Me 262 vs Mig 15/F-86

[brickcommander]

Hi everyone! I am getting really pumped about korea, I set up a simpit and everything and can't wait to tackle early jet warfare.

 

On that note, here is my question: is it worth it to start flying the me262 in GB to get used to jet warfare? Of course the handling charachteristics will be somewhat different, but will it be a good preview of the jet fighting experience we will see in korea?

[ShamrockOneFive]

In terms of specific handling characteristics, no, the Me262 is pretty different from the MiG-15 and F-86. But in a general sense of "this is how you might fight a jet fighter versus slower aircraft," yes, definitely it would help. I can see it also being a good teacher of boom and zoom style air combat as the extreme speed is even more significantly counter balanced by poor agility relative to the propeller fighters. I'd say go for it!

[AndyJWest]

Flying the Me 262 should teach you to keep your speed up, at least. Poor acceleration at low speed was inherent in early jets, along with slow throttle response. Not quite as bad in a MiG-15 or Sabre as the Me 262, but still an important factor. You'll learn a lot about landing too: shallow approaches, and very careful use of throttle.

Anyone who can get proficient in the IL-2 GB Me 262 first should have a real head start in flying the Korea-era jets.

[LukeFF]

In testing Korea, I've found it helpful to start out with the F-80 if you are new to jets. It's the jet most Air Force pilots would have started in at the time (or its T-33 brother) and it requires diligent, responsible handling. Many pilots from that time said if you could fly the F-80 properly you could fly anything. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Pondering this myself, so I took out the jet in Great Battles that is probably closest in performance to an F80, plus, well, it's the only jet fighter we have currently.

Fighting Mustangs was futile as the AI always see you coming so you can't get the jump on them, so I did what the F80 became good at, the attack role.  

Turns out it makes a good schnell bomber, even if that isn't what the Luftwaffe needed at the time.  I shot up ground targets, and even did successful skip bombing attacks.  And I got home in one piece.  You really have to plan your landings well in advance, and establish a long, shallow, glide slope with the aircraft just above stall speed and flaps and gear down well in advance so you have no surprises near final approach

Home safe and sound.

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

Flying the Me 262 should teach you to keep your speed up, at least. Poor acceleration at low speed was inherent in early jets, along with slow throttle response.

This, definitely.

However, with regard to the F-86 and Mig-15 they have greater wing sweep and were spending more time where transonic effects appear. The F-80 and F-84 also have unswept wings - so they'll handle differently as well.

Ar-234 might also (oddly enough) be of interest for training.

[AndyJWest]

Yup, at the top end of their speed range, the '50s jets are going to be experiencing obvious effects of compressibility, which is something an Me 262 will avoid unless the pilot has a death wish. Not much to learn from that on the 262 except to watch the airspeed indicator (which usefully shows TAS, or rather an approximation to it, above a certain speed). Of course you should be monitoring it in any aircraft, but compressibility effects on these aircraft could catch you out quickly.

I'd agree regarding the Ar 234 too. Worth getting some time in, as another aircraft that needs careful throttle handling etc. 

[AndreiTomescu]

what i'm pretty curious about is: the pilots of this early jets, were they mostly prop pilots that made the conversion, or they were mostly "fresh" jet pilots, starting their combat flights directly on the new jet aircrafts ? I mean in different countries that took part in Korean war, like : USSR, China, USA, GB. really curious about this. maybe some of you know more. i mean, i know about the life of Charles Elwood Yeager, but he's a legend.

in post ww2 romania (who lost its monarchy and became Popular (at first) ans then Socialist Republic of Romania), the first jet pilots were brand new ones, but that due to political reasons (the new government didn't trust the old pilots -some in their 20s- as they were formed in the previous regime, and by then most of them were already out of the army or even in jail). They started on the YAK-17 and 23, from 1951, and then finally settled on the iconic MIG-15 and its successors , but only in 1952, with 514 machines in total.

[LukeFF]

30 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

what i'm pretty curious about is: the pilots of this early jets, were they mostly prop pilots that made the conversion, or they were mostly "fresh" jet pilots, starting their combat flights directly on the new jet aircrafts ? I mean in different countries that took part in Korean war, like : USSR, China, USA, GB. really curious about this. maybe some of you know more. i mean, i know about the life of Charles Elwood Yeager, but he's a legend.

Many of the American pilots were veterans of WWII - not all, of course, but a good number of them remained on active duty after WWII or continued in the reserves and then were mobilized when the Korean War began, so yes, they made the transition from props to jets. 

You also had some who made the transition from other crew roles like Joseph McConnell, who was a B-24 navigator during WWII and only became a pilot after the war - and a quite successful one at that. 

[LukeFF]

You also have the peculiar situation where pilots who had transitioned to the F-80 had to revert to the F-51 because of the shortage of jets and operational airfields at the start of the war. So for those guys it was quite the letdown.

[MajorMagee]

In the early days of the war (Pusan / Inchon / Advance to the Yalu) many F-80 pilots transitioned back the the P-51 and F-82 because they could operate from the forward bases, and could stay engaged in the combat area much longer. 

[brickcommander]

4 hours ago, AndreiTomescu said:

what i'm pretty curious about is: the pilots of this early jets, were they mostly prop pilots that made the conversion, or they were mostly "fresh" jet pilots, starting their combat flights directly on the new jet aircrafts ? I mean in different countries that took part in Korean war, like : USSR, China, USA, GB. really curious about this. maybe some of you know more. i mean, i know about the life of Charles Elwood Yeager, but he's a legend.

in post ww2 romania (who lost its monarchy and became Popular (at first) ans then Socialist Republic of Romania), the first jet pilots were brand new ones, but that due to political reasons (the new government didn't trust the old pilots -some in their 20s- as they were formed in the previous regime, and by then most of them were already out of the army or even in jail). They started on the YAK-17 and 23, from 1951, and then finally settled on the iconic MIG-15 and its successors , but only in 1952, with 514 machines in total.

As far as Soviet pilots, I am unsure. American pilots in Korea were definately largely composed of experienced piston engine pilots in wwii. Besides yeager, some famous examples would include:

Ted Williams (mostly famous as one of the best baseball players in history), Astronauts John Glenn, Alan Shepard, and Deke Slayton (they had a real technological transition- piston, jet, rocket).

 

On the other hand, it can be assumed (i don't know for certain) tyat DPRK pilots as well as PRC pilots were mostly "new" pilots as neither country had an air force in wwii.

 

 

[Dash,Polder]

You'd be wrong about the People's Air Force, they had a very strong core made up of former Nationalist pilots, many who had trained in the US.  Chinese formations were recognizable in combat by WW II war veterans since they were the only group who never had exposure to the Luftwaffe nor adopted any of their tactics, which the Russians did, they took the best of what they had learned from the Luftwaffe, same as we did.  One of the main tells was the finger four combat formation Luftwaffe style, the Chinese stuck with what they knew best. 

Some of the US pilots had been trainers of these Chinese guys and could recognize their tactics and style, nearly ten percent were trained in the USA forming the corp that helped the Allies train the rest in China, so these guys had been trained to instructor levels in the USA.    

[Avimimus]

On 4/19/2026 at 10:11 PM, AndreiTomescu said:

what i'm pretty curious about is: the pilots of this early jets, were they mostly prop pilots that made the conversion, or they were mostly "fresh" jet pilots, starting their combat flights directly on the new jet aircrafts ?

Every time the F-86 comes up, my father mentions the number of people who died in take-offs and landings in the Canadair jets. We didn't have two seat jet trainers until 1951/1952. A lot of our pilots had served during the war though. So I gather they were new to jets, but experienced on props in most cases.

[AndreiTomescu]

But why? Why were casualties so high ? In Ro, until the arrival of the fabled Mig-21, also called here  "the field plowder" because on the number that felt, there were quite few accidents with the Mig-15,17&19. And they had quite alot operational, over 500. Maybe because we had from the start the trainer, the Mig-15BIS ? -a 2 seater-

[AndyJWest]

6 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said:

But why? Why were casualties so high ? In Ro, until the arrival of the fabled Mig-21, also called here  "the field plowder" because on the number that felt, there were quite few accidents with the Mig-15,17&19. And they had quite alot operational, over 500. Maybe because we had from the start the trainer, the Mig-15BIS ? -a 2 seater-

We really need to see statistical evidence regarding take off and landing accidents in early jets to be sure they were actually significantly higher, but it does seem possible. The early jets were tricky if you were used to piston engine characteristics, due to throttle lag and slow acceleration at low speeds. Someone used to the almost instant extra thrust you can get from a piston engine could easily be caught out. Other factors probably came in too: higher wing loadings, and for the MiG 15 and Sabre in particular, the swept wings likely adversely affected low speed handling. 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

Other factors probably came in too: higher wing loadings, and for the MiG 15 and Sabre in particular, the swept wings likely adversely affected low speed handling. 

Yes, wing sweep is apparently one of the reasons why the US Navy was slow to adopt jets with swept wings, because there were still unanswered questions about how that would come into play with carrier landings.

[ArgonV]

Sadly Richard Bong was killed in a P-80 crash on takeoff... It wasn't until a bit later that the 2-seat P-80 known as the T-33 came to be to help pilots transition for the reasons @AndyJWest mentioned.

[AndreiTomescu]

Well , to start basic training for a jet fighter, so a pusher aircraft, I guess a DH2 is the starting point. 🙂 

Tried such a bird a bit. Wow, what a different feeling! Like .....freedom!

Haven't flown a ww1 airframe since the Dawn Patrol. That's 1994. That's 30+ yrs ago!!! On my first true computer, an AMD 120 Mhz.....

Funny fact, from ww1 till Korea is roughly the same amount of time. 30 yrs from canvas to jets.

I wonder where we'll be in 30 yrs from now.....

[Avimimus]

On 4/24/2026 at 4:40 PM, AndyJWest said:

We really need to see statistical evidence regarding take off and landing accidents in early jets to be sure they were actually significantly higher, but it does seem possible. The early jets were tricky if you were used to piston engine characteristics, due to throttle lag and slow acceleration at low speeds. Someone used to the almost instant extra thrust you can get from a piston engine could easily be caught out. Other factors probably came in too: higher wing loadings, and for the MiG 15 and Sabre in particular, the swept wings likely adversely affected low speed handling. 

It is also worth noting that the Korean War started only 6 years after the first operational jet engine... so relying on a single engine for takeoff and landing was a bit of an issue.

We also need to consider operational culture. I recently heard a story that, when they were considering the potential need for dispersal in case of a third world war, they decided to assess if AFB Rockcliffe was suitable for jet operations. They did this by ordering a pilot to fly an F-86/CL-13 to it and land there. Upon almost dying after going off the end of the runway, the pilot discovered that the runways were only 46 metre runway (150 feet). They had to idle the jet until it was almost out of fuel to save weight, and after several taxi attempts he finally barely managed to get airborne and fly the Sabre back. At which point he declared the airfield unsuitable.

Now a normal approach would be to look up the length of the airfield. Or at least try to see if the F-86/CL-13 could take off in such a short space using a larger runway. But, no, such was the culture in the early post-war years that they simply ordered someone to see if it worked.

P.S. I heard somewhere that pilots also reportedly complained about difficulty finding the attitude of the plane visually due to the swept back wings.