Force
(164th GvORAP)25 Yak-27R Mangrove recce air-
craft based at Brzeg AB, Poland, crashed after
colliding with an unseen balloon near the town
of Rademsk, killing the navigator and seriously
injuring the pilot. The cause of the crash
remained a mystery until the accident investi-
gation board found traces of blue paint on the
wreckage - paint of Western provenance, as
laboratory tests established. On another occa-
sion an IL-14P Crate airliner crashed after col-
liding with a reconnaissance balloon, killing all
on board. 26
Occasionally CzAF MiGs had to stop aircraft
from getting out, not getting in. On 19th
December 1971 a 5. SLP MiG-15bis piloted by
Capt Fiedler scrambled to intercept an aircraft
heading for the West German border in an obvi-
ous attempt to 'go over the wall'. The aircraft
turned out to be a Zlin Z-226T Trener primary
trainer registered OK-MUA. Its pilot, Ladislav
Bezak, had learned that his licence as an airline
pilot with CSA Czechoslovak Airlines had been
revoked and things looked like he was going to
be arrested. 'Of course it was a risk, but a cal-
culated risk, Bezak recalled later. Technically
the danger was that the aircraft would be over-
loaded and tail-heavy. Then there was the dan-
ger of being shot down; there had been similar
cases before and I had no illusions that the
fighter pilot sent after me would not shoot. And
shoot he did.'
Having obtained permission to make a train-
ing flight in a Trener, Bezak collected his wife
and kids and took off from Kladno airfield. The
heavy aircraft was slow and reluctant to climb-
and then came the MiG. After locating the tar-
get 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 too
slow to formate with it, and launched a red sig-
nal flare, then fired a warning burst, hoping that
the pilot would get the message and land.
Instead, Bezak put his considerable aerobatics
skills to good use and started manoeuvring vig-
orously.After more warning shots the Trener
dived into clouds and got away, landing suc-
cessfully at Nurnberg. As for Fiedler, he gave
up flying after this incident and died of a heart
attack before reaching 50.
Czech MiG-15s had their share of accidents,
as illustrated by the 5. SLP. In February 1961 a
MiG-15bis onQRA duty hit high ground in
clouds while climbing to intercept an intruder,
killing the pilot NadporuCik Jan Bednar. In
November 1962 instructor pilot Maj Vaclav
Doskocil and Capt Vaclav JirlJ were killed in a
UTI-MiG-15 during a weather reconnaissance
sortie. After flying a circuit at 300m (984ft) the
aircraft hit a hill while making an instrument
approach to Plzen-Line AB, using the OSP-48
ILS. The cloudbase was 200m (656ft) and hor-
izontal visibility 2 to 3km (1.24 to 1.86 miles).
The caUse of the crash was the tell-ta!e
human factor. Capt JirlJ had only recently
joined the 5. SLP and had not yet flown in
instrument meteorological conditions at Plzen-
Line AB which is located in hilly terrain. What's
more, the instructor had decided to 'make the
best of a bad thing' and began an impromptu
IFR training session in the middle of the sortie;
the unit's CO had neglected to take over ATC
control when the weather deteriorated below
minima.
Another area. where Mikoyan aircraft have
seen a lot of action is the Middle East. Egyptian
Air Force (EAF) MiG-15s first saw action during
the Suez Crisis (26th October to 7th November
1956). Great Britain was thoroughly displeased
with President Gamal Abdul Nasser's indepen-
dent political course; when Egypt nationalised
the Suez Canal on 26th July 1956, this was the
last straw. Teaming with France and Egypt's
arch-enemy, Israel, Great Britain took action.
According to the plan, Israel would start an
armed conflict with Egypt, then Great Britain
and France would interfere on the pretext of
ensuring the safety of international traffic in the
Suez Canal and occupy the area. Stage 1,
Operation Kadesh ('cleansing' in Hebrew), was
MiG-15 77
scheduled for 29th October to 1st November
and stage 2, Operation Musketeer, for 1st-7th
November.
Only 69 of the Egyptian Air Force's 160 air-
craft were serviceable at the beginning of the
conflict. These included two squadrons of
Fagot-Bs (about 30 aircraft, ie, half of those on
strength).
The MiGs drew first blood at daybreak on
30th October, intercepting a flight of RAF Eng-
lish Electric Canberra PR.7 reconnaissance air-
craft and damaging one of them. At 0900 on the
same day four EAF de Havilland Vampires cov-
ered by two MiGs strafed the positions of the
Israeli 202nd Airborne Division near the Mitla
Pass, killing 40 paratroopers.. Six vehicles were
also destroyed, and a Piper L-4 Cub liaison air-
craft attempting to get away was promptly shot
down.
Soon after midday the attack was repeated
by two Gloster Meteor fighter-bombers escort-
ed by six MiGs. This time, however, they were
counterattacked by six Israeli Defence Forcel
Air Force (IDF/AF or Heyl Ha'avir) Dassault Mys-
tere IVAs of the 101st Tayeset (Squadron)
based at Hatzor. In the ensuing fight two MiGs
were shot down; however, they succeeded in
keeping the Mysteres away from the fighter-
bombers. The Israelis lost one fighter; its pilot,
Binyamin Peled, became the first IDF/AF pilot
to use the ejection seat.
(According to some sources, the Egyptians
had no losses over the Mitla Pass that day.
However, on the same day six 101 st Sqn Mys-
teres attacked six MiGs taking off from EI Qabrit
AB. Lt YosefTsuk succeeded in shooting down
one MiG-15bis, but immediately afterwards 12
more MiGs, including several MiG-17s,
appeared on the scene and a frightful free-for-
all began in which Tsuk's aircraft was seriously
damaged.)
The 202nd Airborne Division became the
subject of relentless attacks by the Egyptians.
At 0600 on 31 st October it received the atten-
tions of another four Vampires. Again two Mys-
teres came to the rescue and destroyed three
of the attackers before MiGs appeared on the
scene and ran them off. Lt Yallo Shavit scored
one 'kill' while Lt Yeshayahu Egozi shot down
two Vampires.
At approximately 1220 on the same day Capt
Yaakov Nevo and Lt Yosef Tsuk had a dogfight
with seven MiG-15s between Bir Gafgafa27 and
Bir Hama with no losses for either side. Sever-
al minutes later, however, they were attacked
out of the sun by two more bises near EI'Arish
in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula and
attacked. Nevo succeeded in damaging one
MiG-15bis but ran out of ammunition before he
could finish it off. The MiG pressed on towards
EI'Arish airbase but eventually ditched in Lake
Sirbon and sank; it was later recovered and
tested by the Israelis.
At about 1600 six MiGs escorted several
Meteors sent to strafe Israeli troops in the Hit-
tan Creek, engaging a pair of Mysteres sum-
moned to the rescue but without success. On
78 MiG-15
the way home they spotted two Israeli Dassault
Ouragans strafing an Egyptian armoured con-
voy and attacked them, damaging both aircraft.
One Ouragan force-landed in the Sinai Desert
while the other made it back to base.
After the Anglo-French ultimatum to Egypt
President Nasser ordered the EAF assets dis-
persed to remote bases or relocated to Syria
and Saudi Arabia, and it was just as well that he
did. On the night of 1st November, Great Britain
and France launched Operation Musketeer as
planned. RAF bombers detached to Luqa,
Malta, and Royal Navy strike aircraft from the
carriers HMSAlbion, HMS Eagle and HMS Bul-
wark attacked Egyptian airbases in the Suez
Canal area. However, post-attack reconnais-
sance revealed shockingly low results: the
bases were almost empty. The Royal Navy had
more success in the afternoon of 1st Novem-
ber, destroying 27 Syrian Fagot-Bs and Midgets
at Abu Sueir which could not be flown out so
easily in the daytime; only four UTi-MiG-15s
flown by Czech instructors managed to escape
to Hamaa AB in Syria. 28
After that, EAF activity dropped sharply; in
the next five days the MiGs succeeded only in
damaging two RAF Canberras and bombing
BritiSh assault troops near Ghamil. They had
more success on 6th November, shooting
down another Canberra over Syria. When the
conflict ended, Egypt had lost four to eight
MiG-15s shot down by the Israelis and another
eight destroyed on the ground. On the credit
side, Egyptian MiGs shot down two Israeli air-
craft, damaging two more and destroying one
on the ground. These unimpressive results are
accounted for primarily by the Egyptian pilots'
poor training.
Interestingly, the Egyptians foresaw the pos-
sibility of air strikes against their bases, for they
went so far as to build plywood mockups of
MiG-15s to confuse the enemy! It is not known
whether any such 'wooden wonders' were
actually destroyed, but Western sources say
this ploy did not have any effect - the plywood
MiGs were given away by the lack of wear and
tear and by their unrealistic positions too close
to the runway.
Six years later, in 1962, Nasser sent his MiGs
to Yemen, extending support to the Republi-
cans who had toppled the monarchy. Great
Britain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia supported the
royalists, sending their aircraft to Yemen, but
the opposing sides rarely met in air-to-air com-
bat. The MiGs were used mainly in the ground
attack role, and a few were shot down by
ground fire.
During the Six-Day War (5-11th June, 1967),
the MiG-15bis was just about the only fighter-
bomber used by the EAF and the Syrian Air
Force against Israeli army positions. More than
70 bises operated on both Egyptian and Syrian
fronts. However, most of the Fagots that sur-
vived the earlier conflict were destroyed on the
ground during this war, demonstrating to the
world the that Arab forces were weak and their
Soviet sponsors were throwing money away.
A few MiGs, however, survived long enough to
take part in the next Arab-Israeli conflict in
1973.
Soon after the Hungarian Air Force took
delivery of its first MiG-15s they made their
mark, forcing down a stray USAF C-47 Skytrain
at a Hungarian airbase on 19th November
1951. The type was also used actively against
reconnaissance balloons; one MiG-15 was lost
in so doing when it collided with its target.
Apparently the proximity of the West was
rubbing off on the political situation in the coun-
try (and ultimately contributed to the 1956
uprising). In 1954 a Hungarian MiG-15 pilot
attempted to defect to the West but force-land-
ed in Yugoslavia after running out of fuel. In a
similar incident in early 1956, Soviet Air Force
Fagots based in Hungary were called upon to
stop a Hungarian pilot from escaping to Austria
in a stolen Tu-2 bomber.
During the famous uprising, part of the Hun-
garian Air Force joined the insurgents led by
Imre Nagy. On 30th and 31 st October, 1956
MiG-15s with crudely overpainted markings
attacked government/Soviet anti-aircraft artillery
positions near Budapest. Soon, however, all
Hungarian airbases were overrun by Soviet
forces and the insurgent air arm ceased to
exist. After that, Soviet Air Force Fagots were
sporadically used to suppress pockets of resis-
tance and stop any Hungarian aircraft from
fleeing to the West.
Nigeria was another country where the
MiG-15 reportedly saw action. According to
Western sources, in February 1969 Federal
Nigerian Air Force (FNAF) MiG-15s and IL-28
bombers escorted ex-Nigeria Airways Douglas
DC-3s paradropping supplies to federal forces
surrounded by Biafran separatists at Owerri.
However, considering that the only confirmed
MiG-15s in Nigerian service were UTI-MiG-15
trainers, this report was very probably a case of
mistaken identity and the aircraft in question
were almost certainly MiG-17Fs.
MiG-15 operations in other parts of the world
can be described literally in a couple of words.
The North Vietnamese Air Force had a few
Fagots by the time the Vietnam War began but
there is no positive evidence that they were
used in the conflict. Algeria used its MiG-15s
on a small scale during the brief tussle with
Morocco. Cuban MiG-15s (of the second ship-
ment delivered in 1962) were in action against
aircraft and boats used by anti-Castro groups
in the USA for inserting spies and saboteurs.
Afghan Air Force UTI-MiG-15s were occa-
sionally used for reconnaissance and for strike
missions against the MUjahideen rebels in the
late 1970s and early 1980s. This was probably
the last conflict in which the famous fighter
participated.
 Chapter Five

MiG·15 Operators Worldwide

near Gjirokastra while in the middle of a routine training mission. Instead,

AFGHANISTAN
they chose to defect, descending to low level and heading for Italy. There
they were intercepted by an Italian Air Force/46° Stormo Lockheed
In 1957, the USSR delivered three UTI-MiG-15s to the Afghan Republi-
F-104S Starfighter from Gioia del Colle AS, which guided them to land-
can Air Force (Afghan Hanai Qurah) for training MiG-17F pilots. Ten were
ing at Lecce-Galatina AS in western Italy at 12:22 GMT. In so doing the
still reportedly operational in late 1991 alongside Czech Aero L-29 Delfin
trainer came in on the wrong heading and narrowly escaped collision
and L-39C Albatros trainers. No serial numbers are known.
with some of the resident Aermacchi MS-339As, overshooting the run-
way into the emergency barrier. The aircraft was later returned; the fate
of the pilot is not known. Curiously, the unit has been quoted as the
ALBANIA 4020th Regiment but it is just possible that the unit had been renum-
bered by then. Albanian MiG-15s identified to date are listed below.
Available information on MiG-15 operations in this country is highly con-
tradictory. Deliveries of Soviet-built MiG-15s to the Albanian People's Serial Version Remarks
Republic Air Force (Aviatika Militar e Republika Popul/6re e Shquiperise) MiG-15 (F-2?)
73
reportedly began in 1950. Two squadrons of MiG-15s (apparently con-
115 MiG-15 (F-2?)
stituting the 5818th Fighter Regiment) were formed that year at Valona
119 MiG-15 (F-2?)
airbase. About the same time, several UTI-MiG-15s were delivered. (In UTI-MiG-15
256
some sources the Albanian name has been rendered as Aviacione MiG-15 (F-2?)
522
Ushtarak Shquipetare or as Forcat Ushtarake Ajore Shquipetare.)
3-26 FT-2
When Albania severed diplomatic relations with the USSR in 1962 due
3-38 FT-2 MiG-15bis-style airbrakes.
to a disagreement over the Marxist doctrine and went into self-imposed MiG-15 (F-2?)
5-06
political isolation, China was left as its only ally. Hence in 1964 Albania 5-08 MiG-15 (F-2?)
began receiving spares for the Soviet-supplied MiG-15s, later augment- FT-2
5-11
ed by ex-Chinese F-2s (MiG-15bises) and FT-2s (UTI-MiG-15s). The
5-12 UTI-MiG-15 (FT-2?)
Fagots were later relegated to the fighter-bomber role. According to the UTI-MiG-15 (FT-2?)
5-14
Euromil - Military Air Arms in Europe handbook, 26 MiG-15s/F-2s were 5-15 MiG-15 (F-2?)
still operational in 1995, including 12 with the 5818th Regiment at Valona
5·16 UTI-MiG-15 (FT-2?)
AS, but other available sources fail to confirm this.
5-18 MiG-15 (F-2?)
Twelve assorted Midgets - four Soviet-built UTI-M iG-15s, four CS-1 02s UTI-MiG-15 (FT-2?)
5-24
and four Shenyang FT-2s - were operated by 1875th Regt!1 st Sqn at MiG-15bis (F-2?)
5-32 Reported as operated by Air Force Academy at Kucove AS
Kucove AS near Serat, 5818th Regt!2nd Sqn at Valona AS (the Air Acad- but serial suggests Valona AS; see note on serials above.
emy) and 7594th Regt!3rd Sqn at Rinas AS near the Albanian capital of
5-40 MiG-15 (F-2?)
Tirana. The Midgets are the next step after primary training on the Nan-
5-86 MiG-15 (F-2?)
chang CJ-6, a Chinese development of the Yakovlev Yak-18A primary 5-91 MiG-15 (F-2?)
trainer. According to Air International/December 1992, however, these
three units had four, four and twelve aircraft respectively, which makes
twenty!
(NOTE: The same feature in Air International indicates that the first 18
ALGERIA
bises were delivered on 31 st January 1955, followed by a further eight in
April of the same year. The Soviet-built UTI-MiG-15s were likewise deliv-
The Algerian Air Force (AI Quwwat al Jawwiya al Jaza'erlya/Force Aeri-
ered on 31 st January, with the Czech- and Chinese-built examples fol-
enne Algerienne) took delivery of its first·Soviet-built MiG-15bis fighters
lowing in 1956 - four from each nation (!). A survey of the world's air
and UTI-MiG-15 trainers in early 1963, though some sources give the
forces in Flight International, however, shows that only six Fagot-Ss and
delivery date as 1964-65. These aircraft formed a fighter-bomber regi-
six Midgets were in service in late 1991, which certainly is at marked vari-
ment consisting of three squadrons and intended for close air support.
ance with the Air International feature!)
More MiGs were delivered via Egypt. 20 Fagot-Bs and Midgets were still
Albanian MiG-15s were flown in natural metal finish. The early-style
operational in Algeria as advanced trainers in 1984. Only one aircraft, a
'solid' three-digit serials were later replaced by serials separated by a
MiG-15bis serialled 6894, has been identified to date.
dash; 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 under
way and Albania strove to rid itself of its socialist past. ANGOLA
Reforms or no reforms, however, there were obviously people not sat-
isfied with living in the impoverished country. On 4th March 1997 two A number of UTI-MiG-15s was delivered to the Angolan Air Force (FAA-
pilots from Rinas AS (other sources say Kucove AS) defected in their Forga Aerea Angolana) from the USSR. Some sources say three UTI-
FT-2 serialled 3-26. The pilots, 34-year-old Capt Dajci Agron and 35-year- MiG-15s were supplied by Cuba in early 1976. Two Midgets were still
old Maj Ardian Elezy, had been ordered to attack a civil rebel column operational in the mid-80s. Unfortunately, no serial numbers are known.

MiG-15 79
 5-32, an ex-Chinese MiG-15bis (so-called F-2)
operated by the Albanian Air Force Academy at
Kucove AB near Berat. AIR International

5-11, a Shenyang JJ-2, also with the Albanian Air

Force Academy. AIR International

An Algerian Air Force Fagot-B.

Yefim Gordon archive

202 Red, a Bulgarian Air Force UTI-MiG-15

preserved at Graf Ignatiev AB in Plovdiv, in
company with two Yak-23s and a Li-2.
Morse Stanley

80 MiG-15
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
According to the Euromi/ handbook, in 1995 Armenia operated 20 UTI- The first jet fighter operated by the Bulgarian Air Force (BVVS - Bo/gar-
MiG-15s inherited from the Soviet Air Force. ski Voyenno Vozdooshni Seeli) was the Yak-23 which attained initial oper-
ational capability in the spring of 1951. However, it was not operational
for long and gave way to the MiG-15 in the following year (supplement-
AUSTRALIA
u
.
u
.
_ ~
_
u ~
:..
~
=::.: :. '::'
~~~, ~ ~ ~ un
ed 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 and
nine MiG-15s took part in a flypast over Sofia, as if to underscore that old
Several surplus Polish Air Force MiGs, including the ones listed below,
equipment was giving way to new aircraft.
have found their way to Australia where they are operated on the civil reg-
The MiGs equipped two fighter regiments based in Plovdiv (the 19th
ister as warbirds.
lAP (Iztrebite/en Aviopo/k) at Graf Ignatiev AB) and Tolbukhin (Dobrich
Registration Cln Version Remarks AB). Besides, the 26th ORAP (Otde/en Razuznavate/en Aviopo/k - inde-
pendent reconnaissance regiment) included one squadron of MiG-
VH-ADY 1A 09-0067 Ex-PWL 906. Owned by Randal W
15bisRs (12 aircraft delivered in 1960). Some BWS bises were
MacFarlane (Brisbane, Qld, dId 3-89), later
converted to UTI-MiG-15 standard in the 1960s and 1970s but· retained
Greg Lovett (Melbourne, Vic.), did 23-6-92.
part of the original armament.
VH-BPG 1A06-007 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 607. Owned by Randal W
With the advent of more advanced fighters, such as the MiG-19 and
MacFarlane (did 3-89), later FWPike
MiG-21, MiG-15s were transferred to fighter-bomber units. In the mid-
(Sydney-Bankstown, NSW), then Hockey
80s, only a few UTI-MiG-15 aircraft were still operational with the Bulgar-
Treloar, flf 4-91 as 'PWL 60T.
ian Air Force. Fifteen remained by 1995, and these were mainly operated
VH-BVX 712782 UTI-MiG-15 Ex-PWL 782. Czech-built (CS-1 02).
by the Bulgarian Air Force's training centre at Pleven (Dolna Metropoliya
VH-DIE 3804 'SBLim-2' Ex-PWL 3804, converted MiG-15bis. Owned
AB) known as the G Bienkowski Aviation Academy until 1990. In their lat-
by Randal WMacFarlane (did 3-89), later
ter days the Bulgarian Midgets received a three-tone tactical camouflage
Barry Batagol and Bruce Alexander
and the new BWS roundels in lieu of the socialist-era star markings.
(Melbourne, Vic., did 18-1-91), then Barry
Known aircraft are listed below, with the colour of the serial indicated
Hempel and Greg Schweikert (Archerfield,
where known.
Qld, did 14-3-95). Named 'No Fear'.
VH-EKI 10926 UTI-MiG-15 Ex-PWL 126, Kuybyshev-built. Owned by Ray Serial Cln Version Remarks
REkinci (Bankstown, NSW), flf in Australia
26 7 MiG-15
24-11-96.
65 Blue 7 MiG-15 Graf Ignatiev AB.
VH-LJP 712777 'SBLim-2' Ex-PWL 777, converted CS-1 02. Owned by
015 7 MiG-15
Randal WMacFarlane (did 1989), later
017 MiG-15
Hockey Treloar, stored pending restoration.
072 7 MiG-15bis Coded D- Dobrich AS7
VH-LKW 1A06-036 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 636. Owned by Randal W
103 Red ? UTI-MiG-15 Dobrich AB.
MacFarlane (did 3-89), later Hockey Treloar,
104 7 MiG-15
stored pending restoration.
109 MiG-15
VH-LSN 1A 06-015 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 015. Owned by Randal W
113 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Bulgarian AF Academy Museum
MacFarlane (did 3-89), later Gordon Glynn
(Dolna Metropoliya AS, Pleven).
(Sydney-Bankstown, Qld., did 18-1-91), flf
123 White UTI-MiG-15 Camouflaged; coded D- Dobrich AS7
14-3-92 as 'PWL 6015'; crashed near
169 Red MiG-15bis Dobrich AB.
Canberra 13-3-93.
181 Red MiG-15bis Dobrich AS.
VH-NZM 26016 UTI-MiG-15 Ex-PWL 216, Khar'kov-built. Ex-The Fighter
202 Red UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Bulgarian AF Museum
Collection (Duxford, UK), owned by Mike
(Graf Ignatiev AB, Plovdiv).
Kelly (Mosgiel, NSW); transferred to the
221 MiG-15 Preserved Dobroslavtsi AS museum.
New Zealand register as ZK-MIG.
1025 UTI-MiG-15 Derelict Varna.
VH-XIG 7127827 UTI-MiG-15 Ex-PWL 2782. Czech-built (CS-1 02)7 Owned
not known 922520 UTI-MiG-15 Ex-Czech Air Force 2520.
by Randal WMacFarlane (did 1989), later
Geoff Milne and John Raynor (Melbourne,
Vic.), still later John Weymouth (Darwin, NT, . ..
did 8-89; flf Essendon 1-11-90). Displayed at .CAMBO~IA (KAMPUCHEA)
Fighter World, RAAF Williamstown, NSW.
VH-... SBLim-2 Ex-PWL 015. Owned by Ian Kenny (Brisbane, Ex-Chinese MiG-15bis (F-2) fighters and Chinese-built UTI-MiG-15s (FT-2s)
Qld), stored Brisbane pending restoration. were delivered to the Royal Khmer Aviation (RKhA) during the reign of
VH-... SBLim-2 Ex-PWL 655; possibly converted CS-1 02 Prince Norodom Sihanouk and used operationally against the Khmer
(c/n 6...55). Owned by Ian Kenny. Rouge guerrillas during the long and bloody civil war in that country.
VH-... SBLim-2 Ex-PWL 202. Owned by Randal W Eight F-2s were reportedly on strength in 1967. All of them were
MacFarlane (did 1989), later Ray REkinci, destroyed in the war.
then Kay Williamson (Sydney, NSW).

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 the
fuselage as well as on the fin) but with the post-1955 tactical code '15 White'. Moreover, the
aircraft has twin narrow red stripes on the forward fuselage and proudly wears Air BP stickers
and 'Hempels Aviation - Archerfield' titles. VH-XIG was likewise 'Soviet Air Force 15', while
Khar'kov-built VH-NZM was painted up as Soviet AF '501' to suggest it was aKuybyshev-built
example (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 were
Yak-17UTI trainers and MiG-9 fighters. However, in the same year a Sovi-
et Air Force unit with 40 MiG-15s was deployed to China to assistthe Peo-
ple's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF, or Chung-kuo Shen Min
Taie-Fang-Tsun Pu-tai) in repelling Taiwanese air raids. One aircraft was

82 MiG-15
With an improbably camouflaged Mi-24V Hind-E
as a backdrop, this Soviet-built MiG-15 (called
J-2 by the Chinese) is seen at the PLAAF Museum
in Datangshan. The two upper characters on the
nose read 'Chung Kuo' (China). Keith Dexter

A Soviet-built MiG-15bis (J-2) on display in the

Chinese Army museum (Peking) illustrates the
finish worn by most PLAAF Fagots. Keith Dexter

After the 1979 brush with Vietnam, China started

experimenting with various camouflage
patterns. MiG-15bis '6273 Red', one of several
preserved at Datangshan, wears a three-tone
blue/ white splinter scheme. FeW Kasmann

A different disruptive camouflage is illustrated

by MiG-15bis '4195 Red', another Datangshan
exhibit. The aircraft has a rather chipped
appearance after sitting in the open for years
and the serial and national insignia have all but
disappeared. FeW Kasmann

MiG-15 83
lost in an accident at Hsuichow AB on 29th March 1950. When the unit 4165 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) Preserved Datangshan museum, tan/foliage
moved to Korea in November to take part in the Korean War, the remain- green/olive drab camouflage, serial
ing 39 aircraft were turned over to China. obliterated.
However, Chinese pilots actually started flying the type only when the 4274 Red ? JJ-2 Preserved Datangshan museum.
war was 'in full burner'. Conversion training in the USSR took some time 6032 Red ? JJ-2
and Chinese pilots first saw action in the spring of 1951. During the Kor- 6273 Red ? MiG-15bis (J-2) Preserved Datangshan museum, dark
ean War, the PlAAF and People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force blue/pale blue/white splinter camouflage.
(PLANAF) received dozens of MiG-15 and MiG-15bis fighters from the 8320 Red ? JJ-2
USSR; these deliveries continued after the war. Initially, the UTI-MiG-15 8561 Red ? MiG-15bis (J-2) Unconfirmed (drawing only).
was also supplied by the USSR before entering licence production in 26100 Red ? MiG-15bis (J-2) Mottled green camouflage, Joint Air Army
Shenyang as the JJ-2. (Korean War).
As the MiG-17 (J-5) became the PlAAF's main tactical fighter, all 63138 Red ? JJ·2 Preserved Datangshan museum, serial
surviving bises (known locally as J-2s) were converted into fighter- obliterated.
bombers in the early 1960s. At the time, more than 200 were still in 63639 Red? ? JJ-2 Preserved Datangshan museum.
service. Some J-2s were sold on to other nations (notably Albania) and 63833 Red ? JJ-2 Preserved Datangshan museum.
by the mid-80s, only 90 J-2s and 300 JJ-2s were still operational in China 63862 Red ? MiG-15bis (J-2) Preserved Datangshan museum, .
(by 1997 the latter number dwindled to about 100). in anti-corrosion compound.
Few Chinese MiG-15s are known: 67973 Red JJ-2 Preserved Datangshan museum.
70201 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) Preserved in US museum.
Serial' G/n Version Remarks
81072 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) Sold to the USNprivate owner as N7013L;
07 Red ?(J-2) Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown. c/n reported as 81072 but this does not
10 Red JJ-2 make sense.
25 Red ? ?(J-2) Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown. 81676 Red ? JJ-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N7013N;
27 Red ? ?(J-2) Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) unknown. c/n reported as 81676 but this does not
38 Red ? JJ-2 make sense.
67 Red 0315367 MiG-15 (J-2) Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), Dachang 83238 Red JJ-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner.
AB, mid-1950. 83277 Red MiG-15bis (J-2)? Reportedly sold to the USA/private owner as
72 Red 0315372 MiG-15 (J-2) Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), Dachang N87GN,
AB, mid-1950. not known 1411 MiG-15bis (J-2) Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur.
89 Red? 0315389 MiG-15 (J-2) Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), Dachang Sold to the USNEAA Aviation Genter as
AB, mid-1950. N15MG.
91 Red? 0315391 MiG-15 (J-2) Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), Dachang not known 3292 MiG-15bis (J-2) Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur; c/n also
AB, mid-1950. reported as 2292. Sold to the USNprivate
92 Red 0315395 MiG-15 (J·2) Soviet AF (106th lAD/29th GvIAP), Dachang owner as N90589,
AB, mid-1950. not known 122071 MiG-15bis (J-2) PLANAF. Sold to the USA/private owner 3-93
0161 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) as N996.
0162 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) not known 122073 MiG-15bis (J-2) PLANAF. Sold to the USNpvt owner 10-86 as
0163 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) N90601.
0164 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) not known 137077 MiG-15bis (J-2) PLANAF. Sold to the USNprivate owner 3·87.
0165 Red ? MiG-15bis (J-2) not known 137085 MiG-15bis (J-2) PLANAF. Sold to the USNprivate owner 1986.
0166 Red ? MiG-15bis (J-2)
0167 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) 'The meaning of PLAAF serials is obscure, but in the case of five-digit serials the first two digits
0168 Red MiG-15bis (J·2) may be adefence district code, the fourth digit aunit code within the district, while the third and
0224 Black MiG-15bis (J-2) fifth digits make up the individual number of the aircraft in the unit.
0225 Black? ? MiG-15bis (J-2)
0226 Black ? MiG-15bis (J-2)
0227 Black MiG-15bis (J·2) CONGO·BRAZZAVILLE
0228 Black ? MiG-15bis (J·2)
0229 Black ? MiG-15bis (J-2) In late 1991 the Congo Air Force (Force Aerienne Congolaise) report-
0245 Red ? MiG-15bis (J-2) Sold to the USNprivate owner, edly had a single UTI-MiG-15 used for training MiG-17F pilots.
0322 Black ? MiG-15bis (J-2)
0331 Red? ? ?(J-2) Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis)
unknown. Joint Air Army, Korea. CUBA
0411 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) Sold to the USNprivate owner.
0443 Red JJ-2 Deliveries of aircraft from the USSR to Cuba began after Fidel Castro
0444 Red ? JJ-2 Ruz came to power. Cuba was one of the first foreign operators of the
0651 Red ? MiG-15bis (J·2) Unconfirmed (drawing only). MiG-15bis; according to some sources, the Cuban Air Force (FAR -
1211 Red ? JJ-2 Fuerza Aerea Revolucionaria) received 12 Czech-built Fagot-Bs in April
1301 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) Sold to the USNprivate owner. 1960. These aircraft took almost no part in repelling the April 1961 Bay
1355 Red ?(J-2) Exact model (MiG-15 or MiG-15bis) of Pigs invasion because the Cubans had only ten trained pilots flying
unknown. Joint Air Army, Korea. Second World War-vintage American and British aircraft left over from the
1765 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) Defected to Taiwan 3·3-62; preserved Batista regime (the rest were taking conversion training in the USSR at
ROCAF Museum, Kangshan AB. that time).
2348 Red ? JJ-2 Preserved Datangshan museum, serial Several UTI-MiG-15s were delivered in October 1961. A further 30
obliterated. bises - Czech-built this time - followed in 1962. When MiG-17s and MiG-
4117 Red MiG-15bis (J-2) Unconfirmed (drawing only); green/dark 19s entered service with the FAR, UTI-MiG-15s were delivered from the
green/natural metal camouflage, USSR for pilot training. Of the MiG-15 family, only 20 Midgets were still

84 MiG-15
reportedly operational in Cuba by the mid-80s; according to Flight Inter- Known CzAF MiG-15s are listed below.
national, however, ten-plus MiG-15bis tactical trainers and 15 UTI-
Serial Cln Version Remarks
MiG-15s were still in service in late 1991. The aircraft were based, for
instance, at San Antonio de los Banos AB. V-11 141120? MiG-15bis (8-103) C/n read off poor-quality photograph.
Fleet details are scarce; known aircraft are MiG-15s '51 Red' pre- V-15 141306 MiG-15 (8-102) VZLlJ, weapons testbed for FFAR pods.
served at the Instituto Tecnica Militar in Havana and' 101 Red', MiG-15bis B1-06 ? UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102?) Probable mispaint for BI-06.
'27 Red', UTI-MiG-15 '14 Red', plus a camouflaged UTI-MiG-15 '02 Red' CN-02 ? MiG-15bis (8-103)
preserved at the Cuban Air Force Museum in Havana in 1989. 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.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA EX-55 MiG-15 (8-102?) 18. 8LP/3.letka.
EZ-62 MiG-15bis (8-103)
The MiG-15 was not the first jet fighter to be operated by the Czechoslo- GT-01 MiG-15 (8-102) 5. 8LP/command flight.
vak Air Force (CzAF or GVL - Ceskoslovenske Vojenske Letectvo) , which IF-10 313636? MiG-15bisR (8-103) Reserialled 3636 in 1957.
had flown Yak-17 and Yak-23 first-generation jets. However, the acquisi- KR-11 ? UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102) 7. LSP.
tion of the MiG-15 and its subsequent manufacturing under licence KU-55 MiG-15bis (8-103?) 1. Zvolensk'j 8LP/3./etka.
boosted the CzAF's capabilities immensely. LN-03 523614 MiG-15bis (8-103) Reserialled 3614 in 1957.
The first Czech pilots mastered the MiG-15 under the guidance of Sovi- ME-36 ? MjG-15? Version unconfirmed (may be MiG-15bisi),
et instructors as early as 1951; conversion training initially took place in MP-11 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka.
the USSR and then at Mlada AB in Milovice near Prague. During the same MP-12 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka.
year (on 8th July) the CzAF took delivery of its first Fagot-A (eventually MP-13 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka.
serialled 0720). Soviet-built aircraft were supplied at first. In November MP-14 . MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1. /etka.
1951, however, the MiG-15 entered licence production, followed by the MP-15 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. $LP/1./etka.
MiG-15bis and the UTI-MiG-15 in 1954; from then on, all MiG-15s deliv- MP-16 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. SLP/1./etka.
ered to the CzAF were locally-built - and initially referred to as S-102, MP-17 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1. letka.
S-103 and CS-1 02 respectively (see section on foreign production). MP-18 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1. /etka.
The 3. SLD (stfhacf leteck8. divize - fighter division) at Mlada AB (relo- MP-19 143071 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka. Reserialled 3071 in 1957.
cated to the newly-built Plzen-Line AB in 1952) and the Jet Training Unit, MP-20 143058? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka. C/n read off poor-quality
also at Mlada, were the first to convert to the new jets, receiving 62 Sovi- photograph.
et-built MiG-15s, plus four early-production UTI-MiG-15 trainers. Two MP-21 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka.
more units - the 1. Zvolensky SLP (stfhacf letecky pluk - fighter regiment) MP-22 623840 MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1./etka. Reserialled 3840 in 1957.
at Geske Budejovice AB and the 11. SLP at Zatec in north-western MP-24 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1./etka.
Czechia - were formed in 1952, operating Czech-built aircraft. They were MP-25 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1./etka.
followed during the next year by the 2. SLD at Mlada AB (with twenty Sovi- MP-26 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka.
et-built bises) , the 22. SLD in 1954 and the 6. SLD at Gaslav AB in 1955. MP-27 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5. 8LP/1.letka.
Re-equipment of the fighter units was completed by 1957. The MiG- MP-28 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1.letka.
15 was operated by the 1st through 9th, 11th, 15th through 20th and MP-29 ? MiG-15bis (8-103) 5.8LP/1.letka.
22nd through 26th fighter regiments. The 3. SLP was based at Brno- MP-30 ? UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102) 5. 8LP/1. fetka.
Turany AB, 5. SLP at Plzen-Line AB,' the 18. SLP at Pardubice AB, Other NO-32 MiG-15bis (8-103) 32. 8LP/2.letka.
operators were the 45. DPzLP (dalnf pruzkumny letecky pluk - long- NO-35 ...3423? MiG-15bis (8-103) 32. 8LP/2.letka. Reserialled 3423 in 1957?
range reconnaissance regiment) and 47. PzLP operating the MiG- OL-10 ? MiG-15bis (8-103)
15bisR, the target tug unit at Kosice AB operating the MiG-15TlbisT, three PR-02 ? MiG-15bis (8-103)
operational conversion units - the 2., 4. and 7. LSP (letecky skolnf pluk- PR-03 MiG-15bis (8-103)
training air regiment; the latter unit based at Prerov AB was disbanded RO-31 MiG-15bis (8-103)
by 1957) and a few other units. TL-13 MiG-15bis (8-103)
Initially CzAF aircraft had serials consisting of one or two letters and TL-17 341317? MiG-15bis (8-103) C/n read off poor-quality photograph.
two digits separated by a dash. The letters were a code denoting the TL-20 ? MiG-15bis (8-103)
squadron; for instance, GT = 5. SLP/command flight, JW = 1. SLP/3./etka UF-41 MiG-15 (8-102)
(squadron), TP = 4. SLP/4./etka at Pardubice AB, MR = 8. SLP/2./etka, VT-75 MiG-15 (8-102)
Prague-Kbely AB). In the case of fighters the serial was painted on the ZF-10 MiG-15 (8-102)
forward fuselage in huge characters. A different system was introduced ZF-11 MiG-15 (8-102)
in mid-1'957, with four-digit serials matching the last four of the aircraft's ZF-12 MiG-15 (8-102)
c/n; the serial was painted on the rear fuselage. Usually the fighters had ZF-13 MiG-15 (8-102)
natural metal finish, but some MiG-15s sported highly colourful markings ZF-14 MiG-15 (8-102)
for airshows - or for war games where they acted as 'aggressor' aircraft. ZF-15 MiG-15 (8-102)
As noted earlier, with the introduction of more modern fighters the ZF-16 MiG-15 (8-102)
Fagot was progressively relegated to the fighter-bomber role. MiG- ZF-17 MiG-15 (8-102)
15SBs and MiG-15bisSBs were operated by the units of the 6. and 34. 0529? 220529 MiG-15 (8-102) Converted to, see below.
SBoD (stfhacf-bombardovacf divize - fighter-bomber division), namely MiG-158B
the 2., 6., 18., 22., 28. and 30. SBoLP (stfhacf-bombardovacf letecky pluk 0543 220543 MiG-15bis (8-103) Preserved Jihlava.
-fighter-bomber regiment). The latter unit was based at Hradec Kralove 0551 220551 MiG-15bis (8-103) Preserved Zruc Air Park.
AB and the 6th SBoLP at Prerov AB. 0562 220562 MiG-15bis (8-103) Preserved Hrbov.
The MiG-15SB and MiG-15bisSB remained in service until 1983; the 0720 107020? MiG-15 80viet-built?
last UTI-MiG-15 trainers were retired in the following year. Some aircraft 0738 530738 MiG-15bisR (8-103) Preserved Czech aerospace museum
were destined for 'life after death'. For example, the forward fuselage and (VM VHU), Prague-Kbely.
engine of one MiG-15 was installed on a locally-manufactured Tatra 111 1169? 141169 MiG-15bis (8-103) Converted to, see below.
6x6 truck for runway de-icing; the operator sat in the fighter's cockpit. 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-15bisSB
1710 2317107 MiG-15 (S-102) Preserved VM VHU. 34237 ...34237 MiG-15bis (S-103) 32, SLP/2.letka7 C/n read off poor-quality
1713 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 CzAF
1811 ... 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, SBoLP7
2506 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-15bisSB
2528 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 reported
2826 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 Aviation
3004 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, damaged
3140 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 for
3202 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 the

same unit. Lf§tectvi+Kosmonautika

One of the last S-103s to be built on the

compass platform at Vodochody. The unusual
two-digit serial preceded by a black triangle was
'Class B markings' applied for pre-delivery test
flights. Lf§tectvi+Kosmonautika

MiG-15 87
not known 220508 MiG-15 (8-102)
not known 220509 MiG-15 (8-102)
not known 240438 MiG-15 (8-102)
not known 225101 MiG-15 (8-102) First Letnany-built aircraft.
not known 623700 MiG-15 (8-102) Preserved.
not known 143051 MiG-15bis (8-103) First production aircraft.
not known 142012 UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102)
not known 142600 UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102) First production aircraft.
not known 022727 UTI-MiG-15 (C8-102) Last production aircraft.
* This is how these clns were quoted in aCzech book; the meaning of the Pprefix is unknown.
EAST GERMANY
East Germany acquired its first jet fighters even before its National Peo-
ple's Army (NVA - Nationa/e Volksarmee) and Air Force (LSK/LV - Luft-
streitkrafte und Luftverteidigung der Deutschen Demokratischen
Republik - Air Force and Air Defence Force of the German Democratic
Republic) were formally established on 1st March 1956. East German
technical staff started training for the MiG-15 in July 1952 at the newly-
founded school in Kamenz, Sachsen, with the assistance of Soviet advi-
sors. To this end the school received five non-airworthy Fagot-As from
the Soviet Air Force for use as instructional airframes.
Prior to 1956 the East German Air Force was known as Kasernierte
Volkspolizei-Luft - People's Police (Air) Quartered in Barracks (i.e. on
constant 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 VPD
600/1 (Volkspolizei-Dienststelle - People's Police base) for security rea-
sons; the abovementioned school in Kamenz was VPD 500.
Starting on 20th August 1952 the flight and ground crews of the 1. JFR
took their training at Cottbus airbase (then occupied by a Soviet Air
Force/GSFG unit). On 26th September of the same year the entire unit
relocated to Cottbus. Several Soviet instructors continued with the 1. JFR
on a full-time basis until 1955, and the CO and his deputy each had a
Soviet advisor. Only the CO's advisor remained in 1955-57.
101 MiG-15s were loaned to the KVP-Luft by the Soviet Air Force in
April 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 to
become Lieutenant-Colonel. Curiously, the aircraft arrived at Cottbus
from GroBenhain by road. Several more trainees followed, including Iris
Wittig - probably one of the first female pilots to master a jet fighter.
However, training was abruptly discontinued on 17th June when an
anti-Communist uprising began in East Germany, and on the next day
the Midget was returned to the WS. The 101 single-seaters and the five
non-flyable aircraft from Kamenz (!) followed suit within the following
month. The uprising was squashed, but it took a while for Moscow to
rebuild its trust towards Berlin. (Ironically, the economic difficulties which
had caused the uprising were undoubtedly contributed to by the two
billion Deutschmarks spent on equipping the KVP by then.)
On 1st July 1956, the 1st Air Wing (FG 1 - Fliegergeschwader 1) was
established at Cottbus. Initially the unit had to make do with Yakovlev
Yak-11 Moose and Yak-18 Max piston-engined primary trainers. The for-
mer type was armed with a single 12.7mm (.50 calibre) machine gun
and thus could be used as an ersatz-fighter - mostly against balloons
laden with propaganda leaflets which were launched en masse from
West Germany in those days.
On 28th June 1956, however, FG 1 'went jet', receiving the first five
MiG-15bis fighters to be officially delivered to the LSK/LV, followed by the
first 12 UTI-MiG-15 advanced trainers in September. To be precise, these
were Czech-built S-103s and CS-102s and they were flown to Cottbus
by 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/LV
Midgets was of Czech origin.
88 MiG-15
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 com-
plement was reduced to six; however, only four Fagots were on strength
with FG 1 in July-August and none remained by September, as the unit
began re-equipping with more capable MiG-17Fs. In January 1961 the
unit became JFG 1 (Jagdfliegergeschwader - fighter wing) and ulti-
mately JG 1 'Fritz Schmenkel'.
The MiG-15bis was also operated by FG 2 (JFG 2, JG 2 'Yuriy
Gagarin') at Trollenhagen, MecklenburgNorpommern (1956-57) and FG
3 (JFG 3, JG 3 'Vladimir Komarov') at Preschen, Brandenburg (28 aircraft
from 24th August 1956 to August 1959). FG 7 (JFG 7, JG 7 'Wilhelm
Pieck') at Drewitz, Brandenburg had nine aircraft from September 1956
to 1959; FG 8 (JFG 8, JG 8 'Hermann Matern') at Marxwalde, Branden-
burg' operated 15 aircraft delivered on 4th January 1957, and FG 9 (JFG
9, 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 training
units (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 moved
to Rothenburg) and FAG 2 (later FAG 25 'Leander Ratz') in Bautzen. The
former unit flew the MiG-15bis from 1959 to the autumn of 1964, the
latter from January 1958 to 1965; the type was gradually replaced by
MiG-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 after
the unit re-equipped with MiG-21 PF Fishbed-Ds and later MiG-21 SPS
Fishbed-Ds in late 1966 - albeit only in the weather reconnaissance and
flight calibration roles. The Midget was also flown by FG 2, FG 7 (four
aircraft delivered in 1956), FG 8 (3/JFG 8), FG 9 (1956-70) and JBG 31
'Klement Gottwald' (Jagdbombenfliegergeschwader - fighter-bomber
wing) at Drewitz4 from 1971 to 1978. Finally, it served with FAG 15 (from
1959 to 28th July, 1966) and FAG 25 (1958-65).'
Because of East Germany's extremely limited territory, the numerous
GSFG units, the three international air corridors to Berlin (which, togeth-
er with the Berlin ATC zone, made up 1/7th of the country's area) and the
domestic civil air traffic, operations from most LSK/LV bases, except
Peenemunde, were restricted to three days a week. (The Soviet units
likewise had three days a week, so that Soviet and East German military
aircraft flew intermittently to avoid 'getting in each other's way'.) More-
over, most of the bases were located so close to the Polish border that
the aircraft had to enter Polish airspace, which meant that appropriate
clearances had to be obtained. To coordinate LSK/LV operations the
VHZ-14 (Vereinigte Hauptzentrale - united main control centre) staffed by
Russian-speaking East German officers was established in 1975 at the
Soviet 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 no
specialised reconnaissance units and aerial recce had to be performed
with virtually every aircraft type available (in continuation of Hermann
Goring's reputed principle 'everything that flies is mine'!).
While the Fagot was phased out, starting in 1958, and replaced by the
MiG-17F, the UTi-MiG-15 soldiered on well into the 1970s. After German
reunification it came to light that some aircraft, including a single UTI-
MiG-15, were overhauled by the Dresden Aircraft Repair Plant (FWD -
Flugzeugwertt Dresden),' allocated new serials and clandestinely export-
ed to Mozambique (referred to for security reasons as Land 58). The deal
was considered to be so classified that the aircraft in question were offi-
cially listed as scrapped! (Speaking of which, unfortunately very little
paperwork on aircraft retired by the LSK/LV before 1972 had survived by
the 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-15s
later received a light grey overall finish or dark green/dark earth camou-
flage with pale blue undersurfaces. As was customary in the East Ger-
man Air Force, the fighters had red serials, while the trainers, like all other
LSK/LV aircraft, had black serials. (Single-seat MiG-15s operated by
training units had black serials for a while but these were soon changed
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-15bis
50 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-15bis
2Red 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). Preserved
4Red 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-15bis
5Black 612816 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). JG 2. 81 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15
6Red 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-15bis
9Red 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-15bis2
9Black 622932 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). 97 Red 1515305 MiG-15bis
02 Black 712067 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). JG 1. 98 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15
04 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 in
Black 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 Freienwalde
11 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-15bis
13 Black UTI-MiG-15 108 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15
14 Black UTI-MiG-15 110 Red 7 MiG-15bis
15 Red MiG-15bis 110 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15
15 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, later
16 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-15
23 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' for
25 Red 623755 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). publicity photos. SOC 25-6-80, sold to
26 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-15
28 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-15
30 Red 623770 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). 118 Black UTI-MiG-15
31 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-15
transferred to Rothenburg. 121 Black 722625 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).
33 Red MiG-15bis 122 Black 7 UTI-MiG-15
33 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-15
34 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-15
38 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 later
41 Red 7 MiG-15bis repaired. Used for weather recce by FWD
41 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
 Left and centre: Israeli technicians examine an
Egyptian Air Force MiG-15bis at Hatzor AB.
The aircraft was recovered from Lake Sirbon
where it was shot down on 31st October 1956.
The aircraft was restored to flying condition
and evaluated by the IDF/AF. Yefim Gordon archive

3224, the only identified Egyptian Air Force

UTI-MiG-15 - almost certainly a CS-102.
Yefim Gordon archive

90 MiG-15
The first and the last Finnish Air Force
UTI-MiG-15s (CS-102s) in front of the hangar
at Kuopio-Rissala AB. Yefim Gordon archive

For a while, HiivLv 31 UTI-MiG-15s had the serial

writ large on the nose, together with an equally
large roundel. This photo was taken in 1963.
Yefim Gordon archive

Right and below: Seen here in 1966, UTI-MiG-15

MU-4 (c/n 722479) shows the more subdued
markings worn later; note the squadron badge
·on the nose. The aircraft is now preserved at the
Central Finnish Aviation Museum in Tikkakoski.
Yefim Gordon archive

MiG-15 91
/
131 Black UTI-MiG-15 A little-known fact is that East Germany had planned to manufacture
134 Black UTI-MiG-15 the MiG-15bis and the VK-1 A turbojet for same under licence. The first
135 Black 722650 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). JG 8. SOC 1970, aircraft built by ATG-Maschinenbau (Allgemeine Transportanlagen
preserved Marxwalde AB as '1970 Black', GmbH - ie, General Transport Systems Ltd) were to roll off the produc-
later to Luftfahrthistorische Sammlung Finow, tion line at Leipzig-Schkeuditz airfield (later developed into the
Finow AB. Leipzig/Haile airport) on 1st January 1954. However, the plan did not
136 Black 722521 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 1957. JBG 31. materialise because of the 17th June 1953 uprising.
SOC 9-11-79, GIA at MTS Bad DQben, later
firefighting trainer at Drewitz,
137 Black 022534? UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). DID 3-60. Cln also EGYPT (UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC)
quoted as 022537. JBG 31. SOC 28-2-82,
returned to the USSR. Egypt was the first Arab nation to operate the type. When the Egyptian
138 Black 922330 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 1959. JBG 31, monarchy was overthrown and President Gamal Abdul Nasser came to
SOC 28-2-82, returned to the USSR. power in 1952, the new government's independent political course
140 Black 722651 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). JAG 15. Preserved angered Great Britain (which was the primary arms supplier to Egypt)
Klitten, to Museum Augsburg-MOhlhausen and new aircraft deliveries to the Egyptian Air Force dried up. Financial
around 1991, preserved in fake markings as constraints forced Egypt to buy outdated equipment such as Gloster
SovAF '44 Red'. Meteors and de Havilland Vampires, and even this was not easy.
141 Black ? UTI-MiG-15 Seeking new allies in the Eastern Bloc, Nasser turned to Czechoslo-
142 Black ? UTI-MiG-15 vakia for help. A contract for the delivery of various weapons (mainly air-
145 Black ? UTI-MiG-15 craft, tanks and air defence radars) was signed in August 1955. The first
146 Black 022526 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 2-60. JBG 31. of 120 Czech-built Fagot-Bs (S-103s) delivered to the United Arab
SOC 9-11-79, scrapped. Republic Air Force (UARAF) arrived in Alexandria in October 1955
148 Black 022527 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). 0/02-60. JBG 31. aboard the Soviet freighter M/S Stalingrad; 60 were in service by March
SOC 9-11-79, scrapped. 1956. The fighters were based at EI Qabrit (1 Sqn and 20 Sqn with 12
150 Black ? UTI-MiG-15 Possibly ex-04 Black (922259), which see, and 13 aircraft respectively), Abu Sueir (30 Sqn with 15 aircraft) and
but could be adifferent aircraft. Inhas (15 aircraft, inoperative). During the Suez crisis (26th October to
154 Black 1615393 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Cottbus Pioneers' Park, later to 7th November 1956) most of them did not take part in the fighting.
Flugplatzmuseum Cottbus. Few Fagot-Bs were delivered after 1956, the bulk of fighter supplies to
156 Black 922267 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Egypt being made up by the more advanced MiG-17F and MiG-19,
160 Black ? UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Technikmuseum Speyer. together with UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) trainers to supplement those sup-
163 Black 922257 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). DID 4-59. JBG 31. plied earlier. Most of the MiG-15s that survived the earlier conflict were
SOC 23-10·85, preserved Luftwaffenmuseum destroyed on the ground during the SiX-Day War (5th -11 th June, 1967).
Utersen, Gatow AB. Egyptian MiG-15s initially flew in natural metal finish and had no seri-
166 Black 922268 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102), DID 4-59, JBG 31. als but wore green/white/green identification stripes around the rear
Crashed 13-5-76, fuselage and wingtips. Serials appeared only after the formation of the
181 Black UTI-MiG-15 United Arab Republic, and a sand/brown/green camouflage was hastily
187 Black UTI-MiG-15 JG 8. Crashed near Seelow 1968. introduced after the Six-Day War of 1967. Only three aircraft - one MiG-
197 Black 722541 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). JG 8. 15bis (S-103) serialled 2707 and UTI-MiG-15s (CS-102s) serialled 2711
1...9 Black ? UTI-MiG-15 JG 9, full serial not known. and 3224 has been identified to date.
300 Red? ? MiG-15bis Unconfirmed (drawing only); possible
confusion with Lim-5 (MiG-17F) '300 Red',
cln 1C 06-30. FINLAND
311 Red MiG-15bis
50... Red ? MiG-15bis Maintaining a non-aligned status and being positioned geographically
51... Red ? MiG-15bis between the NATO nations and the USSR, Finland purchased military
516 Red ? MiG-15bis equipment from the East and the West alike. In 1962 the Finnish Air Force
52... Red ? MiG-15bis (Suomen IImavoimat) took delivery of four Czech-built UTI-MiG-15s (CS-
53... Red ? MiG-15bis 102s) in the latest configuration, including the Bariy-M IFF and OSP-48ILS.
601 Red MiG-15bis Serialled MU-1 (c/n 922221) through MU-4 (c/n 722479), the aircraft
611 Red MiG-15bis were operated by HiivLv 31 (Havittaja Lento/aivue - fighter squadron),
which was part of the Karja/an Lennosto (Karelian Air Wing), and based
* SOC - struck off charge; GIA - ground instructional airframe; Kuopio-Rissala AB. The aircraft were flown in natural metal finish with the
MTS = Mifitiirtechnische Schute - Military Technical School digit of the serial and the squadron badge (a leaping black lynx) on the
nose. The Midgets remained in service until superseded by five MiG-
21 UMs in 1978. MU-4 is now on display at the Central Finnish Aviation
Besides the preserved aircraft listed in the table, Luftfahrtsamm/ung Museum (Keski-Suomen IImailumuseo) at Luonetjiirvi airfield in Tikkakoski.
WDnsdorf at the former GSFG HQ in Wunsdorf (Zossen) featured a Soviet
Air Force UTI-MiG-15 coded 16 Red which was later transferred to Luff-
fahrtmuseum Dessau. Another WS Midget, a 85th GVIAP machine GUINEA-BISSAU
coded 75 Red, was erected on a plinth in the Victory and Liberation
Square in Merseburg, where the unit was stationed, in 1975. After the Guinea-Bissau's tiny air force (Force Aerienne de Guinea-Bissau) estab-
German reunification in October 1990 the aircraft was promptly removed lished in the 1960s with Soviet assistance included two UTI-MiG-15 train-
and scrapped - probably for political reasons as an unwelcome ers supporting MiG-17F operations at Bissalanca. At least one of them,
reminder of the socialist past. Luftfahrtmuseum Laatzen in Hannover has a Czech-built CS-1 02, was acquired from the East German Air Force in
a MiG-15 or MiG-15bis in Soviet markings (though these may be bogus) 1980 (ex-LSKlLV '114 Black', c/n 022528). One of the two was still in ser-
coded 06 Red. vice in late 1991.

92 MiG-15
l HUNGARY

Hungary was, in the terminology ofthe time, 'on the forefront of the strug-
gle against imperialism' (!). As such, the Hungarian Air Force (MHRC -
707 Red
708 Red
718 Red
724 Red
315307077
.,.708
...718
31530724
MiG-15bis
MiG-15bis
MiG-15bis
MiG-15bis Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum,
Szolnok.
Magyar Honvedseg RepOlo Csapatai) was among the first foreign air
754 Red .. ,754 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses.
forces to receive the MiG-15 (in 1951); the aircraft was known locally as
771 Red .. ,771 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses.
the Jaguar. Plans to produce the MiG-15 in Adiliget had to be abandoned
802 Red 31530802 MiG-15bis
because ofthe 1956 Hungarian uprising. Starting in 1953, MiG-15bis sin-
807 Red ...807 MiG-15bis Preserved Bekescsaba.
gle-seaters (known locally as the Sas - Eagle, pronounced 'shash') and
809 Red ...809 MiG-15bis
UTI-MiG-15 trainers of Soviet and Czech origin were delivered to the
812 Red ...812 MiG-15bis Coded B- Bakony regiment7
MHRC and all of the original MiG-15s were returned to the USSR.
823 Red 315308237 MiG-15bis
Most aircraft retained retained their natural metal finish and had red
827 Red 315308277 MiG-15bis
three-digit serials based on the aircraft's c/n; a few were camouflaged.
838 Red .. 838 MiG-15 Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum,
For a while, the MiG-15bis was operated as a fighter-bomber following
Szolnok,
its replacement by later Mikoyan fighters in the counter-air role. The UTI-
902 Red 315309027 MiG-15bis Coded C.
MiG-15 stayed in service till the early 1980s.
906 Red 315309067 MiG-15bis Coded B- Bakony regiment7
Many aircraft wound up at disposal dumps (for instance, the Vecses
912 Red 315309127 MiG-15bis
storage depot near Budapest) where they were allocated phoney four-
981 Red 31530981 MiG-15bis Dumped Vecses storage depot; later to
digit serials matching the year when they were placed in storage; it was
Ozigetvar Muzeum,
not uncommon to see three or four sister aircraft wearing the same
'1950' UTI-MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved in Hungarian
serial at such locations. For example, the dump at Vecses contained two
museum,
different Fagot-Bs marked '1977', one '1978' and one '1981 " plus no less
'1951' (a) MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Magyar
than three UTI-MiG-15s marked '1975'.
Repiilestorteneti Muzeum, Szolnok,
Known Hungarian MiG-15s are listed in the table.
'1951' (b) UTI-MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Gsapatai Muzeum
(Aeronautical Museum), Kecskemet.
Serial Gin Version Remarks
'1963' MiG-15bis Phoney serial, preserved Hadtorteneti
14 Red 2666 MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, in Muzeum, Budapest.
phoney Soviet markings. '1974' (1) MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum,
22 Red .. ,227 MiG-15bis Vecses,
26 Red ...267 MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, '1974' (2) MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum,
011 Red ...011 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, Vecses,
027 Red ...027 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, '1976' MiG-15bis Phoney serial, preserved Gsapatai Muzeum,
043 Black ...043 MiG-15bis Unconfirmed (drawing only), black serial Kecskemet.
doubtful! '1977' (a) MiG-15bis Phoney serial, preserved Haditechnikai Park,
060 Red 3060 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved Budapest.
Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses. '1977' (b) MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum,
061 Red 552106017 MiG-15bisR7 101 st recce regiment, Szolnok; preserved Vecses,
Haditechnikai Park, Budapest. '1978' MiG-15 Phoney serial, preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum,
062 Red 3062 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved Vecses.
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 INDONESIA
Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses.
067 Red 3067 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur7 Preserved When President Soekarno was in office in the late 1950s and early 1960s,
Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses, Indonesia was on fairly good terms with the Soviet Union and enjoyed
069 Red 30697 Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur? Soviet military aid. Soviet hardware supplied to the Indonesian Air Force
108 Red ...108 MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum. (AURI - Angkatan Udara Republik Indonesia; later TNI-AU, Tentara
201 Red 3201 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Ozigetvar Muzeum, Vecses; built Nasionallndonesia - Angkatan Udara) included MiG-17F and MiG-19S
in Ulan-Ude (full c/n 10993201) 7 fighters, a squadron of MiG-21 F-13 Fishbed-As flown by the best Soviet
203 Red 3203 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum, pilots from the 'showcase' fighter regiment in Kubinka.
Szolnok; built in Ulan-Ude (full c/n 10993203) 7 In early 1958 a contract was signed for the delivery of fifteen Czech-
212 Red ...212 MiG-15 Czech-built (S-1 02)7 Special colour scheme. built UTI-MiG-15s to the AURI for training local pilots flying the MiG-17F
424 Red .. .424 MiG-15 Preserved Magyar Repiilestorteneti Muzeum, and MiG-19S. Three aircraft serialled J 751, J 760 and J 762 have been
Szolnok. identified so far, but it is very probable that the intervening serials were
512 Red 4512 MiG-15bisR Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. also used. The trainers were based at Kemajoran airport near Jakarta.
Based Szolnok; preserved Magyar (There is some confusion regarding MiG-15 operations in Indonesia.
Repiilestorteneti Muzeum. Some sources indicate that up to 60 Midgets were delivered! Other
543 Red ...543 MiG-15bis sources say that an unspecified number of MiG-15bis fighters - proba-
547 Red ...547 MiG-15bis Preserved Army Museum, bly Czech-built - was also supplied and the fighters were operated by
657 Red .,.657 MiG-15bis Kilian Gy6rgy Air Training School, Szolnok, No 10 Sqn.)
1969. In 1966, however, Dr. Soekarno was overthrown by the staunchly anti-
677 Red ...677 MiG-15bis Camouflaged. Communist Gen Soeharto. A wave of repressions against Communists
681 Red ...681 MiG-15bis swept through the country, and Soviet support was promptly cut off. Pre-
684 Red .. ,684 MiG-15bis Camouflaged. dictably, all Soviet-built aircraft soon became unserviceable due to the
701 Red .. .701 MiG-15bis lack 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 standard
natural metal finish. The MiG-15In Action

This Hungarian MiG-15bis (060 Red) has

camouflaged 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·15bis

preserved in Szolnok. Unlike the serial, the
Communist-era national markings have not been
refreshed. 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 Western
MOROCCO
weapons systems. It was not until thirty years later that the TNI-AU
expressed an interest in a warplane of Russian origin, namely the Sukhoi
In the 1960s, the Kingdom of Morocco purchased a few Soviet military
Su-30MK multi-role fighter.
aircraft, including two UTI-MiG-15s. Later, however, the Royal Moroccan
Air Force (al Quwwat al-Jawwiya a/-Ma/akiya Marakishiya or Aviation
IRAQ Royale CMrifienne) bought US and French aircraft only.

After the monarchy in Iraq was overthrown in 1958 and the ultra-
MOZAMBIQUE
revolutionary and 'extremely progressive' Casem regime came to power,
Soviet- and Czech-built bises and UTi-MiG-15s were delivered to the
The Mozambique People's Air Force (FPA - Forqa Popular Aerea de
Iraqi Air Force (al Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-Iraqiya). In the 1960s, a
Moqambique) received a number of UTI-MiG-15s. At least one of them
squadron of MiG-15bis fighter-bombers was formed. There was also a
(22 White, c/n 922259) had been clandestinely imported from East Ger-
training squadron equipped with UTI-MiG-15s. Only 30 of the latter type,
many in August 1981; this aircraft was formerly serialled 150 Black and,
including a Czech-built example serialled 874, were still operational in
still earlier, operated by the LSK/LV as 04 Black. Three Midgets were
early 1987.
reportedly operational in late 1991.

ISRAEL
NEW ZEALAND

The Israelis captured an Egyptian Air Force MiG-15bis which ditched in

In 1993 a Khar'kov-built UTI-MiG-15 (ex-Polish Air Force 216 Red, c/n
Lake Sirbon near EI'Arlsh on 31 st October 1956 after being damaged by
26016) owned by Mike Kelly and previously flown in Australia as VH-NZM
Israeli Defence Force/Air Force (IDF/AF or Heyl Ha'avir) Dassault Mystere
was placed on the New Zealand register with the appropriate out-of-
IVAs. The aircraft was recovered, repaired and test flown at Hatzor AB by
sequence registration ZK-MIG. The aircraft is based at Wanaka, a popu-
the Israelis; Heyl Ha'avir pilots logged a total of 500 hours in it. Later, the
lar gathering place for all sorts of warbirds.
aircraft was preserved as a war memorial.

LIBYA
When another great 'socialist', Col Muammar Qaddafi, came to power in
Libya, Soviet weapons were rushed to the country. Deliveries of combat
aircraft to the Libyan Arab Republic Air Force (LARAF) began in the
1970s; these were largely state-of-the-art equipment, but a few obsoles-
cent UTI-MiG-15s were also supplied. They were used in order to pro-
long the service life of more advanced and expensive combat trainers.
By 1987 the UTI-MiG-15s had been withdrawn.
,
NIGERIA
The Federal Nigerian Air Force received a few UTI-MiG-15s (four, accord-
ing to some sources) in the late 1960s for training MiG-17F pilots; two of
them were serialled NAF 601 and NAF 602, which were airfreighted to
Kano on 18th August 1967. Only two of the trainers were still operational
by the mid-80s.
NORTH KOREA

When North Korea went to war against South Korea in June 1950, it had
150 to 200 Soviet aircraft of Second World War vintage. Very soon this
MADAGASCAR (MALAGASY REPUBLIC) obsolescent air arm was all but wiped out by USAF bombing raids, but
after the Soviet Union and China intervened in November 1950, with aid
After attaining independence this former French colony received stan- to the Pyongyang government, the North Korean Air Force was created
dard Soviet 'humanitarian aid' of the time: MiG-17 and UTI-MiG-15 fight- anew with deliveries of Soviet-built MiG-15s -largely flown by Soviet pilots.
ers. The entire air force was based at Ivato. Unfortunately, the number of After the war ended in July 1953 the North Korean Air Force had an
Midgets operated by the Armee de I'Air Malgache is unknown, to say inventory of several hundred Fagot-Bs and Midgets, mostly left behind
nothing of serial numbers. None remained in service by 1991. by the Soviet units which had flown them during the war. The MiG-15bis
remained a first-line fighter until the late 1950s when it was gradually
replaced by the MiG-17 and MiG-19, while the UTI-MiG-15 soldiered on
till the early 1980s.
MALI Known North Korean aircraft are listed below, with the Soviet units
which operated them during the war indicated where known.
During the period when the USSR and Mali were on good terms, a sole
Serial Gin Version Remarks
UTI-MiG-15 was delivered to the Mali Air Force (Force Aerienne de la
Republique du Mali) for training its MiG-17F pilots. The aircraft was 03 Red .,.03? MiG·15bis
based at Bamako and was reportedly still in service in late 1991. There 07 Red ...077 MiG-15bis
have also been unconfirmed reports in 1973 of six MiG-15s being oper- 12 Red ... 12? MiG-15bis
ated; possibly the truth is that they were ordered but never delivered. 13 Red ... 13? MiG·15bis
16 Red ... 16 MiG·15bis 32nd IAD/913th lAp, Antung AB, summer
1953, camouflaged.
17 Black ...177 MiG·15bis
MONGOLIA 20 Blue ...20? MiG·15 50th IAD/177th lAP.
22 Black ...22? MiG·15bis
In the mid-80s, the Mongolian People's Army Air Force had some 150 air- 93 Red ...93 MiG·15bis 32nd IAD/913th lAP.
craft, including a few MiG-15bis fighters (later replaced by the MiG-21) 033 Red .. ,033? MiG·15bis
and at least three UTI-MiG-15s. The latter version was operated in 1969- 039 Red .. ,039? MiG·15bis a
Unconfirmed (drawing only), red nose la
86. Only one Midget serialled 100 Red has been identified to date. 303rd lAD.

96 MiG-15
044 Red 134044 MiG-15bis 133rd IAD/415th lAp, camouflaged, 21/2 822 Red7 54210822? MiG-15bis Existence not proven; see note in US
'kills', operators section.
079 Red ,0797 MiG-15 Preserved in Chinese museum, 9'kills'; 823 Blue 108023 MiG-15 176th Gv1AP/324th lAD, Antung AB,
markings may be non-authentic, 899 Red ".8",99 MiG-15bis C/n is 1815399, 53210899 or 5899,
122 Red .,,1...22 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th IAP/1stAE, Miaogow AB. 925 Red 109025 MiG-15 196th IAP/324th lAD, later to the 16th
125 Black 111025 MiG-15 324th IAD/176th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB. IAP/303rd lAD.
132 Red 121032 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th lAp, Miaogow AB, 928 Red 2915328 MiG-15bis 32nd IAD/535th lAp, Antung AB. Damaged in
138 Red 121038 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB, Damaged combat 16-9-52 and repaired,
27-10-51 and repaired. 931 Black 2915331 MiG-15bis 32nd IAD/535th IAP/1 st AE, Antung AB.
146 Red 121046 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB, Damaged 976 Red 2915376 MiG-15bis 351st lAp, Antung AB.
27-10-51 and repaired. 1032 Red 10153327 MiG-15bis JAA, Preserved Victory Museum,
183 Red 121083 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th lAp, Miaogow AB, Damaged Pyongyang, 8'kills',
23-10-51 and repaired. 1325 Red 1315325 MiG-15bis Serial later shortened to 325 Red, which see,
188 Red 121088 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 22-10-51 1355 Red 13153557 MiG-15bis
and repaired, 2057 Red 2015357 MiG-15bis Defected to South Korea 21-9-53, to USAF
192 Red 121092 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 23-10-51 '7616' (ie, 47-06167).
and repaired, 2249 Red 22153497 MiG-15bis Preserved Datangshan museum, China.
226 Red 122026 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Markings may be non-authentic (JAA aircraft
231 Red 122031 MiG-15bis if authentic).
271 Red 2015371 MiG-15bis 216th IAD/518th lAP
300 Red 1231007 MiG-15bis 351st lAp, Antung AB, 4'kills'. Unconfirmed North Korean (and quasi-North Korean) MiG-15s originally flew in natural
(drawing only), metal finish. The forward fuselage and fin top were later painted bright
306 Red UTI-MiG-15 red on many aircraft for quick identification purposes. Starting in Febru-
325 Red 1315325 MiG-15bis Ex-1325 Red, 324th IAD/196th lAP To the ary 1952, however, these markings were removed as too revealing and
97th lAD/16th lAp, later probably to the 351 st various camouflage patterns introduced, ranging from crudely applied
lAp, Antung AB. green stripes over natural metal to real three-tone camouflage. Some air-
327 Red 123027 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP craft operated by night fighter units were painted light grey overall.
343 Red 123043 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP One MiG-15bis shot down by Lt James L Thompson (35th FIG/39th
344 Red 123044 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP FIS) on 18th May 1953 allegedly had a dragon painted the full length
345 Red 123045 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 23-10-51 of the fuselage! (It was after this 'kill' that Thompson's F-86F-1-NA
and repaired, 51-2897I'FU-897', already named 'Bill's Baby'I'Miss Jenny', acquired its
349 Red 123049 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvlAP Damaged 24-10-51 famous dragon nose art and became 'The Huff'.)
and repaired, Incidentally, despite being extremely hard-line and inflexible, Kim II
349 Blue ".3".49 MiG-15bis 324th IAD/176th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB. Sung's regime was always favoured when it came to new equipment
C/n could be 1315349 or 2315349. deliveries from the Soviet Union. For example, North Korea was one of
351 Red ".3".51 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB. C/n is the first foreign customers to receive the MiG-29.
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. PAKISTAN -
408 Red 2415308 MiG-15bis
502 Red 2515302 MiG-15bis 133rd IAD/726th lAP When Pakistan established military ties with China, the Pakistan Air Force
503 Red ,.,5",03 MiG-15bis Joint Chinese/Korean Air Army (JAA). C/n (PAF) received F-2 (ex-PLAAF MiG-15bis) fighters and Shenyang FT-2
could be 53210503,125003 or 2515303, (UTI-MiG-15) trainers. The latter type was operated by the No 1 Fighter
518 Blue ".5".18 MiG-15bis JAA, C/n could be 53210518, 125018 or Conversion Unit at Mianwali AB; known aircraft are serialled 71-2918 and
2515318, 715618 (sic), the serials matching the c/ns. Five FT-2s remained in ser-
546 Red 53210546 MiG-15bis 324th IAD/196th lAP To 351st lAp, Antung AB. vice in 1979; they have since been retired.
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, POLAND
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 As noted earlier, the Polish Air Force (PWL - Polskie Wojsko Lotnicze)
5-52 and repaired. began converting to the MiG-15 in mid-1951. The 1. PLM 'Warszawa'
689 Red 0615389? MiG-15bis 324th IAD/196th lAP To 351st lAp, Antung AB, (pulk lotnictwa mysliwskiego - fighter regiment) based at Minsk-
708 Red 0715308 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAp, Miaogow AB. Shot Mazowiecki AB near the Polish capital of Warsaw was the first to receive
down 23-10-51. the MiGs. This unit, which is responsible for the air defence of Warsaw,
720 Red 0715320 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th GvIAP/1 st AE, Antung AB, was traditionally the first to operate new fighter types.
723 Red 0715323 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th GvIAP/1 st AE, Antung AB, The first MiG-15s operated by the PWL were delivered from the USSR,
729 Red 0715329 MiG-15bis 324th IAD/176th GvlAP but later the fighter units began receiving licence-built Lim-1 s. The first
735 Blue 0715335 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB. of these entered service in late 1952, of the MiG-15bis deliveries from the
751 Blue 0715351 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/2nd AE, Antung AB. USSR began in 1953, and the first locally-built Lim-2s entered service in
768 Red 0715368 MiG-15bis 196th IAP/324th lAD, later to the 16th late 1954. The PWL received new-build UTI-MiG-15s (CS-102s) from
IAP/303rd lAD. Czechoslovakia and, according to some sources, from the USSR. Addi-
773 Yellow 0715373 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/3rd AE, Antung AB. tionally, many Lim-1 sand Lim-2s were converted locally to SBLim-
780 Yellow 0715380 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/3rd AE, Antung AB. 1/SBLim-2 trainer standard; also, some MiG-15bis fighters and CS-102
785 Yellow 0715385 MiG-15bis 50th lAD/29th Gv1AP/3rd AE; to 324th IAD/ trainers were converted to SBLim-2 standard with 0.8m' airbrakes (!).
176th GvIAP/1 st AE, Antung AB as 785 Blue. Various versions of the MiG-15 formed the backbone of the PWL's
Damaged in combat 20-7-52 and repaired, fighter 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. 1132 Red MiG-15bis? Preserved Muzeum Wojska Polskiego (Polish
PLM at Malbork, the 11. PLM at D€ilbrzno, the 28. PLM at R€ildzikowo AB Armed Forces Museum), Warsaw. Reported
(Slupsk), the 39. PLM at Mierz€ilcice, the 6. PLM-B (pulk lotnictwa mysli- as (Soviet-built) MiG-15bis (c/n53211132,
wsko-bombowego - fighter-bomber regiment) at Pila, the 32. PLRT at 31531132 or 1132) but could be Lim-2 cln 1B
Belice AB (Sochaczew). The type was also operated by the Polish Navy 011-32.
(Marynarka Wojenna) - for instance, the 7. PLM-B at Siemirowice AB 1305 Red MiG-15bis? Reported in Polish book as MiG-15bis (c/n
which later became the 7. PLS (pulk lotnictwa specjalnego - special air 53211305,31531305 or 1305) but could be
regiment). Lim-2 c/n 1B 013-05.
UTI-MiG-15s stayed on into the 1980s. Besides being operated by reg- 1612Red MiG-15bis? Reported as MiG-15bis (c/n 53211612 or
ular fighter units for proficiency training, it was operated by the WOSL 1612) but could be Lim-2 cln 1B 016-12.
(Wyzsza Oficerska Szkola Lotnicza - Officers' Higher Flying School) - 1919 Red MiG-15bis 31. PLM. C/n is 53211919, 31531919 or
popularly known as Szkola Orla,t (Eaglets' School) - in D€ilblin. Some 1919. Defected to Halland Island, Sweden,
were used as trials aircraft by the Polish Air Force's test squadron, the 7-7-57.
45.LED (/otnicza eskadra doswiadczalna - experimental aviation 1922 Red MiG-15bis Cln is 53211922, 31531922 or 1922.
squadron) at Modlin AB. Some Polish MiG-15s were eventually sold to 2562 Red 2562 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Converted to,
warbird collectors abroad, notably in the USA. see below,
Known PWL examples are listed below. 'SBLim-2'* Sold to the USNprivate owner as N83GP.
not known 231873 MiG-15 Czech-built (S-1 02). Preserved Muzeum
Serial Cln Version Remarks
Wojska Polskiego, Warsaw, 10-7-64 as '625
6.Red MiG-15 Soviet-built, DID 1951. 1. PLM. Red' (see above and Lim-1 pin 1A 06-025
8Red MiG-15 Soviet-built, DID 1951. 1. PLM. below!)
01 Red MiG-15 Soviet-built, DID 1951. Pres. Muzeum 06 Red 022040 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). WOSL.
WyNlolenia Miasta Poznania (Poznan City 050 Red ? UTI-MiG-15? Confirmed as trainer but origin unknown.
Liberation Museum) 16-6-64. 059 Red ? UTI-MIG-15? Confirmed as trainer but origin unknown.
21 Red 242201 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103). Converted to, see below. 112 Red ? UTI-MiG-15? Confirmed as trainer but origin unknown.
'SBLim-2'* 126 Red 10926 UTI-MiG-15 Sold to Australia/private owner as VH-EKI.
26 Red MiG-15 193 Red 142693 UTi-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). Preserved L6dz
29 Red MiG-15 Soviet-built, DID 1951. 1. PLM. Museum (Ekspozicja Muzealna L6di).
304 Red (a) 3404 MiG-15bis Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. 197 Red 142697 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). WOSL, preserved
Converted to, see below. D~blin.
'SBUm-2M'* Preserved Polish Air Force Museum, Krakow. 203 Red (a)? 247003 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). 39. PLM, stored
304 Red (b) 3504 MiG-15bis Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Mierz~cice AB, See Lim-2 section below.
Converted to, see below. 203 Red (b)? 27003 UTI-MiG-15 Khar'kov-buill. Sold to the USNprivate owner
'SBLim-2M'* C/n read off airframe (reported in Euromil in as N678. See Lim-2 section below.
error as 1A3504). Sold to USNprivate owner 216 Red 26016 UTI-MiG-15 Khar'kov-buill. Sold to the UK/private owner,
7-93 as N304SB. 266 Red 242266 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). 39. PLM, stored
306 Red 3506 MiG-15bis Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Mierz~cice AB; sold to the USNprivate owner
Converted to, see below. as N41125.
'SBLim-2A'* C/n read off airframe. Sold to the USNprivate 273 Red 612273 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).
owner (as N15HQ? - see Lim-2 cln 1B003- 277 Red 813277 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). Sold to USNpvl owner
06 below!) as N2276H.
308 Red 3508 MiG-15bis Built in Saratovor Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. 303 Red 723303 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). 45.LED, trials aircraft;
Converted to, see below. derelict Modlin.
'SBLim-2'* Sold to the USNprivate owner as N515MG. 309 Red 723309 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). Preserved East
309 Red 3509 MiG-15bis Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Fortune, UK.
Converted to, see below. 410 Red ? UTi-MiG-15? Confirmed as trainer but origin unknown.
'SBLim-2'* 543 Red 522543 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). 45.LED, trials aircraft.
317 Red 3517 MiG-15bis Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. 546 Red 522546 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). Reportedly converted
Converted to, see below. to, see below.
'SBLim-2'* 'SBLim-2'* Sold to the USNprivate owner as N15UT.
319 Red 3319 MiG-15bis Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur, 547 Red 522547 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).
Converted to, see below, 555 Red 522555 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Reportedly converted
'SBLim-2'* to, see below.
346 Red MiG-15bis 28. PLM. Cln is 5321 ...346,3153...346 or 'SBLim-2'* Sold to the USNprivate owner as N215MG.
...346. Defected to R0nne, Bornholm Island, 596 Red 522596? UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02)?
Denmark, 5-3-53. 619 Red 622019 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). 32. PLRT.
365 Red 3605? MiG-15bis? Converted to, see below, 622 Red 622022 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Reportedly converted
'SBLim-2A'* C/n quoted in Euromil as 1A3605 but this to, see below.
does not make sense. Preserved Warsaw. 'SBLim-2'* Stored Katowice until 3-94. Sold to the
417 Red 4017 MiG-15bis Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. USNprivate owner.
Converted to, see below. 626 Red 622026 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). 45.LED, trials aircraft.
'SBLim-2A'* 628 Red 622028 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Reportedly converted
613 Red 612713 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03). Converted to, see below. to, see below.
'SBLim-2'* 'SBUm-2'* Stored Katowice until 3-94. Sold to the
625 Red 231873 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03), Preserved Muzeum USNprivate owner as N115MG.
Katynskie, Warsaw, as '1964 Red' and then 740 Red 702740 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02),
as '365 Red'. 755 Red 712755 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102), 45.LED, trials aircraft.

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/private
2271 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-1
3302 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-1
make sense. Sold to the USA/private owner 030 Red 1A 06-030 Lim-1
as 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-1
Fortune, 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-1
3821 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 Broni
05 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 which
06 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-1
002 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-1
testbed. 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-1
SBLim-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-1
SBLim-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-1
010 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 as
011 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
 Don't you believe it. This very new and shiny,
supposedly North Korean MiG-15bis is an
impostor - probably a Czech Air Force·S-103
painted up for a movie appearance (note the
Aero L-200 Morava Iightplane in the
background). Letectvi+Kosmonautika

Judging by the four-digit serial, this supposedly

North Korean MiG-15bis preserved at the
Datangshan museum near Peking is actually a
Chinese machine. However, there may be some
truth in the masquerade, as this aircraft could
have participated in the Korean War, fighting for
the Joint Air Army. Helmut Walther

Natural metal Romanian Air Force Fagot-As

(almost certainly Czech-built S-102s) lined up as
the pilots listen to 'all-systems-go' reports from
the ground crews. Yefim Gordon archive

This Romanian Air Force MiG-15bis (S-103?)

is painted light grey overall and wears the
roundels introduced in 1985. Yefim Gordon archive

100 MiG-15
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 i Astranautyki 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-1
862 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-1
908 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-2R
1018 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-2
2001 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-2
SBLim-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 has
6008 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-2
SBLim-2A Sold to the USA/private owner, registration 207 Red 18002-07 Lim-2
unknown, 208 Red 18002-08 Lim-2
6021 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-2
unknown, 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-2
SBLim-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-2
215 Red 18002-15 Lim-2 507 Red 18005-07 Lim-2
216 Red 18002-16 Lim-2R 508 Red 18005-08 Lim-2
301 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-2
does not make sense, PreselVed 511 Red 18005-11 Lim-2
Flugausstellung 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 (number
S8Lim-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 doubtful
USA/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 probably
305 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-2
as 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-2
309 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-2
1A00309 but this does not make sense, 609 Red 18006-09 Lim-2
310 Red 18003-10 Lim-2 610 Red 18006-10 Lim-2
311 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-2
but this does not make sense, Preserved 613 Red 18006-13 Lim-2
L6dz Museum, 614 Red 18006-14 Lim-2
312 Red 18003-12 Lim-2 615 Red 18006-15 Lim-2
313 Red 18003-13 Lim-2 616 Red 18006-16 Lim-2
314 Red 18003-14 Lim-2 617 Red 18006-17 Lim-2
315 Red 18003-15 Lim-2 618 Red 18006-18 Lim-2
316 Red 18003-16 Lim-2R PreselVed L6dz Museum, 619 Red 18006-19 Lim-2
317 Red 18003-17 Lim-2 PreselVed/ground instructional airframe, 620 Red 18006-20 Lim-2R
318 Red 18003-18 Lim-2 634 Red 18006-34 Lim-2 Converted to, see below,
319 Red 18003-19 Lim-2 S8Lim-2A
320 Red 18003-20 Lim-2 635 Red 18006-35 Lim-2
321 Red 18003-21 Lim-2 666 Red 18006-66 Lim-2 Cln doubtful (is this high number of
322 Red 18003-22 Lim-2 aircraft in batch correct?)
323 Red 1B003-23 Lim-2 701 Red 1B007-01 Lim-2
324 Red 1B 003-24 Lim-2 702 Red 1B007-02 Lim-2
325 Red 1B 003-25 Lim-2 703 Red 18007-03 Lim-2
326 Red 1B 003-26 Lim-2 704 Red 18007-04 Lim-2
327 Red 18003-27 Lim-2 705 Red 18007-05 Lim-2
328 Red 1B 003-28 Lim-2 706 Red 18007-06 Lim-2
329 Red 1B 003-29 Lim-2 707 Red 1B007-07 Lim-2
330 Red 1B003-30 Lim-2 708 Red 1B007-08 Lim-2
401 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-2
404 Red 1B004-04 Lim-2 711 Red 1B007-11 Lim-2
405 Red 1B004-05 Lim-2 712 Red 1B007-12 Lim-2
406 Red 1B004-06 Lim-2 713 Red 1B007-13 Lim-2
407 Red 1B004-07 Lim-2 714 Red 1B007-14 Lim-2
408 Red 1B004-08 Lim-2 715 Red 1B 007-15 Lim-2
409 Red 1B004-09 Lim-2 716 Red 1B 007-16 Lim-2
410 Red 1B004-10 Lim-2 717 Red 1B 007-17 Lim-2
420 Red 1B 004-20? Lim-2? Serial known but exact version unknown, 718 Red 18007-18 Lim-2
501 Red 1B 005-01 Lim-2 719 Red 18007-19 Lim-2
502 Red 1B 005-02 Lim-2 720 Red 1B007-20 Lim-2
503 Red 1B005-03 Lim-2 721 Red 1B007-21 Lim-2
504 Red 1B 005-04 Lim-2 722 Red 1B007-22 Lim-2
505 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-2
725 Red 18007-25 Lim-2 912 Red 18009-12 Lim-2
726 Red 18007-26 Lim-2 913 Red 18009-13 Lim-2
727 Red 18007-27 Lim-2 914 Red 18009-14 Lim-2
728 Red 18007-28 Lim-2 915 Red 18009-15 Lim-2
729 Red 18007-29 Lim-2 916 Red 18009-16 Lim-2
730 Red 18007-30 Lim-2 917 Red 18009-17 Lim-2
731 Red 18007-31 Lim-2 918 Red 18009-18 Lim-2
732 Red 18007-32 Lim-2 Converted to, see below, 919 Red 18009-19 Lim-2
0732 Red S8Lim-2A 7, PLS/1, eskadra/2, klucz, Polish Navy, 920 Red 18009-20 Lim-2
733 Red 18007-33 Lim-2 921 Red 18009-21 Lim-2
734 Red 18007-34 Lim-2 922 Red 18009-22 Lim-2
735 Red 18007-35 Lim-2 923 Red 18009-23 Lim-2
736 Red 18007-36 Lim-2 924 Red 18009-24 Lim-2
737 Red 18007-37 Lim-2 925 Red 18009-25 Lim-2
738 Red 18007-38 Lim-2 926 Red 18009-26 Lim-2
739 Red 18007-39 Lim-2 927 Red 18009-27 Lim-2
740 Red 18007-40 Lim-2 928 Red 18009-28 Lim-2
741 Red 18007-41 Lim-2 929 Red 18009-29 Lim-2 Crashed 26-6-58, mid-air collision with Lim-5
742 Red 18007-42 Lim-2 '1014 Red',
743 Red 18007-43 Lim-2 1001 Red 18010-01 Lim-2
744 Red 18007-44 Lim-2 1002 Red 18010-02 Lim-2
745 Red 18007-45 Lim-2 1003 Red 18010-03 Lim-2
746 Red 18007-46 Lim-2 1004 Red 18010-04 Lim-2R
747 Red 18007-47 Lim-2 1005 Red 18 010-05 Lim-2
748 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-2
773 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-2
could be CS-1 02 c/n 722773, 1011 Red 18010-11 Lim-2
801 Red 18008-01 Lim-2 1012 Red 18010-12 Lim-2
802 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-2
804 Red 18008-04 Lim-2 1015 Red 18010-15 Lim-2
805 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-2
807 Red 18008-07 Lim-2 1018 Red 18010-18 Lim-2
808 Red 18008-08 Lim-2 1019 Red 18010-19 Lim-2
809 Red 18008-09 Lim-2 1020 Red 18010-20 Lim-2
810 Red 18008-10 Lim-2 1101 Red 18011-01 Lim-2
811 Red 18008-11 Lim-2 1102 Red 18011-02 Lim-2
812 Red 18008-12 Lim-2 1103 Red 18011-03 Lim-2
813 Red 18008-13 Lim-2 1104 Red 18011-04 Lim-2
814 Red 18008-14 Lim-2 1105 Red 18011-05 Lim-2
815 Red 18008-15 Lim-2 1106 Red 18011-06 Lim-2
816 Red 18008-16 Lim-2 1107 Red 18011-07 Lim-2
817 Red 18008-17 Lim-2 1109 Red 18011-08 Lim-2
818 Red 18008-18 Lim-2 1108 Red 18011-09 Lim-2
819 Red 18008-19 Lim-2 1110 Red 18011-10 Lim-2
820 Red 18008-20 Lim-2 1111 Red 18011-11 Lim-2
821 Red 18008-21 Lim-2 1112 Red 18011-12 Lim-2
822 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-2
USNprivate owner as N822JM, 1115 Red 18011-15 Lim-2
823 Red 18008-23 Lim-2 1116 Red 1B011-16 Lim-2
824 Red 18008-24 Lim-2 1117 Red 18011-17 Lim-2
901 Red 18009-01 Lim-2 1118 Red 18011-18 Lim-2
902 Red 18009-02 Lim-2 1119 Red 18011-19 Lim-2
903 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-2
905 Red 18009-05 Lim-2 1122 Red 18011-22 Lim-2
906 Red 18009-06 Lim-2 1123 Red 18011-23 Lim-2R
907 Red 18009-07 Lim-2 1124 Red 18011-24 Lim-2
908 Red 18009-08 Lim-2 1125 Red 18011-25 Lim-2
909 Red 18009-09 Lim-2 1126 Red 18011-26 Lim-2
910 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-2
1202 Red 1B 012-02 Lim-2 1413 Red 1B 014-13 Lim-2
1203 Red 1B 012-03 Lim-2 1414 Red 1B014-14 Lim-2
1204 Red 1B 012-04 Lim-2 1415 Red 1B014-15 Lim-2
1205 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-2
1207 Red 1B012-07 Lim-2 1418 Red 1B014-18 Lim-2
1208 Red 1B 012-08 Lim-2 1419 Red 1B014-19 Lim-2
1209 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-2
1211 Red 1B012-11 Lim-2 1422 Red 1B 014-22 Lim-2
1212 Red 1B012-12 Lim-2 1423 Red 1B 014-23 Lim-2
1213 Red 1B012-13 Lim-2 1501 Red 1B015-01 Lim-2
1214 Red 1B012-14 Lim-2 1502 Red 1B 015-02 Lim-2
1215 Red 1B012-15 Lim-2 1503 Red 1B 015-03 Lim-2
1216 Red 1B012-16 Lim-2 1504 Red 1B015-04 Lim-2
1217 Red 1B 012-17 Lim-2 1505 Red 1B015-05 Lim-2
1218 Red 1B 012-18 Lim-2 1506 Red 1B015-06 Lim-2
1219 Red 1B012-19 Lim-2 1507 Red 1B015-07 Lim-2
1220 Red 1B012-20 Lim-2 1508 Red 1B015-08 Lim-2
1221 Red 1B012-21 Lim-2 1509 Red 1B 015-09 Lim-2
1222 Red 1B012-22 Lim-2 1510 Red 1B 015-10 Lim-2
1223 Red 1B012-23 Lim-2 1511 Red 1B 015-11 Lim-2
1224 Red 1B012-24 Lim-2 1512 Red 1B 015-12 Lim-2
1225 Red 1B012-25 Lim-2 1513 Red 1B 015-13 Lim-2
1226 Red 1B012-26 Lim-2 1514 Red 1B015-14 Lim-2
1227 Red 1B012-27 Lim-2 1515 Red 1B015-15 Lim-2
1228 Red 1B012-28 Lim-2 1516 Red 1B015-16 Lim-2
1229 Red 1B012-29 Lim-2 1517 Red 1B015-17 Lim-2
1230 Red 1B012-30 Lim-2 Preserved Polish Air Force Museum, Krak6w. 1518 Red 1B015-18 Lim-2
1301 Red 1B013-01 Lim-2 Sold to the USA? 1519 Red 1B015-19 Lim-2
1302 Red 1B013-02 Lim-2 1520 Red 1B015-20 Lim-2
1303 Red 1B013-03 Lim-2 1521 Red 1B015-21 Lim-2
1304 Red 1B 013-04 Lim-2 1522 Red 1B015-22 Lim-2
1305 Red 1B 013-05 Lim-2 1523 Red 1B 015-23 Lim-2
1306 Red 1B 013-06 Lim-2 1524 Red 1B 015-24 Lim-2
1307 Red 1B 013-07 Lim-2 1525 Red 1B 015-25 Lim-2
1308 Red 1B 013-08 Lim-2 1526 Red 1B 015-26 Lim-2 Preserved Muzeum imieni Orla Bialego
1309 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-2
1312 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-2
1314 Red 1B 013-14 Lim-2 1603 Red 1B016-03 Lim-2
1315 Red 1B013-15 Lim-2 1604 Red 1B 016-04 Lim-2
1316 Red 1B013-16 Lim-2 1605 Red 1B 016-05 Lim-2
1317 Red 1B013-17 Lim-2 1606 Red 1B 016-06 Lim-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N606BM
1318 Red 1B013-18 Lim-2 (N606JM?)
1319 Red 1B013-19 Lim-2 1607 Red 1B016-07 Lim-2
1320 Red 1B 013-20 Lim-2 1608 Red 1B016-08 Lim-2
1321 Red 1B013-21 Lim-2 1609 Red 1B016-09 Lim-2
1322 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-2
1323 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-2
1402 Red 1B 014-02 Lim-2 1614 Red 1B016-14 Lim-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N614BM
1403 Red 1B 014-03 Lim-2 (N614JM?)
1404 Red 1B 014-04 Lim-2 1615 Red 1B016-15 Lim-2
1405 Red 1B 014-05 Lim-2 1616 Red 1B016-16 Lim-2
1406 Red 1B014-06 Lim-2 1617 Red 1B016-17 Lim-2
1407 Red 1B014-07 Lim-2 1618 Red 1B 016-18 Lim-2
1408 Red 1B 014-08 Lim-2 1619 Red 1B 016-19 Lim-2
1409 Red 1B 014-09 Lim-2 1620 Red 1B016-20 Lim-2
1410 Red 1B014-10 Lim-2 1621 Red 1B016-21 Lim-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N621 BM
1411 Red 1B014-11 Lim-2 (N621JM?)

104 MiG-15
Romanian Air Force MiG-15 '244 Red' in post-
1985 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 Militar
National in Bucharest. Peter Davison

This very weathered UTI-MiG-15 (134 Red) is

one of two preserved at the Museul Militar
National. Peter Davison

The other Midget at the Museul Militar National

is in much better condition. Peter Davison

MiG-15 105
1622 Red 1B 016-22 Lim-2 pair of Lim-2s, complete with firing blank ammunition for added realism!
1623 Red 1B 016-23 Lim-2 On 22nd July 1959 a formation of 64 Lims took part in the grand mili-
1624 Red 1B016-24 Lim-2 tary parade in Warsaw marking the 15th anniversary of the People's
1625 Red 1B 016-25 Lim-2 Republic of Poland. An even grander sight was presented at the 20th
1626 Red 1B016-26 Lim-2 anniversary in 1964. On that occasion, 26 Lim-2s from the WOSL for-
1627 Red 1B 016-27 Lim-2 mated to create the Roman numerals 'XX'. For this performance the
1628 Red 1B016-28 Lim-2 WOSL received the newly-established B/f?kitne Skrzydla (Blue Wings)
1629 Red 1B016-29 Lim-2 Sold to the USNprivate owner as N629BM award from the Skrzydlata Polska magazine. On 22nd July 1966, a group
(N629JM7) of 43 Polish Navy Um-2s led by Lt Col R6zewicz participated in the
1630 Red 1B 016-30 Lim-2 parade marking 1,000 years of Polish statehood, formating to create the
1701 Red 1B 017-01 Lim-2 numerals'1000'.
1702 Red 1B017-02 Lim-2 Originally the Polish MiG-15s and Urns flew in their natural metal fac-
1703 Red 1B 017-03 Lim-2 tory finish. In the late 1960s surviving SBLims and UTI-MiG-15s were
1704 Red 1B017-04 Lim-2 painted in two- or three-tone tactical camouflage. Camouflage colours
1705 Red 1B 017-05 Lim-2 Preserved Muzeum Or(!ia Polskiego and patterns varied widely from aircraft to aircraft. Unusually, SBLim-2
(Polish Arms Museum), Kolobrzeg, '018 Red' operated by the 7. PLS was painted white overall and inevitably
19-4-78 as '1978 Red', later as '1984 Red'. dubbed Biala Darna (White Lady).
1801 Red 1B 018-01 Lim-2 In 1957 the Soviet-built MiG-15bis supplied as the pattern aircraft for
1802 Red 1B 018-02 Lim-2 Lim-2 production (c/n 137086?) was transferred to the Polish Institute
1803 Red 1B 018-03 Lim-2 Preserved Elliniki Aeraporia Moussio of Aeronautics (Instytut Lotnictwa) as a research aircraft and registered
(Greek Air Force Museum) as '301 '. SP-GLZ on 18th November 1958. The aircraft retained its natural metal
1804 Red 1B 018-04 Lim-2 finish, except for the vertical tail which was bright yellow.
1805 Red 1B018-05 Lim-2 SP-GLZ was used to investigate aerodynamic configurations of new
1806 Red 1B 018-06 Lim-2 Polish aircraft in 'the biggest-ever wind tunnel'; for instance, it carried a
1807 Red 1B018-07 Lim-2 scale model of the PZL TS-11 Iskra (Spark) advanced trainer. Other uses
1808 Red 1B018-08 Lim-2 included trials of location systems for finding meteorological rockets
1809 Red 1B018-09 Lim-2R Preserved Muzeum Braterstwa Brani, after use. To this end, SPD-3, SP-3bis and SPD-6 instrumented test pods
Drzon6w, 26-4-79 (DID; officially donated (sometimes misidentified as towed gunnery targets) were carried on the
21-6-79). n 1,599hrs 9min, 2,509 landings. regular wing hardpoints and dropped at high altitude; at the terminal
1901 Red 1B019-01 Lim-2 stage of the trajectory they were slowed by parachutes. The aircraft
1902 Red 1B019-02 Lim-2 served with Instytut Lotnictwa until late 1972 (the registration was can-
1903 Red 1B019-03 Lim-2 celled on 4th November).
1904 Red 1B 019-04 Lim-2
1905 Red 1B 019-05 Lim-2
1906 Red 1B019-06 Lim-2 ROMANIA
1907 Red 1B 019-07 Lim-2
1908 Red 1B 019-08 Lim-2 In Romania, as in Bulgaria, the MiG-15 replaced the Yak-23 in the early
1909 Red 1B 019-09 Lim-2 1950s. The MiG-15bis served as a fighter-bomber in the Romanian Air
1910 Red 1B019-10 Lim-2 Force (Fortele Aeriene ale Republicii Socialiste Rornane) until the mid-
1911 Red 1B019-11 Lim-2 80s; more than 40 UTI-MiG-15s were still operational in Romania at the
1912 Red 1B019-12 Lim-2 time. 12-plus Fagot-Bs and Midgets still served in the tactical training role
1913 Red 1B019-13 Lim-2 in late 1991. Given Romania's obsessive and all-pervasive security, few
1914 Red 1B 019-14 Lim-2 500th and last Lim-2 built. aircraft are known.
'1980 Red' 7 Lim-2 Preserved WOSL. Cln quoted as 1B019-29
Serial Cln Version Remarks
which does not make sense.
223 Red ...223 MiG-15
* Some aircraft which look like SBLim-2s (ie, with MiG-15bis-style airbrakes) have clns shoWing 244 Red ...244 MiG-15 Preserved Museul Militar Central, Bucharest.
obviously non-Polish origin, which means the Polish 'licence-built' designation is not applicable. 306 Red ...306 MiG-15
t Confirmed as Lim-1/SBLim-1 converted to SBLim-2 standard (with MiG-15bis-style airbrakes). 311 Red ...311 MiG-15
* Possibly the truth is that the aircraft reported in Euramil as 'SBLim-2A cln 1A2822' was in fact 375 Red ...375 MiG-15
aCzech-built UTI-MiG-15 (CS-102) cln 022822. 386 Red ...386 MiG-15
389 Red ...389 MiG-15
PWL Fagots were regular participants of various local airshows. Lim-2 392 Red ...392 MiG-15
'724 Red' (c/n 1B 007-24) became the first such aircraft to be demon- 415 Red .. .415 MiG-15 Preserved Balta Verde AB, Craiova.
strated to the general public, appearing in the static park at the 1st 584 Red ...584 MiG-15 Camouflaged.
Warsaw Air Show at Okt;lcie airport (26th August to 9th September 1956). 611 Blue ...611 MiG-15 Special colour scheme with lightning side
A while earlier, in mid-1956, the Polish Air Force's first jet display team flash.
flying Lim-2s had been organised, following a proposal by 1. PLM pilots. 767 Red 231767 MiG-15 Czech-built (S-102).
Originally the team's three fighters were flown by Captains Zygmunt 1129 Red 1411297 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03)7
Dt;lbowski, Jerzy Figurski and Ryszard Grundman. On 26th August they 1197 Red 1411977 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103)7
participated in the flying display at Okt;lcie, putting on a lively aerobatics 2192 Red ...2192 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02)7
display which included a spectacular formation barrel roll. 2404 Red ...2404 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03)7
A year later, on 8th September 1957, the biggest Polish airshowto date 2459 Red7 ...2459 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103)7
took place at Babice airbase. It included a formation flypast by several 2506 Red 0225067 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102)7
hundred (!) Lim-1 sand Lim-2s in flights of four, an aerobatics display 2543 Red 7 UTI-MiG-15 Not CS-102 cln 522543 (see Polish section).
(three Urns led by Capt J6zef Sobieraj and a five-ship formation led by Preserved Museul Militar National, Bucharest.
Capt J6zef Dt;lbowski) and even a session of mock combat between a 2546 Red ...2546 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-103)7

106 MiG-15
2713 Red ...2713 MiG-15bis Czech-built (S-1 03)? Preserved Museu! 24 Blue 2815311 MiG-15bis Ex-2811 Red, fighter-bomber conversion
Aviatiei, Bucharest-Otopeni airport. prototype, Mikoyan OKB.
27 Red 2115368 MiG-15bis ISh Ex-2168 Red. Preserved Russian Air Force
The aircraft were either in natural metal finish or painted light grey overall, with red serials. The Museum, Monino.
original star-type national insignia were replaced in 1985 by the current red/yellow/blue roundels. 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.
SOMALIA (SOMALI DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC) 43 Red 55210434 MiG-15bisR Ex-434 Red. GSVG/294th ORAp, Altenburg
AB. Retired as target at gunnery range
Starting in 1963, the Somali Democratic Republic received MiGs from the (Wittstock AB), scrapped Rangsdorf AB 1992,
USSR in return for letting the Soviet Air Force use its bases. The aircraft 45 Red? 53210345 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft.
supplied to the Somalian Aeronautical Corps (Oayuuradaha Xoogga 46 Red (a)? 53210346 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft.
Oalka Somaliyeed) included one squadron of MiG-15bis fighter-bombers 46 Red (b) 55210465 MiG-15bisR Ex-465 Red. GSVG/294th ORAp, Altenburg
based at Hargeisa, plus seven UTI-MiG-15s. Two of the latter were AB. Retired as target at gunnery range
reportedly still operational in the 1980s - somewhat surprisingly, con- (Wittstock AB), scrapped Rangsdorf AB 1992,
sidering that Somalia had terminated its friendship treaty with the USSR 47 Red 53210347 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft,
in November 1977 because the USSR had backed Ethiopia in its 1977- 51 Red 922347 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02).
78 border conflict with Somalia. Hence Soviet military aid was promptly 58 Yellow ? UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Rigas Aviacijas Muzejs. C/n
cut off, forcing the Somalian Aeronautical Corps to re-equip with West- quoted in Euromi! as 02611 but this does not
ern types and Chinese copies of Soviet aircraft. make sense.
Only one UTI-MiG-15 serialled CC 116 has been identified so far; this 67 Red 0315367 MiG-15bis 106th IAD/29th GvIAP. To the PlAAF,
aircraft is derelict in Mogadishu. However, the aircraft carried drop tanks mid-1950,
marked' 114', suggesting that another UTI-MiG-15 serialled CC 114 also 72 Red 0315372 MiG-15bis 106th lAD/29th GvIAP. To the PlAAF,
existed. mid-1950.
72 Blue 10994003 UTI-MiG-15 105th ADIS/559th APIB, wrecked
Finsterwalde.
SOVIET UNION 85 Red 512357 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). 4th VN239th
Baranovichskaya IAD/159th Novorossiyskiy
Details of the WS MiG-15s are scarce; however, as noted earlier, until GvIAp, Kluczewo (Stargard) AB, Poland.
1955 the Soviet Air Force used three- or four-digit serials based on the 92 Red 0315395 MiG-15bis 106th lAD/29th GvIAP. To the PlAAF,
c/n and allowing more or less positive identification. These were later mid-1950.
replaced by two-digit tactical codes rendering identification impossible 93 Red (a) ...93 MiG-15bis AV-MF/Pacific Fleet, 32nd IAD/913th lAP.
(unless the c/n is known). More or less positively identified aircraft are To the North Korean AF.
listed below; post-1955 tactical codes not related to the c/n are indicated 93 Red (b) 812579 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). GSVG, preserved
in bold type. Allstedt AS until 1991.
014 Red ...014 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur?
Serial/code C/n Version Remarks
044 Red 134044 MiG-15bis 133rd IAD/415th lAP. To the North Korean AF.
5Red 105015 MiG-15bis Prototype (converted MiG-15), Mikoyan OKB; 101' Blue 10101 UTI-MiG-15 (ST-10) Ejection seat testbed, L11.
originally no serial. 102' Blue 10102 UTI-MiG-15 (ST-10) Ejection seat testbed, L11.
01 (Red?) 2415372 MiG-15bis Ex-2472 Red. Preserved Valeriy PChkalov 110 Red .. ,1..10 MiG-15 C/n could be 111010 or 0115310.
Museum (Chkalovsk, Nizhniy Novgorod 122 Red ...1..22 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th IAP/1 st AE. To NKorean AF.
Region). 125 Black 111025 MiG-15 324th IAD/176th GvlAP/2nd AE. To North
03 Red 22013 UTI-MiG-15 Preserved Russian Air Force Museum, Korean Air Force.
Monino; ex-zero-G trainer? Khar'kov-built. 132 Red 121032 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th lAP. To the North Korean AF.
06 Red 922272 UTI-MiG-15 DOSAAF: Czech-built (CS-102), Preserved 138 Red 121038 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAP. To the North Korean AF.
Great Patriotic War Museum, Poklonnaya 146 Red 121046 MiG-15bis 303rd IAD/523rd lAP. To the North Korean AF.
Gora, Moscow. 153' Blue ...2...153? UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102).
10 Red 722682 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Derelict Voronezh. 172 Blue 121072 MiG-15bis Aerodynamics research aircraft, L11.
14 Red 722679 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). Preserved Rigas 182 Red 121082 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft.
Aviacijas Muzejs, Riga-Spilve. 183 Red 121083 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/17th lAP. To the North Korean AF.
15 Blue ? 'UTI-MiG-15stk' Ejection trainer. 188 Red 121088 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF.
16 Red (a) ... 16 MiG-15bis AV-MF*/Pacific Fleet, 32nd IAD/913th lAP. To 192 Red 121092 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF.
the North Korean AF. 201 Red 0112 MiG-15bis Saratov-built. Nil WS, trials aircraft.
16 Red (b) 106216 UTI-MiG-15 Director aircraft for Yak-25MSh target drone. 201 Blue ...2...01 MiG-15bis
C/n as quoted in Russian book - possible 226 Red 122026 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF.
misquote? 231 Red 122031 MiG-15bis To the North Korean AF.
16 Red (e) 212440? UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02)? C/n off poor-quality 235 Blue 122035 MiG-15bis Development aircraft, Mikoyan OKB/NII WS.
photograph. 239 Red 53211239 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft.
17 Red ...17 MiG-15bis Hose and drogue refuelling system testbed, 244 Red ...2...44 MiG-15bis
Mikoyan OKB. 271 Red 2015371 MiG-15bis 2161h IAD/518th lAP. To the North Korean AF.
18 Red UTI-MiG-15 DOSAAF; c/n reported as 02417 but this 300 Red 123100? MiG-15bis 351st lAP; unconfirmed (drawing only).
does not make sense (possibly CS-1 02, first To the North Korean AF,
digit of c/n missing?) 302 Blue ...3...02 MiG-15bis
21 MiG-15 Preserved Kuybyshev Aviation Institute 317 Red 3317 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur, Nil WS,
(KuAI; now Samara State Aviation University), trials aircraft.
ground instructional airframe, 325 Red 1...3025 MiG-15bis AV-MF. C/n is either 123025 or 133025,
23 Blue 'UTI-MiG-15stk' Ejection trainer. 327 Red 123027 MiG-15bis 303rd lAD/18th GvIAP. To North Korean AF,

MiG-15 107
Top and below: The ex-North Korean MiG-15bis
(47-0616?) at a late stage of its evaluation by the
USAF. The aircraft wears an Air Force Systems
Command badge on the fuselage; the TC buzz
code reportedly stood for Tom Collins. Yefim
Gordon archive

This unmarked MiG·15bis sits in a private

museum 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, Further deliveries came later, including UTI-MiG-15s. Syrian MiG-15s
none 120113 MiG-15 took part in all subsequent Middle Eastem conflicts with Israel, but most
none 132020 MiG-15bisR (SR) of the aircraft lost in these conflicts were destroyed on the ground, not in
none 53210114 MiG-15bisS (SD-UPB) Prototype, Mikoyan OKB, the air. One squadron of UTI-MiG-15s remained by early 1987; more than
none 53210120 MiG-15bisR (SR) Prototype, Mikoyan OKB, 25 aircraft were reportedly still operational in late 1991.
none 55210101 MiG-15bisR First production aircraft, Only one Syrian UTI-MiG-15 serialled 273 has been identified. This
none 2415398 MiG-15bis Became 2498 Red? camouflaged (and extremely weathered) aircraft now survives in a
none 3810102 MiG-15 (SA-1) Mikoyan OKB development aircraft, museum whose location is unknown - possibly in Israel.
none 3810203 MiG-15 Mikoyan OKB development aircraft,
none 3810510 MiG-15
none 01246? UTI-MiG-15P (ST-7) Prototype, Mikoyan OKB, C/n read off poor- TANZANIA' ' ,
quality photograph,
not known 10444 UTI-MiG-15 The Air Wing of the Tanzanian People's Defence Force was largely
not known 103012 MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraft, equipped with aircraft of Chinese origin, including two FT-2s (UTI-MiG-
not known 106220 UTI-MiG-15 Director aircraft for Yak-25MSh target drone, 15s) based at Mikumi AB 130km (80 miles) north of Dar es Salaam.
C/n quoted in Russian book - possible error? These were still operational in the mid-80s.
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, UGANDA', .
not known 127035 MiG-15bis Mikoyan OKB development aircraft
(drop tank tests)? Two UTI-MiG-15s were supplied to the Uganda Army Air Force in the mid-
not known 3810510 MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraft, 70s to support about 12 MiG-17s. The aircraft were based at Entebbe.
not known 0215341 MiG-15 Nil WS, trials aircraft
not known 0815358 MiG-15bis Nil WS, trials aircraft,
not known 53210434 MiG-15bis Mikoyan OKB development aircraft, UNITED KINGDOM
not known 53210668 MiG-15bis Mikoyan OKB development acft (0,8m 2
airbrake tests), Several MiG-15s retired by the Polish Air Force have found their way to
not known 2301 MiG-15bis Built in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur. Nil WS, warbird collectors and museums in the UK. A Czech-built UTI-MiG-15
trials aircraft. (ex-6247 Red, cln 622047) converted to SBLim-2A standard with 0.8m'
not known 31530504 MiG-15bis W/O in landing accident at Tbilisi plant 24-5-52. airbrakes and a camera fairing was operated by Graham Hinkley (Shore-
not known 022618 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-102). ham) under the appropriate out-of-sequence registration G-OMIG, mak-
not known 022712 UTI-MiG-15 Czech-built (CS-1 02). GSVG/19th GvAPIB, ingh its first post-restoration flight on 19th November 1993 (still in PWL
Liirz AB; retired/scrapped by 1993. camouflage). Later it went to the Old Flying Machine Company (RAF
Duxford) and was put on display at the Imperial War Museum. The air-
* AV-MF = aviahtsiya voyenno-morskovo flota - Naval air arm craft is now natural metal with red trim and painted in pre-1955 Soviet
t Curiously, aMiG-15bis was used in a (possibly American) movie, painted in pre-1955 Soviet markings as '6247 Blue'. The serial presentation is open to doubt, since
markings with the serial '8170' (!!) on the nose and the c/n 0615316 writ large on the upper fin sec- only Novosibirsk-built SovAF Midgets are known to have had four-digit
tion! The serial, which does not match the c/n, and the size and location of the latter are totally serials; had this aircraft actually been supplied to the USSR, the serial
incongruous, not to mention the fact that the real 0615316 was a'pure' MiG-15 Fagot-A, not abis! could just as easily have been 247' Blue.
Lim-2 '1420 Red' (c/n 1B 014-20) was acquired by Aces High Ltd
which operates the aircraft in its original markings under the registration
SRI LANKA (CEYLON) G-BMZF. This aircraft gained fame in February 1987 when it was used as
a backdrop for a Pilot's Pal photo session with model Susan Jane Watts;
On 22nd April 1971 the Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF), formerly Royal Cey- in 1993 it was repainted in North Korean markings with the absolutely
lon Air Force (RCyAF), received a single UTI-MiG-15 serialled CF 901 non-authentic serial 01420 Red.
from the USSR for training its MiG-17 pilots. Spares for the MiGs and a Another Lim-2 (1120 Red, cln 1B 011-20) is on display at the RAF
team of Soviet instructors arrived at Katunayake (China Bay) on the same Museum at Hendon since 1986. Finally, an SBLim-1 (ex-908 Red, c/n 1A
day. The Midget was operated by the 6th Sqn. at Katunayake until 1979. 09-008) was reportedly under restoration by Graham Hinkley at Shore-
ham in 1995. It is not known if the restoration was to airworthy condition
or just as a static exhibit.
SUDAN .

After President Jaffar Nimairy came to power, the Sudan Air Force (al
Ouwwat al-Jawwiya as-Sudaniya) received Soviet aircraft, including UTI-
MiG-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) ordered
its first 25 MiG-15bis fighters in 1955. These were delivered from Czecho-
slovakia in 1956, along with a few UTI-MiG-15s, to Abu Sueir AB in Egypt
where the Syrian pilots were taking their training. Alas, all of them except
four Midgets were destroyed on the ground at Abu Sueir by Royal Navy
Westland Wyvem attack aircraft on 1st November 1956 without ever
flying a single sortie.
A Novosibirsk-built MiG-15bis serialled 2057 (c/n 2015337) fell into
American hands when it was flown to Kimpo AB near Seoul by defector
Ro Kim Suk on 21 st September 1953. Painted in USAF markings and
reserialled '7616' (ie, 47-06167), the fighter was evaluated at Kadena AB
(Okinawa, Japan) and later at Eglin AFB (Florida) and Wright-Patterson
AFB (Dayton, Ohio) in 1954. At a late stage of the evaluation trials it
received the buzz number TC-616 (the letters reportedly stood for Tom
Collins, one of the test pilots flying it), an Air Force Systems Command
badge on the centre fuselage (on the starboard side only) and a USAF-
style red caution stripe around the aft fuselage. Curiously, this stripe was
applied immediately ahead of the fin (approximately at frame 21), not at
the fuselage break point. The aircraft is now preserved in accurately
restored original markings atthe USAF Museum (Wright-Patterson AFB).

110 MiG-15
 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 EBeasley
destine research programmes and for realistic threat simulation during (Philadelphia, PA, did 3-89), later NASW
exercises 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. Owned
DTESA 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; sold
surfaces 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 Air
fitted with Western communications and naVigation equipment, as evi- (Carlsbad, CA, did 14-6-91), later Air Museum
deneed by the non-standard aerials under the forward fuselage and on (Chino, CA), registration date 3-2-99. Cln
the 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 DGuffey
ex-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), did
pouring 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 ABroderick
worthiness. Known civil MiG-15s operated in the United States are listed (Mansfield, OH) 14-12-98
below. N115PW SBLim-2 Ex-PWL 115? Owned by Wilke &Associates,
Registration Cln Version Remarks Inc (Rocklin, CAl, registration date 12-6-92;
displayed at Cavanaugh Flight Museum
N13KM 1B010-13 Lim-2 Ex-PWL 1013, Classics in Aviation (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 Fighters
N15LC 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.
N157GL 1A05-007 SBLim-2A Ex-PWL 5007. Owned by George Lazik (Van
N15MG 1411 MiG-15bis Built in Saratov or Komsomol'sk-on·Amur.
Nuys, CA, did 21-7-93), later Laurie Rollings
Owned by EAA Aviation Center (Oshkosh, WI),
(Tesuque, NM), registration date 13-4-96.
registration date 2-2-93; later sold to Combat
N205JM 1B 012-05 Lim-2 Ex-PWL 1205. Owned by John McGuire
Jets Flying Museum (Houston, TX).
(Santa Teresa, NM, did 23-1-87), then AI
Ex-PLAAF, painted in Chinese markings as
Reddick (Classics in Aviation, Reno, NV, did
'4115 White', red aft fuselage &tail.
6-87). To DTESA 1988; WFU 10-89, stored
N15MU 1A 06-025 SBLim-1 Ex-PWL 625? Owned by MiG, Inc (Pittsford,
AMARC 1990-93, to be shipped to the UK,
Ny), registration date 4-5-1998.
'SBLim-2' Converted Czech-built CS-1 02. Owned by N215MG 522555 'SBLim-2' Ex-PWL 555; converted Czech-built CS-1 02.
N15UT 522546
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/n
as '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 damaged
Also 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 Force
War Eagles Air Museum (did 2-87), markings as '15 White', twin red stripes on
Also 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 by
Also 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 Warbirds
Steven 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, Owned
McGuire (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 Ltd
WFU 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 Fighter
Red' 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 was
N2276H 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,) to
sense (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 the
CAl, 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 always
US 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 by
this 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 jets
registration 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, Tobacco
Reid/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 biplane
condition, 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 the
golden colour scheme, Owned by Thomas M planes to enter the country - even though the aircraft had been duly
Smith (Granada Hills, CA), registration date cleared through Customs, Then the ATF demanded that the aircraft be
1-5-96, 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 stuck
date 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 guns
City Ai rCharter Ltd (Los Angeles, CA, flf 29- or changes to them so as to make them inoperable (a demand of the
7-87), 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 whip
Soviet Air Force '1170 White' to suggest cln aerials on the underside whose type and location varies. Some aircraft
1115370; twin red stripes on nose, To Bill have part of the flight instruments replaced with Western equivalents,

112 MiG-15
 Privately-owned MiGs often make spectacular appearances at the
(NORTH) VIETNAM
numerous local airshows. One former Polish Air Force Lim-2 (N205JM)
starred in several TV films, including the film Steal the Sky in which it por-
The Vietnamese People's Air Force (VPAF) received weapons from both
trays an Iraqi fighter serialled 524. For the movie the aircraft was painted
the USSR and China, thus operating both Soviet- and Chinese-built MiG-
in spurious green/sand camouflage with oversized Iraqi Air Force
15s. A squadron of UTI-MiG-15s/JJ-2s remained operational in the mid-
insignia.
80s but none of them have been identified. Known Vietnamese Fagot-Bs
One SBL..!rn-2A resides in a US museum wearing applique (!) Soviet
are listed below.
markings. GL1ripusly, the number and location of the stars is pre-1955
style but the aircraft sports a post-1955 tactical code (11 Red). Serial Version Remarks
Speaking of which, a natural metal MiG-15bis is on display at the Pima
2013 Red 20153137 Unconfirmed (drawing only); pictured as Fagot-A!
Air Museum, wearing North Korean markings and the serial 822 Red. The
2014 Red 20153147
rather angular serial style suggests Gor'kiy production and hence c/n
2018 Red 20153187
53210822. 8 Yet, while Gor'kiy-built Batch 8 bises did take part in the con-
2110 Red 21153107
cluding stage of the Korean War, this aircraft is an impostor - a Lim-2,
2310 Red 23153107
ex-Polish Air Force 822 Red painted up for display, possibly with a photo
2410 Red 24153107
of the real North Korean Air Force '822 Red' as a reference." The Korean
2537 Red 25153377
insignia are inaccurate, having a white background (quasi-North Korean
aircraft flown by Soviet pilots had no white background to the insignia
unless painted in a camouflage scheme).
Similarly, a MiG-15bis is preserved at Cal-Aero Field in California as YEMEN (NORTH YEMEN/YEMEN ARAB REPUBLIC
Soviet Air Force' 1301 Red', suggesting c/n 1315301. However, the ser- AND SOUTH YEMEN/PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC
ial style doesn't even resemble a Novosibirsk-built aircraft and the fight- REPUBLIC OF YEMEN)
er is probably a Lim-2 (c/n 1B 013-01).
Both countries, allies of the USSR, received MiGs, including an unknown
Decode for US States
number of bises and UTI-MiG-15s (the latter were used for training MiG-
Occasional 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: 17F pilots). Four and three UTI-MiG-15s respectively were reported to
AL = Alabama IL = Illinois NC = North Carolina SO = South Dakota remain in service in the North and South by 1979. In passing, the sup-
AK = Alaska IN = Indiana NO = North Dakota TN = Tennessee plier never imagined that the aircraft of these brother nations would meet
AR = Arkansas KS = Kansas NH = New Hampshire TX = Texas in combat when the YAR and the PDRY clashed a border conflict in 1972.
AZ = Arizona KY = Kentucky NJ = New Jersey UT = Utah According to Interavia, in early 1987 the YARAF was withdrawing its
CA = California LA = Louisiana NM = New Mexico VA = Virginia
four Midgets while the PDRYAF was still keeping its three aircraft. How-
CO = Colorado MA = Massachusetts NV = Nevada VI = Virgin Islands
CT = Connecticut MO = Maryland NY = New York VT = Vermont
ever, Flight International states that when the two Yemens finally merged
DC = Dist of Columbia ME = Maine OH = Ohio WA = Washington in 1990, the new united Yemen Air Force still had four UTI-MiG-15s! Only
DE = Delaware MI = Michigan OK = Oklahoma WI = Wisconsin one YARAF MiG-15bis serialled 72 has been identified to date.
FL = Florida MN = Minnesota OR = Oregon WV = West Virginia
GA = Georgia MO = Missouri PA = Pennsylvania WY = Wyoming
HI = Hawaii MS = Mississippi PR = Puerto Rico
IA = Iowa MT = Montana RI = Rhode Island A technician performs maintenance on a UTI·MiG·15 with access panels in
10 = Idaho NB = Nebraska SC = South Carolina the canopy fairing open. Yefim Gordon Archive

MiG-15 113

The MiG·15bis in Detail
The following structural description applies to
the late-production standard MiG-15bis.
Type
Single-engined tactical fighter with limited
strike capability designed for day and night
operation in visual meteorological conditions
(VMC) and instrument meteorological condi-
tions (IMG).
Fuselage
Semi-monocoque all-metal stressed-skin
structure with frames, longerons and stringers.
The riveted fuselage structure is made mainly
of 0-16 duraiumin. Type 30KhGSA steel is used
for most of the joints, except the frame/
longeron fittings which are made of Type 20
steel. Fuselage length is 8.08m (26ft 6in), fuse-
lage diameter 1.45m (4ft 9in), and air intake
diameter 0.747m (2ft 5in). Maximum cross-sec-
tion area (less cockpit canopy) is 1.65m2
(17.74ft2) and aspect ratio is 5.57.
Structurally the fuselage consists of two sec-
tions: forward (up to frame 13, which is the fuse-
lage break point) and rear. The latter is
detachable for engine maintenance and
removal; the two fuselage sections are held
together by 13 bolts.
The forward fuselage incorporates the for-
ward avionics/equipment bay (frames 1 to 4),
the nosewheel well, the pressurized cockpit
(frames 4 to 9), the armament bay and aft
avionics/equipment bay located under it, and
the No 1 fuel tank (frames 9 to 13). The circular
air intake located at frame No 1 has a vertical
splitter which divides it into two elliptical-sec-
tion air ducts passing along the fuselage sides,
flanking the cockpit, nosewheel well, No 1 fuel
tank and avionics bays.
The forward fuselage has 13 frames (includ-
ing four mainframes absorbing the main struc-
tural loads, Nos 4, 5A, 9 and 13) and three
auxiliary frames. Mainframes Nos 4 and 5A
seNe as attachment points for the nose gear
unit and weapons tray respectively; wing spar
attachment fittings are installed at frames Nos
9 and 13. The latter also carries the engine
bearer with. ten attachment points for the
engine. Frame 1 has a flanged cutout on top for
the S-13 gun camera; the nose fairing with the
intake splitter is attached to this frame.
There are four forward longerons (two upper
and two lower) running from frame 1 to frame 9
and four rear longerons (between frames 9 to
13), plus an auxiliary central upper longeron
between frames 11 to 13. The longerons are
114 MiG-15
Chapter Six
attached to each frame by welded gusset
plates made of Type 20 steel. Finally, the cock-
pit floor also adds structural stiffness. Fuselage
skin thickness varies from 0.6 to 1.2mm (0.023
to 0.047in). The forward fuselage has numer-
ous hinged or detachable access panels.
The cockpit is contained by pressure bulk-
heads at mainframes 4 and 9 and is enclosed
by a bubble canopy. The fixed windshield con-
sists oftwo cUNed triangular Perspex sidelights
8mm (0.31 in) thick and an elliptical optically-flat
bUlletproof glass 64mm (2.5in) thick; the
stamped duralumin windshield frame is her-
metically riveted to the forward fuselage struc-
ture. The aft-sliding canopy moves on guide
rails and can be jettisoned manually or
pyrotechnically in an emergency. The blown
Perspex glazing held by inner and outer frames
is likewise 8mm thick. The cockpit features an
ejection seat (with guide rails attached to the
rear pressure bUlkhead), an instrument panel
and side control consoles.
The rear fuselage (frames 14 to 28) houses
the engine with its accessories and jetpipe, the
two-section rear fuel tank and control linkages.
The engine jetpipe is attached to frame 28 by a
special flexible fitting. The rear fuselage struc-
ture consists of 15 frames, ten longerons and a
number of stringers supporting the skin.
Two lateral airbrakes with a total area of
0.5m 2 (5.37ft2) are incorporated between
frames 26 and 28; late production bises have
0.8m 2 (8.6ft2) airbrakes. The airbrakes are elec-
trohydraulically-actuated and deflected 55°. A
system of mechanical linkages ensures simul-
taneous operation.
Wings
Cantilever mid-wing monoplane. Leading-
edge sweep 37°, sweepback at quarter-chord
35°, anhedral 2°, incidence 1°, aspect ratio
4.85, taper 1.61. The wings utilise TsAGI S-1 OS
airfoil at the root and TsAGI SR-3 airfoil at the
tip; mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) is 2.12m
(6ft 11.46in) and mean thickness/chord ratio
10.3%. Wingspan is 10.18m (33ft 2.4in) and
wing area 20.6m 2 (221.5ft2).
The wings are of all-metal, three-spar
stressed-skin construction, with forward spar,
main spar and auxiliary rear spar; they are one-
piece structures joined to the fuselage at the
root rib. Each wing has 20 ribs and two beams
which, together with the main spar, form the
mainwheel well. Skin thickness varies from 1.0
to 2.0mm (0.039 to 0.078in). Each wing incor-
porates an anti-flutter weight and has a detach-
able tip fairing attached to rib 20 by screws and
anchor nuts. The wing/fuselage joint is covered
by a fillet attached to fuselage and wing in sim-
ilar fashion.
The wings have hydraulically-actuated, one-
piece TsAGI flaps (modified Fowler flaps) ter-
minating at approximately half-span, with
pneumatic extension in emergency. These are
single-spar structures with one tip stringer, one
auxiliary stringer, 19 ribs and duralumin skin.
The flaps are powered by separate actuators
linked by cables to ensure simultaneous oper-
ation; there are three flap settings (fUlly retract-
ed, take-off and landing).
Each wing has two boundary layer fences on
the upper surface and a ground-adjustable trim
tab riveted to the trailing edge. A pitot tube is
installed on the starboard wing between ribs 15
and 16.
Tail unit
Cantilever cruciform tail surfaces of all-metal
stressed-skin construction. Fin leading-edge
sweep 55° 41', sweepback at quarter-chord
45°, aspect ratio 1.21, taper 2.67, mean thick-
ness/chord ratio 9.0%. Stabilizer leading-edge
sweep 40°, incidence _0° 30', aspect ratio 3.52,
taper 2.49, mean thickness/chord ratio 8.7%.
Total vertical tail area is 4.0m 2 (43.0ft2) and total
horizontal tail area 3.0m 2 (32.25ft2). Both hori-
zontal and vertical tail utilise symmetrical
NACA-0009 section.
For technological reasons the fin is made up
of two sections (upper and lower); the lower fin
is built integrally with the rear fuselage. The
upper section is bolted to the lower and can be
easily detached - eg, for removing the horizon-
tal tail if the aircraft is to be crated, overhauled
etc. The fin is a single-spar structure with a front
false spar, 11 ribs in the lower section and five
ribs in the upper section, stringers and duralu-
min skin 1.2 to 1.5mm (0.047 to 0.059in) thick.
The horizontal tail is built in two symmetrical
halves joined at the reinforced central ribs by
duralumin plates and fittings; each half is a sin-
gle-spar structure with a rear false spar, ribs
and duralumin skin 0.8mm (0.0314in) thick.
The horizontal tail is attached by means of one
fitting at the front and two at the rear; the for-
ward fitting is adjustable, allowing stabilizer
incidence to be varied.
Landing gear
Hydraulically-retractable tricycle type, with
pneumatic extension in emergency; wheel
track 3.81 m (12ft 6in), wheelbase 3.475m (11 ft
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. _._._-----------------------------------------------
5in). Nose unit retracts forward, main units
inward into wings so that the wheels lie in the
wing roots ahead of the main spar. In the
retracted position the landing gear is secured
by uplocks, in the extended position by shutoff
valves trapping hydraulic fluid in the retraction
jacks which double as downlocks.
All three landing gear struts have oleo-pneu-
matic shock absorbers. The main units have
single 600 x 160mm (23.6 x 6.3in) wheels with
expander-tube brakes; some aircraft manufac-
tured by the Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1 in
1952 have a UA-11 anti-skid unit. The nose unit
has a single 480 x 200mm (18.9 x 7.87in) non-
braking wheel and is equipped with a shimmy
damper. The castoring nosewheel can turn
±50° for taxying; steering on the ground is by
differential 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 lateral
doors, the mainwheel wells by triple doors (one
segment is hinged to the front spar, one to the
root rib and a third segment attached to the
oleo leg). All doors remain open when the gear
is down. Landing gear position is indicated by
warning lamps on the instrument panel and by
mechanical indicators (popularly known as
soldahtik - little soldier) on the wing and for-
ward fuselage upper surfaces.
A sprung tail bumper is provided to protect
the rear fuselage and jetpipe in a tail-down
landing. Some aircraft built in Kuybyshev in
1952 (izdeliye SD-P) are equipped with a 15m'
(161.29ft') PT-2165-51 brake parachute housed
in a special bay under the jetpipe. The dual bay
doors and the parachute release lock are actu-
ated pneumatically.
Powerplant
One Klimov VK-1 or VK-1 A non-afterburning tur-
bojet rated at 2,700kg (5,952Ibst) or 2,740kg
(6,040Ibst) respectively, with a single-stage
centrifugal compressor (with dual inlet ducts),
nine straight-flow combustion chambers, a sin-
gle-stage axial turbine, a subsonic fixed-area
nozzle and an extension jetpipe. The latter is
attached flexibly. The engine features an acces-
sory gearbox for driving fuel, oil and hydraulic
pumps and electrical equipment. Starting is
electrical by means of an ST2 or ST2-48 starter.
The engine is mounted on a bearer via four
attachment points: two trunnions on the right
and left sides of the compressor casing below
the axis of the engine and two mounting lugs in
the upper part of the engine. The engine is
attached to fuselage frame 13; when the rear
fuselage is detached, the engine is completely
exposed.
Control system
The MiG-15bis has a conventional mechanical
flight control system with push-pull rods, con-
trol cranks and levers.
Roll control is provided by ailerons with inter-
nal aerodynamic balancing. These are single-
spar structures with 12 ribs and duralumin skin
0.8mm (0.0314in) thick. The ailerons are pow-
ered by a BU-1 (BU-1A) reversible hydraulic
actuator mounted on the front spar of the star-
board wing to reduce stick forces. The port
aileron has a trim tab. Total aileron area is
i.01m' (1 0.86ft') , including 0.39m' (4.19ft') for
the aerodynamic balances and 0.02m' (0.21ft')
for the trim tab. Relative aileron chord is 18.6%,
ai leron deflection ± 15° and trim tab deflection
likewise ± 15°.
Directional control is provided by a rudder
which, like the fin, is built in two sections; the
upper and lower sections are connected by a
universal joint. Each section is a single-spar
structure with duralumin skin 1.2 to 1.5mm
(0.047 to 0.059in) thick; the upper and lower
sections are suspended on two and three
brackets respectively. The rudder is aerody-
namically balanced; additionally, both sections
have mass balances - 3.12kg (6.87Ib) for the
upper section and 5.8kg (12.78Ib) for the lower
section.
The rudder is controlled manually (in a man-
ner of speaking) by means of pedals and push-
pull rods, cranks and levers. The lower section
is equipped with a ground-adjustable trim tab.
Rudder area is 1m' (10. 75ft'), including 0.19m'
(2.04ft') for the aerodynamic balance; rudder
deflection is ±20°.
The elevators are symmetrical single-spar
structures with seven ribs and duralumin skin
0.8mm (0.0314in) thick. They have both aero-
dynamic and mass balances, with 1kg (2.2Ib)
weights at the tips and a 3kg (6.6Ib) weight in
the middle. Each elevator is suspended on
three brackets.
The elevators are manually-controlled by
means of push-pull rods, cranks and levers; the
port elevator features a trim tab. Elevator area
is 0.853m' (9.17ft'); elevator deflection is -
32/ + 16° and trim tab deflection ± 10°. Aileron
and elevator trim tabs are remotely controlled
by UT-6D electric motors transmitting torque
through a system of levers and rods.
Fuel system
Apart from its obvious purpose, the fuel system
maintains the aircraft's CG. Internal fuel is car-
ried in two tanks holding a total of 1,410 litres
(31 0.2 Imperial gallons). The main fuel cell (bag
tank) housed in the forward fuselage between
frames 9 and 13 holds 1,250 litres (275 Imperi-
al gallons). An integral tank of 160 litres (35.2
Imperial gallons) capacity is located in the rear
fuselage between frames 21 and 25 and is
divided into left and right halves with an avion-
ics bay between them.
To maintain CG position the fuel is used as
follows: 345 litres (75.9 Imperial gallons) from
the main fuel cell, then all fuel from the rear tank
and finally the remaining fuel from the main fuel
cell. A gauge in the main fuel cell monitors fuel
quantity, illuminating a red warning light when
the aircraft is down to 'bingo fuel' (emergency
reserve) - 300 litres (66 Imperial gallons).
A PTsR-1 electric centrifugal transfer pump
located below the engine between frames 20
and 21, with associated SD-3 sensor, delivers
fuel from the rear tank to the main fuel cell.
Thence the fuel goes to the PNV-2 main deliv-
ery pump located on the bottom plate of the
main fuel cell bay and is fed via a rubber hose
to the shut-off cock located. aft of frame 13.
From there the fuel goes to the low-pressure fil-
ter and then to the engine. Another cock
installed ahead of the low-pressure filter serves
for defuelling and for fuel jettisoning in an emer-
gency. The tanks are equipped with a vent sys-
tem.
The MiG-15bis uses T-1 jet fuel or its Western
equivalent, JP-4. Refuelling is by gravity via two
filler caps immediately aft of the cockpit (offset
to port) and on the port side of the aft fuselage.
Two 'wet' wing hard points provide for the
carriage of 250 litre (55 Imperial gallon), 300
litre (66 Imperial gallon) or 600 litre (132 Impe-
rial gallon) slipper tanks or 400 litre (88 Imperi-
al gallon) conventional drop tanks on B02-48,
BD3-53 or D4-50 shackles. The drop tanks are
pressurized by engine bleed air at 0.4 bars
(5.7psi). With drop tanks fitted, the fuel burn
sequence is changed: 100 litres (22 Imperial
gallons) from the main fuel cell, followed by all
external fuel, then 250 Iitres (55 Imperial gal-
lons) from the main fuel cell, then all fuel from
the aft integral tank and finally the remaining
fuel from the main fuel cell. A warning light in
the cockpit tells the pilot that the drop tanks are
empty.
Hydraulics
The hydraulic system works the landing gear,
flaps, airbrakes and the aileron actuator. It
includes a hydraulic fluid tank, low-pressure
reduction gear, a pump installed on the engine
accessory gearbox, a hydraulic accumulator, a
filter, safety and return valves, a manometer,
hydraulic lines etc. Hydraulic pressure is 140
bars (2,000psi) or, on late versions, 125 bars
(1,785psi). Unusually, the system uses a mix-
ture of alcohol and glycerin rather that the usual
oil-type hydraulic fluid.
Electrics
28.5 V DC main electrical system with a 3kW
GSR-3000 generator as the main power
source. Backup DC power is provided by a
12A-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 sys-
tems is supplied by an RU-11 dynamotor; AC
power for other systems is supplied by MA-1 00
and MA-250 AC converters. There are 13 major
wiring circuits, the total length of wiring being
38km (23.6 miles). Electrical system switches
are arranged on the side control consoles in
the cockpit.
Pneumatic system
Two subsystems (main and emergency). The
main pneumatic system actuates the wheel
brakes, cannon recharging mechanisms and is
responsible for cockpit pressurization. The
emergency system is responsible for landing
MiG-15 115
 gear and flap emergency extension (in the
event of hydraulics failure) and emergency
braking. The main pneumatic system has two
high-pressure air bottles charged at 110 bars
(1,571 psi); the emergency system has one bot-
tle charged at 50 bars (714psi). The pneumatic
system includes shutoff and reduction valves,
cocks, pipelines and flexible hoses.
Armament
Built-in armament comprises one 37mm (1.45
calibre) Nudel'man N-37 cannon on the star-
board side with 40 rounds and two staggered
23mm (.90 calibre) Nudel'man/Rikhter NR-23
cannons on the port side with 80 rounds per
gun. Both models utilise recharging by recoil
action, which allowed the heavy-calibre can-
nons to have a high rate of fire and be relative-
ly lightweight. The N-37 weighs 103kg (227Ib)
and fires 750-gram (26.475-oz.) projectiles;
rate of fire is 400 rounds per minute and muz-
zle velocity 690m/sec (2 ,263ft/sec). The NR-23
weighs 39kg (86Ib) and fires 200-gram (7.06-
oz.) projectiles; rate ottire is 800 to 950rpm and
muzzle velocity 680m/sec (207.2ft/sec).'
Initial charging is done by a pneumatic
mechanism operating at 30 bars (428.5psi); the
charging buttons are located on a special panel
to the left of the gunsight. Firing is controlled
electrically; the N-37 is fired by pushing a
guarded button on top of the control stick and
both NR-23s by pushing a common button on
the upper forward part of the stick. The N-37
uses 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 ammuni-
tion supply in a single six-second burst and the
smaller cannons in 5.3 seconds. All cannons
are belt-fed; belt links and ammunition cases
are discarded during firing.
All three cannons are mounted on a com-
mon tray under the forward fuselage which can
be lowered qUickly by means of a built-in winch
for reloading and maintenance. Gun barrel fair-
ings have to be removed and retaining screws
loosened before the tray is lowered. The tray
also carries the ammunition boxes and pneu-
matic charging mechanisms.
In the strike role the standard MiG-15bis can
carry two 50kg (110 Ib) or 100kg (220Ib)
bombs on the wing hard points. Bomb release
is electrically-actuated.
The aircraft is equipped with an ASP-3N
automatic gunsight. An S-13 gun camera
mounted on the air intake upper lip records the
shooting and bombing results. The gun cam-
era can operate independently from the can-
nons or in conjunction with them. Film capacity
is 150 exposures; at a speed of 8 frames per
second, the S-13 can shoot continuously for 19
seconds.
A 50kg (110 Ib) bomb suspended under the wing
of a MiG-15; unusually, bombs were carried
without any pylons. Yefim Gordon archive
116 MiG-15
~====~;;;;;::==:======:;;;;;;;~~=---====~_-----l
Oxygen system
For operations above 9,000m (29,257ft), oxy-
gen bottles are installed in the forward avion-
ics/equipment bay.
Air conditioning and pressurization system
The MiG-15bis has a ventilation-type cockpit
pressurized by engine bleed air to a pressure
differential of 0.3 bars (4.28psi). Cockpit air
pressure is governed by an RO-2IM pressure
regulator. The canopy is sealed by an inflatable
rubber hose pressurized to 3 bars (42.8psi).
Fire suppression system
Two 3 litre (0.66 Imperial gallon) fire extinguish-
er bottles charged with carbon dioxide installed
vertically on fuselage frame 13. System opera-
tion is manual. In the event of engine fire sever-
al flame sensors trigger a fire warning light in
the cockpit and the pilot pushes a button, acti-
vating pyrotechnic valves and letting out the
carbon dioxide into a manifold around the
engine.
Crew escape system
The MiG-15bis is equipped with a cartridge-
fired ejection seat. A Czech source quotes the
model as 'production code SO 7505' but it is
not known if this was a Soviet or a Czech des-
ignation. The seat pan is dished to take a rib-
bon-type parachute. Ejection is accomplished
by pulling a canopy jettison handle located on
the right side of the seat (or on both sides on
aircraft built from 1st July 1952 onwards).
Avionics and equipment
a) navigation equipment: OSP-48 instrument
landing system comprising ARK-5 Amur auto-
matic direction finder (ADF) with omnidirec-
tional aerial and loop aerial, RV-2 Kristall radio
altimeter with two dipole aerials under the port
wing and the lower forward fuselage, and MRP-
48 Oyatel marker beacon receiver. The RV-2,
MRP-48 and its antenna and AOF loop aerial
are located in the aft avionics bay in the lower
rear fuselage. A OGMK-3 remote gyromagnetic
compass is installed in the starboard wing.
b) communications equipment: RSIU-3 Klyon
two-way VHF radio (RSI-6M receiver and RSI-
6K transmitter) in the forward avionics/equip-
ment bay with whip aerial installed on the right
side aft of the cockpit.
c) flight instrumentation: KUS-1200 airspeed
indicator (ASI, kombineerovannw ookazahtel'
SkOrostl), VO-17 altimeter, RV-2 radio altimeter
indicator, AGK-476 artificial horizon, EUP-46
electric turn and bank indicator (elektreech-
eskiy ookazahtel' povorota), VAR-75 vertical
speed indicator (VSI, variometr) , OGMK-3 gyro-
magnetic. compass indicator, M-0,95 Mach
meter and ARK-5 AOF indicator.
d) IFF equipment: SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transpon-
der with dorsal or ventral blade aerial on the aft
fuselage.
e) electronic support measures (ESM) equip-
ment: Sirena-2 radar homing and warning sys-
tem (RHAWS) with aerials on the fin, wing
leading edges and wingtips.
f) exterior lighting: BANO-45 port and starboard
navigation lights. Originally FS-155 landing/taxi
light in air intake splitter; later aircraft had a
retractable LFSV-45 landing light in the port
wing root ahead of the mainwheel well. ESKR-
46 four-round signal flare launcher on the star-
board side of the aft fuselage.
Top left: The air intake with an 8-13 gun camera
on 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 and
UTI·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
L
MiG-15 117
 Chapter Seven

Production Totals
Family Specification Tables
The following table illustrates MiG-15 production in the USSR. The fig- Notes: i Plus 2 MiG-15 ground instructional airframes;
ures in bold type show actual production for each version, year by year; ii Plus 4 ground instructional airframes
the figures in parentheses indicate planned production (as determined (2 MiG-15s, 1 MiG-15bis and 1 UTI-MiG-15);
by the Soviet state planning authorities) for the respective years. iii Plus 10 UTI-MiG-15 shipsets for assembly elsewhere.

1. Kuybyshev aircraft factory No 1named after losif VStalin 5. Tbilisi aircraft factory No 31 named after Gheorgi Dimitrov

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total
MiG-15 510' 301" 2 813 MiG-15bis 35 190 225
(550) (300) (0) (35) (190)
MiG-15bis 4W 820 460 1,681 Total Tbilisi production 225
(350) (792) (425)
MiG-15bisP 5 5 6. Komsomol'sk-on-Amur aircraft factory No 126 named after
(5) the Lenin Young Communist League

UTI-MIG-15 50" 371'" 333 127 881 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total
(50) (365) (315) (0)
MiG-15 1
Total Kuybyshev production 3,380 (0)
MiG-15bis 42 362 428 832
2. Novosibirsk aircraft factory No 153 named after Valeriy P Chkalov (250) (337) (400)
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Totat Total Komsomol'sk-on-Amur production 833
MiG-15 144 308 1 453
(550) (300) (0) 7. Saratov aircraft factory No 292

MiG-15bis 360 1,196 863 1 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total
(500) (1,173) (840) (0)
MiG-15 2 2
UTI-MIG-15 209 715 924 (0)
(200) (700)
MiG-15bis 131 509 354 994
Total Novosibirsk production 3,979 (275) (457) (350)
MiG-15bisS 49 49
3. Moscow aircraft factory No 381 (100)
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Totat Total Saratov production 1,045
MiG-15 75 75
(n/a) 8. 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
UTI-MiG-15 6 50 85 158 212 511
4. Gor'kiy aircraft factory N021 named after Sergo Ordzhonikidze (25) (50) (150) (150) (200)
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total Total Khar'kov production 511
MiG-15bis 367 992 425 1,784
(izdeliye 53) (350) (937) (395) 9. Ulan·Ude aircraft factory No 99

MiG-15bisR 64 300 364 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 Total
(izdeliye 55) (60) (300)
UTI-MiG-15 O' 29 53 127 206 245 173 113 106 65 1,117
Total Gor'kiy production 2,148 (25) (75) (125) (150) (200) (225) (0) (0) (0) (0)
Total Ulan-Ude production 511
GRAND TOTAL 13,131

118 MiG-15
The main changes introduced on the produc- OSP-48ILS OSP-48ILS
tion lines and in service (as mid-life updates) No1 From 121004 onwards No1 From 10444 onwards
are detailed below. No21 Starting 1st June 1950 No99 From 10990401 onwards
No31 From 31530101 onwards No 135 0213501 through 0213510 and from
MiG-15 No126 Starting 1st June 1950 0313501 onwards
No153 From 0615378 onwards No153 All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)
Modification: No292 From 0603 onwards
Instrument panel with 6instruments on centre section BU-1 hydraulic actuator in the aileron control circuit
(mounted on rubber shock absorbers) BU-1 hydraulic actuator in the aileron control circuit No 1 All aircraft (from 10101 onwards)
Plant: Incorporated (aircraft clns): No 1 From 121004 onwards No 99 All aircraft (from 10990101 onwards)
No 1 101001 through 109030 No21 All aircraft (from 53210101 and 55210101 No 135 All aircraft (from 0013501 onwards)
No 153 0115300 through 0215326 onwards) No 153 All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)
N0381 3810101 through 3810305 N031 All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards)
N0126 From 1201 onwards LFSV-45 landing light in port wing (new-build)
New instrument panel with rearranged instruments N0153 0415399,0515345,0515367,0515381, No 1 From 11240 onwards
No 1 From 109031 onwards 0615336 through 0615338, 0615345, 0615360, No 99 10990301 and from 10990404 onwards
No 153 From 0215327 onwards 0615363 and from 0615378 onwards No 135 Starting in 1952
N0381 From 3810306 onwards No 292 From 0102 onwards No 153 All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)

PS-2 engine starting panel LFSV-45 landing light in port wing LFSV-45 landing light in port wing (retrofit)
No 1 108021 and from 108031 onwards No 1 134001 and from 134050 onwards No 1 10444 through 11239
No 153 All aircraft (from 0115300 onwards) No 21 MiG-15bis - from 53211626 onwards No99 10990101 through 10990403
No 381 From 3810306 onwards MiG-15bisR from 55210651 onwards (except 10990301 )
N031 All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards) No135
Improved in-flight engine starting capability (as built) N0126 From 5425 onwards No153
No 1 109032, 110001,110017 and 110021 N0153 0815321,0815371 and from 2515375 onwards
N0153 N0292 From 1506 onwards Modifications to stop the ADF aerial on the aft
N0381 avionics bay cover from being damaged by
NR-23 cannons spent cases and belt links when the cannons
Improved in-flight engine starting capability (upgrade) No 1 122035,126094,126100 and from were fired were introduced on the production
No 1 All aircraft except 109032, 110001, 110017 128051 onwards lines on 15th November 1950. All Fagot-AlBs
and 110021 N021 MiG-15bis from 53211001 onwards manufactured before this date were upgraded
No 153 All aircraft (from 0115300 onwards) MiG-15bisR - all aircraft (from 55210101 onwards) accordingly. Additional cockpit armour (armour-
N0381 All aircraft (from 3810101 onwards) N031 All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards) ed seat back and headrest) was retrofitted to all
N0126 2301 and from 2901 onwards MiG-15s, as well as all bises, MiG-15bisR recce
BU-1 hydraulic actuator in the aileron control circuit N0153 From 1515351 onwards aircraft and MiG-15bisS escort fighters manu-
N01 120101 through 120131 N0292 4907 and from 1210 (2610?) onwards factured before March 1952.
N0153 The RSIU-3 radio replacing the RSI-6 was
N0381 Eccentric adjustable wing/fuselage fittings introduced in production on the single-seaters
(for eliminating wing drop) in August 1952 and on the UTI-MiG-15 on 1st
No 1 From 134041 onwards January 1953. Prior to that, it had been fitted to
MiG-15bis, MiG-15bisR, MiG-15bisS 12 new Gor'kiy-built bises in 1951 and 60 new
No 21 From 53211905 onwards
N031 From 31530701 onwards Novosibirsk-built bises from batches 23 and 24
Modification: in February 1952. All bises, MiG-15bisR recce
No 126 From 5601 onwards
SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder (as built) aircraft and MiG-15bisS escort fighters built by
No 153 From 2615301 onwards
Plant: Incorporated (aircraft clns): No 292 From 3218 onwards then were retrofitted with the new radio set.
No 1 From 128080 onwards In April 1953 all bises received equipment
N021 MiG-15bis -from 53211001 onwards Additional cockpit armour (as built) associated with the PPK-1 G-suit. The ASP-3N
All MiG-15bisRs (from 55210101 onwards) No 1 March 1952 (armoured seat back on 133051 gunsight was replaced by the improved ASP-
N031 All aircraft (from 31530101 onwards) through 135050, plus armoured headrest 3NM - first on 64th Fighter Corps aircraft fight-
No 126 1202,1709,2303,2319,2320 and from from 135051 onwards) ing in Korea (in November 1952) and, starting
. 2521 onwards in May 1953, on all other aircraft. From August
N0153 1315351 through 1315355 and from Additional cockpit armour (retrofit) 1953 onwards all MiG-15s were fitted with
1415365 0nwards No 1 121004 through 135050 (armoured headrest external 'gear down' indicator lights.
No 292 3508 through 3808, 4608, 1110through 1310, only on 133051 through 135050)
2110 through 2310 and from 3110 onwards

SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder (retrofit) UTi-MiG-15

No 1 121004 through 128079
No 21 53210226 through 53211001 Modification:
N031 SRO-1 Bariy-M IFF transponder
No126 1004 through 2520 (except 1202,1709,2303, Plant: Incorporated (aircraft clns):
2319 and 2320) No 1 From 10501 onwards
N0153 0615378 through 1315350 and 1315356 through No 99 From 10990907 onwards
1415364 No 135 From 09009 onwards
No 292 0201 through 3010 (except 3508 through 3808, No 153 All aircraft (from 0115301 onwards)
4608, 1110 through 1310 and 2110 through 2310)

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 2.6
to 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/a
at 5,000m (16,4041t) 40' 40' 40' n/a 40' n/a n/a
at 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/a
at 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/a
at 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/a
at 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/a
at 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 1x N·37 1 xN-37 1 xN-37
2xNS-23KM 2 xNS·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-1
c/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 2.0
to 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/a
at 5,000m (16,404ft) n/a n/a 34.0 34.0 n/a n/a 44.0
at 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/a
at 5,000m (16,404ft) n/a n/a 845 (2,772) 845 (2,772) n/a n/a n/a
at 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/a
at 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)
i; ~::.
:1,
Range at 10,000m, km (nm): :.,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 1x N-37 1x N-37 1x N-37
1xUBK-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 2.15
to 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 trials
at 5,000m (16,4041t) n/a n/a 3,150 (10,334) not measured during checkout trials
at 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-37
2x NS-23KM 2xNS-23KM 2xNS-23KM 2xNS-23KM 2x NS-23KM 2x NS-23KM 2 xNS-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 2.1
to 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
Service 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)

j Range at 10,000m, km (nm):

on internal fuel
with drop tanks
1,159 (626)
n/a
1,205 (651)
n/a
1,205 (651)
n/a
1,200 (648)
1,510 (816)
1,180 (637)
n/a
1,190 (643)
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 1x N-37 1x N-37 1xN-37 1x N-37 1x N-37
2xNR-23 2x NR-23 2x NR-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 2.7
to 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/a
at 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 1x N-37 1x N-37 1xN-37 1x N-37 1xN-37 1x N-37
2x NR-23 2x NR-23 2xNR·23 2x NR-23 2x NR-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

Introduction
1 LL = letayuschchaya laboratoriya - lit. 'ilying laborato-
ry'. The Russian term is used indiscriminately and can
denote any engine/avionics/weapons etc testbed or
research/survey aircraft.
2 A division oi the Ministry of Aircraft Industry. UI is now
named after test pilot Mikhail M Gromov.
3 F = forseerovannw - uprated. The designation usually
applied to afterburning turbojets at the time, but not in this
instance, as the RD-45F was non-afterburning.
4 The first aircraft to have this designation (1948); not to
be confused with the Yak-3D Magnum jet trainer of 1960.
5 OKB = opytno-konstrooktorskoye byuro - experimental
design bureau; there were no 'companies' as such in the
USSR. 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 experi-
mental shop.
7 Pronounced izdeliye - 'product', a term often used for
coding Soviet military hardware items.
8 The first aircraft to have these designations before the
Sukhoi OKB was deactivated in 1949; not to be confused
with the single-engined Su-9 Fishpot-A (T-43) of 1957 and
the Su-11 Fishpot-B/C (T-47) of 1958 developed by the res-
urrected OKB.
9 At the time it was still customary for fighter prototypes to
be designated by the 1- prefix, just as in the pre-war days. A
'personalized' designation using the first two letters of the
OKB leader's last name - eg, 'Yak' for Yakovlev - was usu-
ally allocated only when the aircraft entered service (though
this practice was already being relinquished, as illustrated
by 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 - Ger-
man Gliding Flight Research Institute. The aircraft was also
referred to in Russian sources as Siebel 346 since manu-
facture was contracted to Siebel Flugzeugwerke KG.
12 This aircraft (ex-USAAC 42-6256) was one of three
Super/ortresses interned by the Soviets in the Far East (in
July 1944) and used for launching production olthe reverse-
engineered Tu-4 Bull. After being converted for the mother
ship role at the Kazan' aircraft factory No 22 in April 1948
(when the Tu-4 was already in production) the bomber
received a new TU-4-style construction number, 230503.
Upon completion of the 346's trials the B-29 was briefly used
in other programmes and finally scrapped.
13 The aircraft had nothing in common with the 'pure' La-
174 which was the manufacturer's designation of the pro-
duction swept-wing La-15.
Chapter One
The 'MiG Menace' is Born
1 The designations S-01, S-02 and S-03 have also been
quoted for the original MiG-15 prototypes in Russian docu-
ments, but S-1, S-2 and S-3 is more correct and in line with
other Mikoyan prototypes.
2 Ootka literally means 'duck' but, when used as an aero-
nautical term, the word means 'canard (tail-first) layout'.
3 Contrary to allegations by some Western authors, the Zh
does not stand for zhidkoye toplivo (liquid fuel) - it is just a
product code.
4 The designation 1-320 was re-used in 1949 for the two-
seat, tandem-engine izdeliye R night fighter which was test-
ed but did not enter service.
5 There was also the MiG-23-01 Faithless, aka MiG-23PD
(podyomnwe dveegateli - lift engines), an experimental
delta-wing STOL fighter which had little in common with the
Flogger, and the MiG-23-31 (izdeliye 92) STOL technology
demonstrator - actually a heavily modified MiG-21 PFM
Fishbed-F obstinately misidentified in the West as the MiG-
21 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 land-
ing equipment; ARK = avtomateecheskiy rahdiokompas -
ADF; RV = rahdiovysotomer- radio altimeter; MRP = mark-
ernyy 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 in
Zhukovskiy; this town was built later around the air/ield and
is much closerto itthan the town of Ramenskoye. Still, many
in the West continued referring to the UI air/ield as 'Ramen-
skoye'.
9 The official title of Soviet OKB heads.
10 The main facility later moved to Akhtoobinsk on the
Volga River (near Astrakhan' in southern Russia), leaving
only a branch of the institute responsible for transport air-
craft trials at Chkalovskoye. In the early 1990s, Nil WS was
renamed GUTs (Gosoodahrstvennyy /yotno-ispytahtel'nyy
tsentr - the State Flight Test Centre named after Valeriy
Chkalov).
11 This term applies to additional trials held after the aircraft
has passed State acceptance trials and has been recom-
mended for service.
Chapter Two
The Aluminium Rabbit: MiG-15 Version Briefing
1 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 avi-
atseeonnyy zavod - Nizhniy Novgorod aircraft factory)
'Sokol' (Falcon).
Factory No 31 is now called TAGO, Tbilisskoye aviatseeon-
noye gosoodahrstvennoye obyedineniye - Tbilisi state-
owned aviation [production] association. The acronym
TAPO was already in use by factory No 84 in Tashkent.
Factory No 99 is now called U-UAPO, Oo/ahn-oodenskoye
aviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye obyedineniye - Ulan-
Ude aviation production association.
Factory No126 is now called KnAAPO, Komsomol'skoye-
na-Amoore aviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye obyedi-
neniye - Komsomol'sk-on-Amur aviation production
association named after Yuriy A Gagarin.
Factory No 135 is now called KhGAPP, Khar'kovskoye
gosoodahrstvennoye aviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye
predpreeyahtiye - Khar'kov state-owned aviation produc-
tion enterprise (formerly KhAPO).
Factory No 153 is now called NAPO, Novoseebeerskoye
aviatseeonnoye proizvodstvennoye obyedineniye - Novosi-
birsk aviation production association named after Valeriy P
Chkalov.
Factory No381 merged with MMZ N030 'Znamya Trooda'
(Banner of Labour) in 1949. The latter plant is now part of the
MAPO association (Moskovskoye aviatseeonnoye
proizvodstvennoye 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 the
MiG-15bis during Nil WS trials.
5 D = delZhahtel' -lit. 'holder', in this case, weapons rack
6 BD = bah/ochnW delZhahtel' - 'beam-type weapons
rack', ie, pylon
7 Also called SR-1 in some documents (ie, izdeliye SR,
version 1); see by comparison, a reconnaissance derivative
of the MiG-17 Fresco-A was called izdeliye SR-2. The same
principle applied to the SP interceptor prototype series,
which see.
8 This became the Moscow Research Institute oflnstru-
ment Engineering (MNIIP - Moskovskiy naoochno-iss/e-
dovatel'skiy institoot preeborostroyeniya), aka NPO
'Vega-M', in 1967.
9 This figure turned out to be theoretical; the actual detec-
tion range was 9 to 9.5km (4.86 to 5.13nm).
10 ARS = aviatseeonnw reaktivnyy snaryad - [high-veloc-
ity) aircraft rocket (HVAR). APU-O-212 = aviatseeonnaya
pooskovaya oostanovka, odinochnaya, [dlya snaryadov
kalibra] 212 millimetrov - aircraft-mounted launcher, single,
for 212mm HVARs; also called PU-21.
11 ORO = odinochnoye reaktivnoye oroodiye - lit. 'single
jet gun' (by analogy with recoilless guns).
12 OF = osk%chno-foogahsnyy - high-explosive/frag-
mentation [warhead]
13 The strategic bomber arm of the WS
14 TBAD = tyazhe/obombardeerovochnaya aviadiveeziya
- heavy bomber division ('" bomber group [heavy]); GvT-
BAP = gvardeyskiy tyazhe/obombardeerovochnyy aviapo/k
- Guards heavy bomberregiment (", bomber wing [heavy]);
AE = aviaeskadril'ya - air sqUlldrpn;'IAD = istrebitel'naya
aviadiveeziya -fighter division ('" fighter group); GvlAP =
gvardeyskiy istrebitel'nyy aviapo/k - Guards fighter regi-
ment ('" fighter wing).
The Guards units are the elite of the Soviet (Russian)
armed forces; this appellation was given for gallantry in
combat, thus being an indication that this is a Second World
War-vintage unit. The Smo/ensko-Berlinskiy honorary appel-
lation was given forthe unit's part in liberating Smolensk and
taking Berlin. The 57th TBAD and the 171 st GvTBAP also
bore the Krasnoznamyonnaya (Krasnoznamyonnyy) title
respectively, ie, they had been awarded the Order of the
Red 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) and
synchronised (UBS) versions were also available.
17 The designations MiG-15UTI and UTMiG-15 quoted
sometimes are incorrect.
18 DOSAAF = Dobrovol'noye obschchestvo sodeystviya
armii, aviahtsii i flotu - the Voluntary Society for the Support
of the Army, Aviation (read: Air Force) and Navy. In post-
Soviet times the organization was renamed ROSTO
(Rosseeyskoye oboronnoye sporl/vno-te!<hneecheskdye
obschchestvo - Russian Defence (ie,"paramilitary) Sports
and 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 this
case implying upgraded avionics).
20 Until 1955, Soviet Air Force trainers usualiy received
serials suffixed by a Cyrillic letter U in underlined super-
script, denoting oochebnyy samo/yot - trainer. The presen-
tation of '101" is used in this book (and elsewhere) for
convenience, but actually the serial looked like this: 101'
Chapter Three
Foreign Production
1 As with other aircraft produced in Czechoslovakia, the
licence-built MiG-15s et a/. had six-digit construction num-
bers. The usual Czech c/n systems ('year of manufacture -
batch no. - no. of aircraft in batch' or 'year - product code-
batch no. - no. of aircraft in batch') do not seem to work with
the MiG-15s and the system remains unexplained. On
Czech-built MiG-15s the c/n is usually stencilled all over the
place (on gun barrel fairings, access panels, airbrakes, gear
doors etc.)
2 LR and SR are Czech abbreviations the meaning of
which is unknown, though R obviously stands for raketa.
The last two letters of the CCP abbreviation stand for cvi -cna
puma - practice bomb. FAB, OFAB and RBK are Russian
designations (FAB = foogahsnaya aviabomba - high-explo-
sive bomb; OFAB = osk%chno-foogahsnaya aviabomba
- HE/fragmentation bomb; RBK = rahzovaya bombovaya
kasseta - lit. 'disposable bomb casselle', ie, cluster bomb)
3 As with the MiG-15/S-102, the Czechs reverted to the
Soviet designation in 1956 but began adding their own suf-
fix letters.
4 Also referred to as 'MiG-15UTI-P' in some sources.
5 Aircraft manufactured by WSK Mielec have construction
numbers 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 at
Mielec is designated by up to three lellers - eg,
=
G PZL (Antonov) An-2 Colt, AH = PZL M-20
Mewa, 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 batch
number plus two for the number in the batch; see Lim-2).
The c/n is stencilled all over the aircraft (on the forward and
aft fuselage, fin, control surfaces, gear doors etc.) The split
presentation used here is given for the sake of convenience
only; actually the number is stencilled all 'lumped together'
-for example, 1A01 006.
MiG-15 125
Chapter Four
The MiG-15 in Action, or
The Aluminium Rabbit Goes to War
1 Another play on Harry Harrison: another one of his nov-
els is titled The Steel Rat Goes to War
2 The honorary appellation Sveerskaya was given for gal-
lanfry in fighting near the River Sveer' in north-western Rus-
sia during the Great Patriotic War.
3 Transferred to the 149th lAD in May 1955. The unit
became the 42nd IBAP (istrebitel'no-bombardeerovochnyy
aviapolk - fighter-bomber regiment) in 1960 and re-
equipped with MiG-21 PFs in 1972, ultimately becoming the
149th BAD/42nd GvBAP in 1983.
4 The honorary appellation Baranovichskaya was given
lor the 239th lAD's part in iiberating the Beiorussian town of
Baranovichi during the Great Patriotic War. Likewise, the
appellation Novorossiyskiy was given for the 159th lAP's
part in liberating the city of Novorossiysk.
5 Grooppa sovetskikh voysk v Ghermahnii - Group of
Soviet Forces in Germany; renamed ZGV (Zahpadnaya
grooppa voysk - Western Group of Forces) in 1989.
6 NATO and the Soviet comman\! often used different
names for the same East German airbases. In such cases
the Soviet name comes first with the NATO name following
in parentheses.
7 ORAP = otdel'nyy razvedyvatel'nyy aviapolk - indepen-
dent reconnaissance regiment (ie, not part of a division).
APIB - aviapolk istrebite/ey-bombardeerovschhikov - fight-
er-bomber regiment.
8 A Western author would have said 'blue-on-blue', but it's
them who are the 'blues'; we are the 'reds'. In NATO exer-
cises, 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 the
USAF but also by the British Fleet Air Arm, the Royal Aus-
tralian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the
South African Air Force.
10 At first the Soviet Air Force MiG-15s in Korea wore Chi-
nese markings but these quickly gave way to North Korean
ones.
11 The spelling mayor may not match the Western spelling
of Korean locations. These names were translated directly
from the Russian spelling in the Soviet documents. And
there are variations in that as well; eg, the base called Miao-
gow in most sources is referred to as Miaochow in others.
12 Lieutenant, senior grade (the Soviet equivalent of 1st
Lieutenant) .
13 Korean War Aces (Robert F Dorr, Jon Lake, Warren
126 MiG-15
Thompson, Osprey Publishing, London, 1995, p. 16) is the
only Western publication mentioning this fact.
14 According to US sources, the first F-86 shootdown of
the Korean War took place on 22nd December when Capt
Nikolay Ye Vorob'yov (177th lAP/50th lAD) shot down
Lawrence V Bach (4th FIG).
15 Robert Jackson. Air War Over Korea. Ian Allan Ltd, Lon-
don 1975, p. 90.
16 Air War Over Korea, p. 132.
17 Stel'makh was shot down and ejected, landing amid
South Korean positions - or so he thought. He fought back
until he was out of ammunition, then shot himself with his
last bullet. Tragically, it turned out these were North Kore-
ans ..
18 There is considerable confusion as to the spelling of his
name; some sources call him No Kum Suk.
19 MiG-15 ace V A Nazarkin recalled that in high-G
manoeuvres the MiG-15 would warn of an impending stall
by making 'a din like an iron roof in a hurricane. Holy s**t, I
never imagined a plane could do anything iike that.'
20 This 'Sabre-stealing Kondrat'yev' is not to be confused
with Vyacheslav P Kondrat'yev who is responsible for the
Yakovlev Yak-18T cabin monoplane, the Sukhoi Su-26
championship aerobatic aircraft and the SM-92 Finist iight
utility 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 shot
down and killed in a dogfight with nine Sabres.
22 MTAP = minno-torpednyy aviapolk - aerial minelayer
and torpedo-bomber regiment.
23 Pronounced 'Kheb'.
24 The second-ranking Soviet ace of the Second World
War with 59 'kills', triple HSU.
25 GvORAP = gvardeyskiy otdel'nyy razvedyvatel'nyy
aviapolk - 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 Septem-
ber 1962
27 Again, there is considerable confusion as to the spelling
of this name; some sources call the place Bir Gifgafa or even
Bir Gilgafa.
28 The Syrian MiGs did not take part in the fighting. Their
presence at Abu Sueir is explained by the fact that Syrian
pilots were taking their training there; hence the aircraft were
delivered to and assembled at Abu Sueir so that the Syrians
could depart in their new jets after completing the training
course.
Chapter Five
MiG-15 Operators Worldwide
1 Some sources claim it was based at L'atec AB in north-
western Czech ia.
2 Marxwalde reverted to its original name, Neuharden-
berg, following German reunification in 1990.
3 The unit moved to PeenemOnde, MecklenburgNor-
pommern, in 1961.
4 A German book on the LSK/LV stated the unit number
as JBG 37. However, the fleet list section in the same book
uses JBG 31 throughout and this is corroborated by other
German publications.
5 JG 2 was named after the famous Soviet cosmonaut
who was the first man in space; JG 3 after another Soviet
cosmonaut who died on 24th April 1967 when his space-
craft's heat shield failed during reentry; JG 7 after the East
German president of the early 1950s; FAG 25 after a colonel
of the East German Armed Forces; and JBG 31 after the first
Czech president.
6 Formerly Flugzeugwerke Dresden (Dresden Aircraft
Factory), a manufacturer of VEB-14s (licence-built Ilyushin
IL-14P Crates). The East German aircraft industry was killed
off by the government in 1961 as 'uneconomical'.
7 The Polish serial prior to delivery to the USA has also
been quoted as 6038 Red.
8 The style of the serial's digits varied perceptibly from
factory to factory, allowing an educa1ed guess as to where
the aircraft was built. For example, Novosibirsk used thin
and angular digits, usually outlined in white; Kuybyshev and
Saratov normally used narrow and very rounded digits,
again outlined in white, while Gor'kiy had something in
between (bold and rather angular) and with no white outline.
9 This aircraft was earlier flown by DTESA as 822 Red (ex-
N822JM, see table).
Chapter Six
The MiG-15bis in Detail
1 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 training
exercises. The explosion is to simulate a nuclear
detonation. Yelim Gordon Archive
 Appendix One

MiG·15 Family Drawings

'8' project (March 1947)

'8' project (August 1947)

8-1 (1-310) prototype

8-2 prototype

MiG-15 127
 Production MIG·15 (SV)

128 MiG-15
S·3 prototype

First series production MIG·15 (SV)

Modified MiG·15 No 101003

Modified MiG·15 No 105015

The first SO prototype

_.. _~---_.

~·o·

<D 0

Modified MiG·15 No3810102 (SA·1)

00

MiG-15 129
 Production MiG·15bis (SD)

130 MiG-15
 Production MiG·15bis (SO)

oI
jJT13-.2bO 0;<'
.feuL fC/A/RS
ITg-3 0 o
o I

-<Or
I
-<OrI
@ @)
I I
oI oFAg--(tJCJI1 0/1 'FOTA.8--(OO
o I
o "/I. FAg -$"O 011 Ao-50-.(&tJl'f ""M.4~ G

Ol~=~
o

MiG-15 131
 MiG·15 No 109035 (SU)

Production MiG·15bis (SO)

o 0

MiG·15bis with NS·23KM guns and OSP·48,

Barii-M, RSIU·6 equipment

Late production MiG-.15bis

MiG·15bis No 122035

o 0

132 MiG-15
The first SR prototype
(MiG-15bis No53210120)

Production MiG-15Rbis (SR) No53210101

with 600L fuel tanks

MiG·15bisR Czechoslovakian Air Force

MiG-15 133
 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)

134 MiG-15
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
 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 and

modified speed brakes

136 MiG-15
Production UTi-MiG-15 series No 1-5

MiG-15 137
 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---.------.--

138 MiG-15
SP-1 prototype

o 0

SP-5 prototype

Modified SP-5 prototype

(State tests)

ST-7 (UTI-MiG-15P) prototype

<= 0

MiG-15 139
 Lim·1

Lim·1,5

Lim-2

Lim-2R

140 MiG-15
Modified SBLim·1

SBLim-2A

SBLim-2M

MiG-15 141
 Czech-built MiG-15SB

Czech-built MiG-15bis SB with 400L tanks

and AA·2 rockets

o 0

MiG·15T

MiG·15bis T

142 MiG-15
MiG·15bis with PPZ-1 ILS

Czech·built S·102 (c/n V-15)

Czech-built S-103

MiG·15bis R with 600L tanks

MiG-15 143
 Modified UTI·MiG·15

o·

Czech·built CS·102

Chinese· built JJ·2 (FT·2)

o·

CS·102 with PPZ·1 ILS

(;) 0

UTI·MiG·15P No 2626

CD 0

144 MiG-15
 Appendix Two

MiG·15 in Colour

Above: The MiG·15bis (ISh) at the Russian Air Below left: Another view of the MiG·15bis (ISh) in Below right: The massive pylons of the MiG·15bis
Force Museum, Monino. Yefim Gordon Monino. Yefim Gordon (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 the
Great Patriotic War Museum, Poklonnaya Gora,
Moscow. The damaged rear canopy glazing has
been substituted by sheet metal. Yefim Gordon

UTI·MiG·15 '03 Red' (c/n 22013) at the Russian

Air 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-15s
delivered to Poland, in the Poznan City
Liberation 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 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). Yefim Gordon

((

MiG-15 149
 Former Polish air force Lim-2 N822JM seen at
Stead Airport, Reno, Nevada painted in spurious
markings 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 to
the museum's second location at Speyer.
Yefim Gordon

A privately-owned British Midget, G-OMIG,

at ILA-94 in Berlin, painted in Soviet markings
as 6247 Blue. Originally a Czech-built CS·102
(c/n 622047), this aircraft flew with the Polish
Air Force and has been upgraded to SBLim·2A
standard. Yefim Gordon

150 MiG-15
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
 The first MiG-15 prototype was
designated 1-310 (S-Ol)

MiG-15bis with OSP-48 blind landing system

and detachable external fuel tanks

A Soviet MiG-15 in an early 1950s paint scheme

that soon appeared in the Korean sky

UTI-MiG-15 that was operated by the Voluntary Society for Support

of the Soviet Army, Air Force and Navy (DOSAAF) in 1970s

UTI-MiG-15P (ST-7) two-seat trainer equipped

with the RP-1 Izumrud radar

152 MiG-15
UTi-MiG-15 intended for the SK ejection
seat development program

A Czech Air Force MiG-15 SB

with PPZ-1 landing system

MiG-15bis of the Czech Air Force

aerobatic team

A MiG-15bis from Czech Air Force

Ostrava-based fighter bomber regiment

A Czech Air Force MiG-15Rbis that was used as

an adversary aircraft during tactical exercises
(note blue stripes on the fuselage sides and fin)

MiG-15 153
 MiG-15 of the Czech Air Force -----
aerobatic team of the early 1950s
-----"-"-- ~-----

The only Czech Air Force UTI-MiG-15

equipped with RP-1 Izumrud radar

o
o o

A Polish-built Lim-2R reconnaissance aircraft with

photographic equipment. The Lim-2 was the Polish
version of the later production series MiG-15bis ..--------
.._____-----

.--------------

Another Polish-built Lim-2R reconnaissance

aircraft with photographic equipment.

The SBLim·2 is the two-seat combat trainer

version of the Lim-2 single-seater

li I:J

154 MiG-15
-,-----------------------------------------------------------------------

A North Korean MiG·15bis of the 64th Fighter Air

Corps (FAC), painted in a camouflage scheme
was 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 equipped

with OSP·48 system and RSIU-3 radio station
of the Chinese Air Force

A later production series MiG-15bis equipped

with OSP-48 system and RSIU-3 radio station
of the Chinese Air Force

MiG-15 155
 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 Kimpo

Air Base near Seoul on 21st September 1953 by Korean pilot
Ro Kim Suk. The aircraft was evaluated on Okinawa and at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, in 1954

The stolen MiG-15bis at Kadena

Air Base, Okinawa

156 MiG-15
A Finnish Air Foce UTI-MiG-15, one of four
aircraft exported to Finland

An Indonesian Air Force UTI·MiG-15, exported in

early 1960s, was used for training of Indonesian
pilots for the MiG-17

An Iraqi Air Force MiG-15 two-seater as seen in Prague,

Czechoslavakia, in 1963, several days before delivery
to the Middle East

A Hungarian Air Force MiG-15bis equipped

with the OSP-48 blind landing system

MiG-15 157
 An early production series MiG-15bis with OSP-48
blind landing system. It was used in the Hungarian
Air Force as a fighter-bomber

A Cuban Air Force MiG-15bis equipped with

the OSP-48 blind landing system

A former Polish SBLim·2 (manufacturer's code 1A·06-038) that

was imported to the US and was used by the Defense Test and
Evaluation 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 registration

number N205JM), used in Steal the Sky, a TV movie

158 MiG-15
Advertisement
We hope you enjoyed
this book, . ,
Aerofax and Midland Publishing titles
are edited and designed by an
experienced and enthusiastic trans-
Atlantic team of specialists.
Further titles are in preparation but we
always welcome ideas from authors or
readers for books they would like to see
published.
In addition, our associate company,
Midland Counties Publications,
offers an exceptionally wide range
of aviation, spaceflight, astronomy,
military, naval and transport books and
videos for sale by mail-order around the
world.
For acopy of the appropriate catalogue,
or to order further copies of this book,
and any of the titles mentioned on this
or the facing page, please write,
telephone, fax or e-mail to:
Midland Counties Publications
4 Watling Drive, Hinckley,
Leics, LE10 3EY, England
Tel: (+44) 01455 254450
Fax: (+44) 01455 233 737
E-mail: midlandbooks@compuserve.com
US distribution by Specialty Press -
see page 2.
SOVIET COMBAT AIRCRAFT
OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR
Volume One: Single-Engined Fighters
Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov
Arranged by manufacturer, this includes
the prototype and operational products
of famous designers such as
Lavochkin, Mikoyan and Yakovlev as
well as the lesser known, such as the
Bereznyak-Isaev rocket propelled fighter.
Rich Russian sources including
manufacturers, flight test establish-
ments and Soviet air force and naval
aviation records provide awealth of
new material, much of which rewrites
preViously held Western views.
Hardback, 282 x 213 mm, 184 pages
358 b/w photos; 28 layout diagrams,
16 full colour side views
1 85780 083 4 £24.95/US $39,95
BRITISH SECRET PROJECTS -
JET FIGHTERS SINCE 1950
Tony Buttler
BRITISH
SECRET PROJECTS
JET RGHTERS SINCE 1950
TONY BUTTLER
A huge number of fighter projects have
been drawn by British companies over
the last 50 years, in particular prior to
the 1957 White Paper, but with few
turned into hardware, little has been
published about these fascinating
'might-have-beens'. Emphasis is
placed on some of the events which led
to certain aircraft either being cancelled
or produced. Some of the varied types
included are the Hawker P.11 03/P.1136/
P.1121 series, and the Fairey 'Delta III'
Hbk, 282 x 213 mm, 176 pages
130 b/w photos; 140 three-views,
and an 8 page colour section
1 85780 095 8 £24,95/US $39,95
SOVIET COMBAT AIRCRAFT
OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR
Twin Eng Fighters, Attack Acft & Bombers
Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov
Volumcr",o:
rwin-Enpned FlPJtcrs. Atuc.k Airel'
an.d60mben
Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazancj
with Alexandu Medved'
Arranged by designer, this includes the
products of famous names such as
Ilyushin, Petlyakov and Tupolev as well
as lesser known types.
In his introduction, Bill Gunston
explains the unique nature of Soviet
aviation, the politics and strategies and
the problems created by the vastness of
the country - and confirms that the two
volumes of Soviet Combat Aircraft are
set to become the premier reference on
this facet of aviation history.
Hardback, 282 x 213 mm, 176 pages
285 b/w photos; 27 layout diagrams;
17 full colour side views
1 85780 084 2 £24,95/US $39.95
SOVIET X-PLANES
Yefim Gordon & Bill Gunston
A detailed review of Soviet experimental
aircraft from the early 1900s through to
the latest Russian prototypes of today.
The book is the first to collect the
stories of the more important Soviet
experimental aircraft into one volume.
Working from original sources the
authors have produced an outstanding
reference which although concentrating
on hardware also includes many
unflown projects. About 150 types are
described, each with relevant data, and
including many three-view drawings.
Hardback, 282 x 213mm, 240 pages
355 b/w, 50 colour photos; 200 dwgs
1 85780 099 0 £29,95/US $44,95
VIETNAM AIR LOSSES
USAF, Navy and Marine Corps Fixed-Wing
Aircraft Losses in SE Asia 1961-1973
Chris Hobson
oJ
4;; ,
Amost thorough review of all the fixed
wing losses suffered over atwelve year
period. The information is basically a
chronological recording of each aircraft
loss including information on unit,
personnel, location and cause of loss.
Information is also provided on the
background or future career of some of
the aircrew involved.
There are extensive orders of battle,
plus an index of personnel, as well as
statistics of the war, list of abbreviations,
glossary of codenames and bibliography.
Softback, 280 x 215 mm, c1 92 pages
c1 00 b/w photographs
1 85780 115 6 c£1 9,95/US $29,95
THE X·PLANES X-1 to X-45
New, totally revised third edition
Jay Miller
This new, totally revised and updated
version of 'The X-Planes' contains a
detailed and authoritative account of
every single X-designated aircraft.
There is considerable new, and newly-
declassified information on all X-Planes.
Each aircraft is described fully with
coverage of history, specifications,
propulsion systems and disposition.
Included are rare cockpit illustrations.
Each X-Plane is also illustrated by a
detailed multi-view drawing.
Hardback, 280 x 216mm, 440 pages
c850 b/w, 52 colour photographs,
approximately 110 drawings
1 85780 109 1 £39.95/US $59,95
US AIR FORCE
The New Century
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . .
Bob Archer
Covers current active duty flying wings
and autonomous groups, with full
details of formation and changes of
designation, home stations, aircraft
types, years assigned, and a history of
each unit with its emblem in colour.
Almost 50 aircraft types currently in
service or planned for the USAF are
detailed including development, unit
assignments, serial batches and an
explanation of the role of each variant.
Bases are examined, and a list of
current tail codes is presented.
Softback, 280 x 216mm, 176 pages
190 colour photos, 127 unit emblems
1 85780 1024 £18.95/US $29.95

I~I
In 1982, American author Jay Miller
published his first major book, the
'AeroGraph' on the F-16. Since then
there has been asteady flow of widely
acclaimed books from the Aerofax line.
After many years acting as European
distributors, Midland Publishing Limited
acquired the rights to the Aerofax name
and have since commissioned many
new titles for the series. Some will
continue to be produced for Midland by
Jay Miller in the USA, others will be
originated by atalented team of
internationally known authors.
The previous categories of AeroGraph,
DataGraph, MiniGraph, and Extra are no
longer used; all new titles are simply
published as 'Aerofax' books.
These softback volumes are full of
authoritative text, detailed photographs,
plus line drawings. They also contain
some colour, and cockpits, control
panels and other interior detail are well
illustrated in most instances.
Some of the more recent titles are
outlined alongside, whilst a listing of the
others in the series that are still in print,
plus details of newly announced titles, is
available upon request.
Aerofax
BOEING KC-135
More Than Just aTanker
Robert S Hoskins III
Boeing KC-135
Stratotanker
More thtlnjust a Tanker
Robert S Hopkins III
F====~====1
This book, written by aformer USAF
RC-135 crew commander, follows the
development and service use of this
globe-trotting aircraft and its many and
varied tasks. Every variant, and sub-
variant is charted, the histories of each
and every aircraft are to be fou nd
within; details of the hundreds of units,
past and present, that have flown the
Stratotanker are given. This profusely
illustrated work will interest those who
have flown and serviced them as well as
the historian and enthusiast community.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 224 pages
210 b/w and 46 colour photos
1 857800699 £24.95/US $39.95
).~---------------
ILYUSHIN 1L-76
Russia's Versatile Jet Freighter
Yefim Gordon & Dmitriy Komissarov
Ilyushin
IL-76
Russla'sVersatlleJet Fretghter
Dmllriy Komlssarov and YClfim Gordon
i====~====i
The Soviet Union's answer to the Lock-
heed Starlifter first flew in 1971 and has
become familiar both in its intended
military guise and as a commercial
freighter. It has also been developed as
the IL-78 for aerial refuelling, and in
AEW and other versions.
There is not only afull development
history and technical description, but
extensive tables detailing each aircraft
built, with c/n, serial and so on, and
detailed notes on every operator, both
civil and military, and their fleets.
Softback, 280 x 215 mm, 160 pages
c250 b/w and colour photos, drawings
1857801067 £19.95/US $34.95
Aerofax
CONVAIR B·58 HUSTLER
The World's First Supersonic Bomber
Jay Miller
Convair B-58
Hustler
The World's First Supersonic Bomber
Jay Miller
F====~====1
Instantly recognisable with its delta wing
and 'coke bottle' area-ruled fuselage the
B-58 was put into production for the US
Air Force in the 1950s.
First published, in 1985, this is a
revised edition, which takes aretro-
spective in-depth look at this significant
aircraft, from design studies, through
its development and comparatively
short service life, to and beyond retire-
ment. It includes yet more amazing
material and 80 new illustrations,
bringing the story up to date.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 152 pages
462 b/w, 15 colour, 100 line i1lusts.
1 857800583 £16.95/US $27.95
Aerofax
TUPOLEV Tu-95/Tu-142
'BEAR'
Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant
Tupolev
Tu-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 awe-
some spectacle. It was the mainstay of
the USSR's strike force, areliable and
adaptable weapons platform. Additional
roles included electronic/photographic
reconnaissance and maritime patrol,
AEW and command and control.
The author has had unparalleled
access to the Tupolev OKB archives,
taking the lid off astory previously full
of speculation to produce the most
comprehensive study to date.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 128 pages
236 b/w, 24 col photos, 12 diagrams
1 85780046 X £14.95/US $24.95
Aerofax
McDONNELL DOUGLAS
DC-10 AND KC-10 EXTENDER
Arthur ACSteffen
McDonnell Douglas
DC·10 and KC·10 Extender
Wlde.OodyWorkhorSeII
From 1970 to 1988 McDonnell Douglas
built 446 DC-1 Os of all models and they
are at work around the clock carrying
passengers and freight. The central part
of this book gives details of each DC-10
operator, including illustrations of all
major colour schemes. The United
States Air Force has 60 of the KC-10A
Extender tanker/transport version, a
very capable addition to the inventory.
The illustrations are almost totally full
colour, to show to best advantage the
wide range of schemes and operators.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 128 pages
276 colour, 14 b/w photos, 11 line dwgs
1 85780051 6 £19.95/US $34.95
Aerofax
MIG-25 'FOXBAT' and
MIG·31 'FOXHOUND'
Yefim Gordon
MiG-25 'Foxbat'
MiG·31 'Foxhound'
Russla'Sdelenslvofronllino
YCllmGordon
F====~====I
This book takes adetailed, informed
and dispassionate view of an awesome
aeronautical achievement - the titanium
and steel MiG-25 - which became the
backbone of the USSR defensive
structure. Its follow-on was the similar-
looking MiG-31 'Foxhound', very much
a new aircraft designed to counter US
cruise missiles and in production from
1979. Includes a large amount of
previously unpublished material plus
extensive and lavish illustrations.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 96 pages
110 b/w and colour photos plus 91 line
and colour airbrush illustrations
1 85780 064 8 £13.95/ US $21.95
Aerofax
McDONNELL DOUGLAS
MD·11
Arthur ACSteffen
McDonnell Douglas
MD·11
Along Bench SWllnsong
McDonnell Douglas' follow-on to the
DC-10 proved less successful in terms
of numbers produced and has fallen
casualty to the Boeing takeover.
However it has seen service with many
airlines worldwide and is entering a
second phase of existence as apure
freighter conversion.
Again, this book details each and
every aircraft and operator. The
illustrations are almost totally full
colour, to show to best advantage the
wide range of schemes and operators.
Softback, 280 x 216 mm, 112 pages
c230 mostly colour photos, 19 drawings
1857801172 £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 operated ISBN 1-85780-105-9
by the State Flight Test Centre (GUTs) in Akhtoobinsk
around 1994.

, Front cover illustration: 1111111 1111

9 781857 801057
Four MiG-15bis of the Soviet Air Force's first jet display
team, unofficially known as 'T,he Red Five', formed at USA $29.95 UK £17.95
Kubinka AB in 1950. All Yefim Gordon archive