Lavochkin La-15 vs Mig-15

kcran567

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
678
Reaction score
69
Competitor to the Mig-15. Like the design. Lost to the Mig-15. Was the reason it lost true, or for political reasons with bias given to the Mig? The cockpit failure and tail vibration sounds like a cover story.


Any pictures of the cockpit, etc?
 

Attachments

  • La-15.jpg
    La-15.jpg
    55.8 KB · Views: 702
  • La-15 Lavochkin.jpg
    La-15 Lavochkin.jpg
    60 KB · Views: 661
  • 636px-La-15.svg.png
    636px-La-15.svg.png
    46.1 KB · Views: 663
La-15 (La-174) wasn't exactly a direct competitor to the MiG-15, that was the La-168, which used the Nene clone RD-45. La-15 was smaller and used the Derwent clone RD-500. La-174 was a developed as an insurance policy for the La-168, which suffered from non-availability of its Nene engine; supposedly Mikoyan used his brother's influence in the Communist Party to secure one of the original Nenes to put in the I-310 (MiG-15) and so gained a good 4 month lead over the La-168. This was critical, and in the absence of any major flaws in the MiG-15 proved decisive. La-168 was generally better, but not by enough to justify production.


La-174 was placed in production as La-15 but only 225 were produced; the main reasons were its greater production complexity and that the Nene was quickly developed into the much higher thrust VK-1, while the RD-500 did not have the same development potential, so the MiG-15 had much greater growth potential.
 
Very interesting! Thanks a lot Paul for this clear and to-the-point explanation.
 
La-15 info...
 

Attachments

  • Varios 007.jpg
    Varios 007.jpg
    208 KB · Views: 205
  • Varios 006.jpg
    Varios 006.jpg
    229.1 KB · Views: 204
  • Varios 005.jpg
    Varios 005.jpg
    491.4 KB · Views: 183
  • Varios 004.jpg
    Varios 004.jpg
    381.4 KB · Views: 174
  • Varios 003.jpg
    Varios 003.jpg
    102 KB · Views: 136
  • Varios 002.jpg
    Varios 002.jpg
    407.7 KB · Views: 164
  • Varios 001.jpg
    Varios 001.jpg
    439.4 KB · Views: 559
  • Varios.jpg
    Varios.jpg
    468 KB · Views: 611
I have read that the La-168 (the original design that competed against the Yakovlev Yak-30 and Mikoyan-Gurevich I-310 (MiG-15)) was in fact a better performing aircraft than the winning MiG I-310 design. But it was deemed that the La-168 was more complicated and expensive to build (as well as the I-310 being thought to be more rugged design)!
I have personally always liked the esthetic look of the La-168 over that of the MiG-15. But my one greatest failing of the La-168 would have had to have been its extremely narrow track main landing gear arrangement - especially for the Russian's acute recognition and desire for rough-field operations! (I cant but help reflect on the experiences of the Bf-109 / Spitfire landing stability issues!!)

P.S. I also find it very interesting that the La-172 - a lighter frontal fighter powered by the Rolls-Royce Derwent turbojet. In essence a scaled-down version of the La-168!

What I find interesting with this lighter/scaled down take on the La-168 is the already apparent difference in size and weight of the La-168/MiG-15 to that of the then 'best' Western equivalent fighter - the NAA F-86 Sabre!

I've put together this comparison to emphasis the differences in alike designs!

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • Comparison of La-168, MiG I-310_S, MiG-15bis, La-172 & F-86E Sabre.doc
    32.5 KB · Views: 90

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom