How long is a MiG-15?

[Don't Panic]

Are you trying to steal one?

I'm sure Gawd has a few in storage, he'd probably sell them cheap enough.

[Don't Panic]

Are you trying to steal one?

No, I'm trying to build one ... or two to be exact. But one of them has to be grossly wrong, since one kit scales up to just over 10m long, and the other kit to just over 11m long ...

The 11m one is right for the Bis, the 10m one must be off the original design spec.

[CJ]

Are you trying to steal one?

No, I'm trying to build one ... or two to be exact. But one of them has to be grossly wrong, since one kit scales up to just over 10m long, and the other kit to just over 11m long ...

Your going to build a full size one?

[klr]

Are you trying to steal one?

No, I'm trying to build one ... or two to be exact. But one of them has to be grossly wrong, since one kit scales up to just over 10m long, and the other kit to just over 11m long ...

The 11m one is right for the Bis, the 10m one must be off the original design spec.

Which is the one that is quoted by the "authoritative" Janes back in 1954, and is still widely in use. But it's wrong. And that's the point: Despite being so wrong, it seems a very hard error to kill off, because most people have no reason to question it, let alone verify it.

Are you trying to steal one?

No, I'm trying to build one ... or two to be exact. But one of them has to be grossly wrong, since one kit scales up to just over 10m long, and the other kit to just over 11m long ...

Your going to build a full size one?

1/72

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are you trying to steal one?

I'm sure Gawd has a few in storage, he'd probably sell them cheap enough.

No urge to collect flying tractors, comrade.

[AshtonBlack]

Are you trying to steal one?

I'm sure Gawd has a few in storage, he'd probably sell them cheap enough.

No urge to collect flying tractors, comrade.

F-86?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are you trying to steal one?

I'm sure Gawd has a few in storage, he'd probably sell them cheap enough.

No urge to collect flying tractors, comrade.

F-86?

There's one about 22.3 miles from me.

[AshtonBlack]

Are you trying to steal one?

I'm sure Gawd has a few in storage, he'd probably sell them cheap enough.

No urge to collect flying tractors, comrade.

F-86?

There's one about 22.3 miles from me.

Nice.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nice.

They've got a biplane from 1922. Gonna get me some bugs in my teeth when it warms up.

[klr]

Are you trying to steal one?

I'm sure Gawd has a few in storage, he'd probably sell them cheap enough.

No urge to collect flying tractors, comrade.

Even with a Rolls-Royce designed engine?

"What fool will sell us his secrets?" - Stalin, on the likelihood of the British agreeing to licence the Nene turbojet.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are you trying to steal one?

I'm sure Gawd has a few in storage, he'd probably sell them cheap enough.

No urge to collect flying tractors, comrade.

Even with a Rolls-Royce designed engine?

"What fool will sell us his secrets?" - Stalin, on the likelihood of the British agreeing to licence the Nene turbojet.

Intelligent design doesn't mean much to me.

[klr]

Here's another site that claims the length to be just over 10 m:

http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/ ... e-modified

A concerned modeller emailed them about how the length was measured , and got this response:

http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.o ... php#213219

I got a response from the Museum of Flight, as follows (I still wish they'd measured it for themselves, though):

"To answer your question, about how the specifications for aircraft (such as the MiG-15) are determined, the specs always measure the maximum dimension, whether of wingspan, length, or height. This is true for all aircraft, regardless of nationality. The reason for specs is to allow people on the ground to know (for example) whether an airplane can fit into a hangar, or how much room will be needed on a ramp to park a given number of planes, or to know whether wing-tip marshals will be needed when taxiing or towing the aircraft through a gate, etc. Knowing only a partial spec would be worse than having no spec at all.

In the case of the MiG-15 (for all versions, including the MiG-15bis), the length is measured from the lip of the air intake at the nose to the rearmost part of the airframe, which happens to be the corners of the elevators. The elevators protrude a few inches further aft than does the tip of the vertical fin. Consequently, the length is measured to an imaginary line running from the tip of one elevator to the tip of the other elevator, perpendicular to the centerline of the fuselage. Thus, the maximum length of the MiG-15 is 10.1 meters, or 33 feet, 1½ inches. This datum comes from Leonard Bridgman (ed.), Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, 1954-55 (London: Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft Publishing Co. Ltd., 1955), p. 184.

Incidentally, manufacturer’s data for dimensions can generally be trusted. First, there is no incentive to falsify them (unlike figures for speed, weight, ceiling, and range, which often are falsified in an effort to boost sales); and, secondly, modern photogrammetry makes it very easy to determine from a photograph, with great precision, an aircraft’s true dimensions.

The only exception to the “largest overall dimension” rule is for parts that are easily removed, such as guns/blast tubes, rockets, or fuel tanks. To cite a classic example, the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter could carry an AIM-9 Sidewinder missile or a fuel tank on the tip of each wing. It could also be flown with only the Sidewinder’s launch rail on the wing tip, without the missile itself; or without even the launch rail. In other words, the F-104 could have four different wing spans, depending on configuration: Wings only, wings plus launch rails, wings plus launch rails and Sidewinders, or wings plus tip tanks. Ideally, the specs sheet should give all four dimensions, with each dimension explained. If space precludes listing more than one dimension, the largest possible dimension should always be given – in this case, the dimension with tip tanks. In other words, it’s always OK if the actual dimension turns out to be slightly smaller than the spec, but a dimension that exceeds the spec is almost always bad news – and often expensive!

I hope that this answers your question, and please let me know if we can be of any further service.

Sincerely,

John L. Little
Assistant Curator & Research Team Leader
The Museum of Flight"

Emphasis mine ...

[klr]

The plot thickens ... so far I've managed to corner four kits of the MiG-15, and three of them are "short" - which is not to say that they are all the exact same. Far from it.

Maybe Janes was right after all. Which would mean ...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The plot thickens ... so far I've managed to corner four kits of the MiG-15, and three of them are "short" - which is not to say that they are all the exact same. Far from it.

Maybe Janes was right after all. Which would mean ...

...that their picture of Saratoga with a flight deck full of biplanes "in 1944" might be right?

[klr]

The plot thickens ... so far I've managed to corner four kits of the MiG-15, and three of them are "short" - which is not to say that they are all the exact same. Far from it.

Maybe Janes was right after all. Which would mean ...

...that their picture of Saratoga with a flight deck full of biplanes "in 1944" might be right?

Biplanes in 1944 ... this isn't the Royal Navy we're talking about.