Talk:North American F-86 Sabre/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Kills in Korea

Official data available to date (the one also pentagon recognizes): Total Aircraft Losses: Commies 566 UN 1377 out of which: Mig-15 379 Sabre 224

Why not putting up these numbers instead of that 1:14? That multiplier is impossible even theoretically and since some "close to reality" numbers exist and theyve been even confirmed by both sides wouldnt it be time to correct "facts"? This is an encyclopedia after all (the logo says so) and not an "missdirecting information dumpsite". -Wuasssaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Front view of a F-86A Sabre.
Lackland AFB, San Antonio, Texas (March 2007).

If we know the numbers for the Korea-Kills are wrong (as stated in the text) why should the "14:1" ratio still be mentioned?

reply: It was a figure of long-standing, I attempted to create a NPOV language revision. The section needs a lot of work to represent the situation as it now stands, disputed in some circles that for some reason accept Stalinist Soviet records as gospel on the issue. 12:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Did the UK not also use this aircraft - see List of aircraft of the RAF 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It did and I corrected the deficiency. Buckboard 09:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

37 nations used the F-86, and four manufactured it. Almost 10,000 copies were built--the most of any modern western fighter. The actual numbers of F-86E's and F-86F's--and who built them-- are confusing but I am researching for something verifiable. Right now I accepted the 456 figure for the E and revised the F to 2239, which is Knaack's and Wagner's figure. Also I deleted the 14:1--but the article is very frustratingly written and will require some thought to re-write accurately while still maintaining NPOV. Buckboard 11:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Not perfect, but better. The article is about the F-86, not which side's claims are more reliable, and I limited that discussion here.Buckboard 10:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't go in the article as it's speculative, original research, but if you want to know what the actual kill ratio might have been, it seems like each side's "own aircraft lost" number should be relatively accurate, while "enemy aircraft killed" would be very unreliable -- so 345 MiGs shot down, to 224 F-86s lost to all causes, which sounds like about a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. Kaleja 22:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

re: my discussion of the numbers of E's and F's--by counting USAF serial numbers, the count toals 456 for the E (including the 60 Canadian-built), and 2,539 F's. None of the other figures fail to jibe in multiple sources. Buckboard 12:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm... The F-86 Sabre in the picture at the top looks like one which an astronaut used during his days in the Korean War. I forgot which astronaut... 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And why is it exactly that we are accepting only US numbers? Why not soviet? Why is wikipedia so biased? Pavel Golikov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


In the list of operators Belgium is mentioned. However, Belgium never used the F-86. Apparently, there was a plan to aquire some under the Mutual Aid and Development program, but it never materialised. So I removed the reference.

Citations needed

I think citations are needed for e.g. the section on Taiwanese service, and probably other sections as well.

So the answer was to put so many "citation needed" that the article's readability was effected? Tirronan 01:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Last retired by Bolivia or Portugal?

This F-86 page states it was retired in 1980 by Portugal, yet the Wikipedia "1993_in_aviation" states the last F-86 was withdrawn from Bolivia's Air Force this year. Which one is correct?

Most beautiful F-86 lost

In case ya'll didn't hear, the most beautifully restored F-86 (a Sabre 5, actually) N86FS, crashed in Hickory NC this past Monday. Killed was pilot/owner Wyatt Fuller, of Harley Davidson fame. I had the distinct privilege of getting to watch the whole restoration process, and photograph it as well. Photos in memory of Wyatt can be seen on my blog, link is on my user page. Akradecki 01:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hunters (Movie)

The link apparently points to the wrong Movie?

Fixed. Danceswithzerglings (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

F-86 in the Indo-Pak War of 1965

To Idleguy:

  • Air-to-Air - Ok so lets handle the air-to-air claims and counter claims. I don't agree with the figure of 13 combat + 1 civilian plane given by you. As you can see here [1] (this is the reference I have cited), there isn't any 'civilian plane' listed in the aircrafts lost in air-to-air battles category. So where did you get the figure of 13 combat + 1 civilian aircraft??? As far as I see it 14 combat aircrafts are accepted as being lost to Pakistan Air Force F-86s comprising of 8 Hunters, 3 Vampires, 2 Gnats and 1 Mystere (8+3+2+1=14).
  • Air-to-ground attacks - This is a little cloudier than the air-to-air battles category. As you can see at [2] (a source which I have cited with the numbers given), the PAF F-86s of the 14th Squadron struck Indian Air Force base twice at Kalaikunda claiming 10 Canberras destroyed and five damaged along with two Hunters damaged in the first raid and 4 to 6 Canberras destroyed in the second raid. Please note that I have not added the claimed damaged aircraft to the list of claimed destroyed aircrafts and moreover I have used the figure of 4 Canberras instead of 6 as claimed hits in the second attack. Moreover the Tailchoppers of the 14th Squadron attacked Baghdogra, Barrackpore and Agartala in which they claimed 5 transport aircraft, 2 fighters, 1 Canberra and a helicopter. This brings the total to 10+4+5+2+1+1(helicopter)=23 aircrafts.

In addition to this the Pakistani F-86s also attacked bases at Pathankot, Halwara, Adampur and Jamnagar. Pakistan Air Force No. 19 Squadron undertook the strike at Pathankot [3] and claims 7 MiG-21s, 5 Mysteres and one Fairchild C-119 i.e. (7+5+1=13). The strike at Halwara by the F-86s didn't result in any aircraft being destroyed on the ground...(the b-57s did that later) and I don't have claim of destroyed aircrafts of the strikes at Adampur and Jamnagar from PAF side. Jamnagar was first hit by F-86s and then by B-57s so it is hard to attribute the losses at that airbase to either the F-86 or the B-57[4]. Anyways all in all it comes out to be 23+13=36 verified claims.

From the Indian side [5] the accepted losses to these attacks (and thus which we can attribute to the F-86) are 22 aircrafts (Not counting the B-57 raids, the raid on Jamnagar and the raid on Srinagar as I can't seem to find any source which tells whether the Srinagar raid was undertaken by F-86s or B-57s).

Moreover IAF was around 3 times the size of the PAF at the time of the 1965 conflict...hence the words 'much larger' were used. See the Indian Air Force page on wikipedia for reference.

The IAF page itself isn't fully cited and as for the numbers, I highly doubt if the ratio of the IAF to PAF was 3:1, a number I couldn't immediately obtain from the IAF article. By 1965 PAF had grown manyfold, aided partly by Pakistan's economy of the early 60s which was in sharp contrast in India. Many sources have written that PAF had qualitative superiority for some period during the mid 1960s and was one of the reasons for Pakistan military planners to initiate op gibraltar. The IAF actually operated outdated planes when compared to Pakistan with the small numbers of Mig-21 being an exception rather than the rule. Right now I don't have time to go through the air to ground losses fully. Idleguy 13:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I really don't think IAF was operating much outdated planes compared to the F-86 at the time. Lets see now...IAF had Hawker Hunters, Folland Gnats, Dassault Mysteres and Mig-21s.

The Hawker Hunter started production in 1953, The Folland Gnat around 1955, the Dassault Mystere started production in 1954 and the production Mig-21 entered service in 1959. The F-86 on, the other hand, started being produced around 1948 to 1949. Thus the F-86 was the one which was 'outdated' (or atleast older) when compared with the IAF's planes!!!....not the other way round. Red aRRow 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as looking up their original production dates. It is important to see what version of the plane PAF had, and I believe it was one of the latter editions that had improved characteristics. Moreover, I was referring to PAF as a whole and not just sabre. PAF was the first in asia to get a supersonic fighter (starfighter) and the planes on sabres were also fitted with better ammo and guns vis a vis the IAF. There were other qualitative differences and overall there was an advantage for Pak over Indian military that led a war game played in march 1965 in a US Defence institute to believe that in case of a war, Pak would win. The book titled crisis game by Stanley Griffin is a good read on this. Idleguy 02:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the F-86 Sabre so I think comparing the age relatively to other fighters in PAF arsenal is redundant, as far as this article is concerned. Moreover the F-86 was an older design than any of the aeroplanes it had to face. I really don't think you can call its adversaries 'dated' when comparing to it...infact planes like the Mig-21 were state of the art in 1965.Red aRRow 13:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, much of the equipment operated by the IAF was arguably superior to the F86 - the Hawker Hunter, for example, could comfortably outfight the Sabre at altitude and had a much heavier armament. The success of the PAF F86's had much to do with the skill of the Pilots, drawing the IAF pilots down to low altitude where the F86 had the edge, and the fact that the Indian Hunters were operating in the ground attack role at the edge of their range... 11:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the original issue is sidetracked. The word that I took objection to was "much larger" trying to suggest that United Pakistan was somehow like Israel pitted against an Indian Military akin to the combined forces of the Arab states in the many wars. A report in the International Institute for Strategic Studies of the war shows that PAF had close to 20 squadrons as against 30 Indian squadrons and this was in 71 when India had an improved quantitative advantage. Further digging shows that the number of aircrafts in PAF squadrons were atleast 25 - 50% greater than aircrafts in a typical IAF squadron for that time. Effectively it means that though outnumbered, it wast a "much larger" or humungous airforce that PAF was dealing with.
  • P.S. The IISS article and other combat databases are available online to members and the approximate PAF and IAF squadron strength numbers were gained from multiple sources. Idleguy 15:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information

As the article is about the F-86 Sabre airplane, issues related to air superiority and defeat/surrender are best mentioned in other articles which might be more appropriate as a whole to either the 1971 war or articles related to the Air Force as a whole. These bigger issues are of no relevance in an article about an aeroplane. Only the issue of air superiority could be mentioned if PAF was operating only the F-86 in the East Pakistan...which it wasn't. Thus I think both the issues of air superiority and surrender in East Pakistan are best mentioned elsewhere. Red aRRow 10:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is partially to answer Red arrow and BillCJ. BillCJ, The visual source for the Pakistani fratricide of planes is given in the photograph itself which says that 11 planes were captured and source the rest of the squadron was shot down by AA or dogfights, source is also given (citations "[13][14][15]") read them. as for the air supremacy see [6] which states that India attained air supremacy. This was largely in part due to the crippling of the Sabres. They were supposed to hold out being the mainstay of the PAF. Once this was done, the air superiority was fully complete. I hope i have clarified why air superirority needs to be added. Idleguy 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
My issue is that you need to have a reference with that sentence you keep adding, one that refers to the sources you are using for that sentence. The reader should not have to figure out which source that goes with, otherwise it appearsto be unsourced. If the meaning of the sentence is not directly stated in your source, but merely inferred, than it is original reseach, and can't be placed here. Sorry for the multiple revert; I was in a hurry, and it was quicker than posting here. -- BillCJ 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

South Africa Flag

This might be totally minor, but the South African flag shown in the "List of Countries" section is the old (pre 1994) Flag. Is it necessary to change this to the new one, or should it remain because of the fact that that was the flag back in those days?

If it should be fixed, please can someone else do it because I am new to editing articles an haven't a clue how. Thanks Goldfritter 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


I believe that the more common U.S. spelling of the word is "saber" - is there any particular reason why the British/French version was adopted for this plane? Loganberry (Talk) 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing at first. But, surprisingly, North American Aviation used the British spelling for the F-86. If you look on Boeing's website (North American merged with Boeing in 1996), you'll find that it still uses the "Sabre" spelling in its page on the F-86 [7]. Pirate Dan (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we know the reason for this? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just conjecture, but possibly because North American had designed their previous fighter for the British and thought that the F-86 might benefit from a name-spelling that implied a connection with the Mustang. Alternatively, it may have just been the way that whoever was in charge of allocating names spelt 'Sabre'.


I don't know who and I don't know where I have to complain to get the [citation needed] swarm edit eliminated. All I really know is that this article is barely legible due to the sheer # of [citation needed] inserted. I am sure this was done with getting the article better and it did need some work but this is bordering on vandalism. Sections should be noted and left at least readable. One irritated editor Tirronan 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion last month at Talk:B-52 Stratofortress#Do we need 60 {{Fact}} tags?]]. The discussion is fairly detailed, and links to various sections on Wikipedia policy and guidelines for references and citations. After reading this section and following up the linked sections also, if you have any more questions or concerns on the topic, feel free to ask. - BillCJ 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what irritates me worse, the fact that someone comes in and edits like that and leaves it that way after five minutes of pasting or the fact it has remained that way for the public to see for 40 days... I'll read what is said but I am unlikely to change my opinion. This just seems like a reward to someone with an anal retentive quality to ruin good work and walk away satisfied after doing nothing... Tirronan 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the system that Wikipedia uses. All the articles are works in progress. One solution is to find the sources and put them in, as you are doing here. The other is to discuss the problem of {{tl|citation needed)) tags on the appropriate talk pges, and try to devise a new system that doesn't deface the reader's text as much, yet still calls attention to the need for a verifiable source for that item.
Remember, Verifiability is a Policy on Wikipedia, not merely a guideline. Far too many editors, especially newbies, ignore or are not aware of the policy when they add material. The alternative is to simply remove the questionable text as unsourced. In some articles, this would leave almost no text whatsover. So, as a compromomise, when an editor sees text that is unsourced, especially if he/she is doing an article assesment, they leave the {{fact}} tags. Its part of the collaborative process that is Wikipedia. It doesn't mena the editor has a god-complex or anything, but that sources are needed, but he may not have access to the sources. Yes, it's sad if they tags remain for a long time, but as I said, the alternative is simply to cut out text. I often do that on the same day I see questionable text added, esp. by an IP editor, but I often get grief from other editors for mistreating the newbies, and not giving enough time for someone to find a source.
One idea I have thought of is that Wikipedia could have two modes for viewing the text: one without editorial tags, and one with tags, with a button at the top of the page to toggle the modes. THis would have to go into the software that WIki uses, and is far beyond my capability. I don't know where to suggest it either, but if you find a talk page where it seems appropriate to suggest it, feel free to do so, or let me know on my talk page, and I'll post there.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to find sources for this article. I am a very slow typist, especially if copying from a book. As a result, even though I do have some printed sources that might contain info on some of the aircraft ariticles (not the F-86 or B-52, btw), I rarely ever sit down an add sources, although I have. I do try to do that when I add material to an existing article, or start a new one. I also don't like adding specs for the same reason. Most of what I do is copy editing, which does include adding those ugly tags. That's what I am best at, and I find it more enjoyable and profitable to spend my time on Wiki that way. I also like to engage in discussions, hence I am here. :) - BillCJ 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not a problem one with verification on articles. I've been hammering away at them and at the T-34 article getting it in some sort of shape. Most of my irritation comes from a few folks that are doing this and thumping chests and not contributing to the answers of said problem. I guess that is most of it mangled articles by us for very little work leaving a mess to be cleaned up by others. Just seems really sloppy to me. I'll work on the talk pages of verify to get some results we can all live with. It is just from a customer service propective this is poor at best. Tirronan 23:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand what you mean by the customer service perspective, but Wikipedia also considers every reader an editor. I do agree we need a better system for flagging text; even changing {{citation needed}} to something much shorter, like {cn} or a small editorial symbol, would be an improvement, something no bigger than a reference/citation number, which we already use.
As a suggestion, you might take a look at the F-105 Thunderchief article, and its edit history. It's a good example of how the assesment system is supposed to work, and now the article is rated GA (Good Article). Also, two WikiProjects, WP:AIR, and WP:Milhist, exist to try to improve aviation/military-related articles, and to set standards and guidelines within their peojects. I beleive Milhist has a project article every 2 weeks, which all project memeber try to work on together. To my knowledge, WP:AIR (the project I work with most of the time) does not do this as yet. Feel free to suggest doing this to the project. You may also find editors who want to deal with the {{fact}} tags in a timely matter, and it would be easier to do this as a small group than by yourself. - BillCJ 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it has its good side as well, the Battle of Waterloo article just took a major rachet upward and hopefully we can get it beyond a class b article. I am really a Napoleonic/war of 1812 guy I just couldn't bare what I saw on F-86 or T-34 and got involved. Tirronan 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

I've added enough footnotes to get the article readable again and I think that I have improved the article somewhat as well. However at this point I can find no sources on the ROC/PROC Taiwan straight battle to remove the [citation needed]. Nor do I have information on the Indo/Pak war so I will not step there either. At this point gentlemen I am going to bid you a fond fairwell and hope that someone cares enough about the article to finish the citation needed. Its a great article and I am betting it will get recognised as such. Tirronan 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifications Model

I changed the variant name on the specifications because those are in fact the specs for the F-86F not the F-86H (which was a nuclear armed version). Just thought y'all might want to know why. - Jnunn2

Korean kill ratios

Alot of what is included in this article re the Korean war represents just the offical USAF history and does not cover more recent finds of Stephan Sewell and Xiaoming Zhang or any of the may Russian authors that have commented on this topic. While i believe that inclusion of the USAF stats are important, there is alot of supporting evidence to show that these are not entirely accurate. In its current state this could be resolved by stating "Official USAF stats indicate..." or something similar. One should also note that many of the kills '52-on where against MiG-15s taking-off or landing where superiority of machinary makes little difference (as was the same case in WWII with Me-262s being lost in similar curcumstances). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Indo-Pakistani Wars

Watching the ballooning of the section, now 1100 words compared to the Korean War's 792 words leads me to conclude that paring is needed. If there needs to be the detail and stress, then let's move the section into a separate article. Comments? Bzuk 12: 48, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Concur. - BillCJ 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The Indo-Pak wars saw the most fierce dogfights ever since the second world war. The F-86 was a major player in both of these wars. To move the victories of this plane in this war off of the main article would be unfair. If you must, you can look to shorten the sections, but I don't think it should be totally moved. Also, India-Pakistan war articles are a real headache, with both sides trying to plug their version of the story. It's very hard to keep these short.Zaindy87 19:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is what BillZ said; pare it back, and if the detail is needed, put that in a separate article, such as the one actually about the conflicts. But individual aircraft pages are no place for such contentious details. To have details on the Sabre's victories there out of proportion to those of other conflicts is also unfair, and close to violating NPOV by giving undue weigh/coverage to what area relatively minor conflicts on the world stage. - BillCJ 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Kill ratio

The parenthetical quote regrding the kill ratio in the Korean war sould be rewritten to better reflect the available facts, and to stop the changing of the obviously-inaccurate 2:1 ratio figure from the Dorr book. As official US records indicate a figure closer to 4:1, this should be included in the text.

Personally, I STRONGLY doubt the validity and accuracy of Korean war-era records from N. Korea and the USSR, and books that treat them as more accurate than western sources should be suspect. In the West, when the press exposes government faults or inaccuracies, they get a Pulitzer Prize; in communist countries, esp of the 1950s, they got a Kalishnakov Kalashnikov Bullet. - BillCJ 15:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Kalashnikov, Bill, Kalashnikov. Or shorter AK-47 ;o) Piotr Mikołajski 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is of no relevance. It is Wikipedia policy to be NPOV and referenceable. The information provided is from western authors (who have, between themselves, been from 24:1 to this 2:1 in their last publication) and a western publisher. If you have additional information, provide it and provide a reference. Information can then be provided to the reader so that they can make their own judgments - this conforms to NPOV. Anything else is simply conjecture or opinion and has no place on Wikipedia. - JCW 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't put personal opinion in the article, nor was I advocating doing that. I am disputing the authors's figures, because they don't line up with the other figures (or their own, apparently). Perhaps that should be mentioned in the text also, or at least in a footnote. When your figures vary that much, it's even less credible than the USAF competing figures. This discrepancy is causing other editors who know how to do proper math to attempt to change the statement, and that is what needs to be changed. Maybe we can guess what the ratio in the authors' next book will be: 1.5:1, 1:1, or .5:1? Or perhaps 30:1? Who can tell with western authors and publishers. ;) - BillCJ 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to rewrite the section for clarity without changing the sense (too much, anyway). I have also removed the tag for the time being, but we'll have to see if the section undergoes any more changes. I assume the 10:1 claim figure is also form the Dorr source, but there is now another reference between them. If someone knows if that source has that calim, we can add that reference there also. - BillCJ 22:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have provided a reference for the 10:1 and it should be noted that one of the authors of this book is the same author of the later book with Dorr three years after that quotes the 2:1. As for their inconsistancy in number they appear to have tracked with each USAF or other report that they have added to their research, e.g. USAF Historical Study #81, Project Coronet Harvest Report, Document 1059, etc. Between themselves (Dorr (ex-USAF), Thompson & Lake) they have been publishing on this topic for over a decade. So excuse me for viewing you comment "obviously-inaccurate" as an irrelevance. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but what are your credentials? How much data have you published? How long have you been researching this area? If these three men (two Americans and one Brit) can put their names to this number - it gains it much credence. This is not about Soviet data. This is about the incredibily poor state the USAF records are in. Even those from within the US-intel community like S. Sewell have said that no accurate conclusions can be made. What Dorr, Warren & Thompson present is a best estimate for all currently avalible data and provide contrast to the post war 14:1 ratio. You can believe which ever ratio you like but it will not make the others any less true. I have no issue with adding references, i do take issue to removing or editing them. - JCW87.113.68.126 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of Sabres were shot down by well trained russian pilots. They achieved a win ratio of 3 to 1 over the sabres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

and I personnally strongly doubt US education system to be efficient enough to teach some fat mcbutts to count to 3...thanks to you, no wonder whole wikipedia is full of misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeping those numbers at those levels simply shows you have no intention on making objective history research. Instead you want to keep urban legend alive. Why are US records more reliable than soviet sources? Total Aircraft Losses: Commies 566 UN 1377 out of which: Mig-15 379 Sabre 224. Have been confirmed by pentagon to be extremely close to real numbers!

Canadair Sabre

I recently added mention of the Canadair Sabre in the lead. I am aware that this variant of the F86 is mentioned in two places in the article and in the Infobox. However, I thiink that the fact that about one fifth of the Sabres produced were made by Canadair is worthy of being added to the lead (which is rather skimpy for an article of this size). It also gives a somewhat more international flavor to the article, which is appropriate, since the F-86 and its variants was a mainstay of several NATO forces in Europe. BillCJ reverted me with the edit summary "Reverted redundant additions by Sunray; covered elsewhere, including infobox."

A good lead is supposed to give an overview of an article. I think that additions to the lead are warranted. I am going to restore my edits and would encourage further expansion of the lead to give a better sense of this amazing aircraft. Sunray 02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Sorry. - BillCJ 02:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Good lead is welcomed, but IMHO current version is enough. Don't make lead too long, it's only waste of space and straight way to get cluttered and clumsy article. Look at B-17, Bf 109 and several others articles to learn how not to write a lead. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 06:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

New additions

I added some new datas. I hope and confide about common sense to not delete them as often happens to me. References are: F-86 monography, Aerei magazine, Delta Editions, Parma, number 4-April 1994.--Stefanomencarelli 20:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Stefo! That's the way to do it! We need to double check the original specs sources, and add you new source to the specs ref section. Good job! - BillCJ 21:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree; I did a couple of quick reference checks and none of the data corresponded to published, authoritative sources. Post questionable material to the talk page or start a sandbox article. FWIW Bzuk 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

Go figure.

Look at this link: [8]. Almost exactly the same numbers i gave. There must been some very small differences, dependig by sub-versions and so on, but still your statements are really wrong mr.Bzuk. PS 1491 km as range are actually the complessive endurance: Diveded for 2 gives just 745 km, exactly the max range i have for F-86F-40.

Or [9]

For weaponry:

Two brackets for: two external fuel tanks of 755 liters.

- And: two bombs or 454 Kg. each, or a great variety of other weaponry.

=Total, rougly 2400 kg, as indicated.

Minor differences are due to different blocks. Are you capable to say what are 'the right F-86F' Bzuk? F-86F-1, 15, 25, 35, or -40?

I posted the latter, and i don't see how this data are questionable at all, except very modic differences. Of course i suppose to talk to good faith guys.--Stefanomencarelli 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I forget my favourite axe:

And go figure, my 'questionable material' is exactly matched included speed of 1091 kmh at sea level.

Now i am pretty curious to know how you, mr Bzuk, have checked about these datas, as mine are well matched with Block-40 described in details by mr. Baugher.--Stefanomencarelli 23:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


Despite what i wrote about 'common sense' despite what i sent about data sources, obviousely my info about F-86 were deleted. Now it's reall too much. I will revert this UNJUSTIFICATE action by Bzuk and if he insisted to do this action he will be guilt to damage wikipedia to soustain his opinions and willings. I am very disgusted about this.--Stefanomencarelli 20:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

F-86F Specifications

I agree that there is a wide variance in figures that are quoted from a number of sources and I suggest that a more exact F sub-series be identified for the specifications table. Depending on the sub-variant, performance differences for example, could be significant: top speed rose from 688 mph at sea level for the F-86F-1-NA to 695 mph at sea level for the F-86F-30-NA block series. FWIW Bzuk 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

And so i think you'll agree to read this part of Joe Baugher ency, that reports too the sources he used:

Specification of F-86F-40-NA: Engine: One General Electric J47-GE-27, 5910 Dimensions: wingspan 39.11 feet, length 37.54 feet, height 14.74 feet, wing area 313.37 square feet. Weights: 11,125 pounds empty, takeoff weight 15,198 pounds (clean), 18,152 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks), 20,611 pounds (2 200-gallon drop tanks plus 2 1000 pound bombs). Maximum speed 678 mph at sea level, 599 mph at 35,000 feet (at 15,352 pounds combat weight). Initial climb rate 8100 feet per minute. Altitude of 30,000 feet reached in 5.2 minutes (clean). 47,000 feet service ceiling. Combat radius 463 miles. Ferry range 1525 miles.

Now let's see how it matches my numbers:

  • Engine: Joe's: J47-GE-27. Aerei: J47-GE-27
  • Thrust: Joe's:5910 lbs= 2680 kg. Aerei: 2680kgs
  • Dimensions:

Joe's: 39,11ftx37,54ftx14,74ftx313,37ft2.=11,92 m x11.44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2

Aerei:11,92 x11,44 x4,49 m x29,1 m2


  • Weights:

Joe's: 11,135-15,198-18,152-20,611lbs=5,050-6,893-8,233-9,351kg

Aerei datas: 5,046--6,894-8,234-9,349 kg

=Almost 100% matched

  • Performances:

Joe's 678/599 miles at 35,000ft= 1,091/964 kmh at 10,600 m

Aerei: 1091/964 kmh at 10600 m


  • Climb; Joe's 9,150 m in 5,2 min Aerei: 9,150 m in 5,2 m
  • Ceiling: Joe 47000ft=14335 m .Aerei= 14325 m

=Matched over 99%

  • Range:

Joe's 465 m and 1525 m ferry= 747 km-2452km

Aerei=745-1795 (internal)-2454km (ferry)

=Matched almost 100%

Weapons: Joe 2x747 l + 2x454kg bombs. 907+1100-1200kg fuel+200/300kg tanks=well over 2 t.

Aerei: max. 2455 kg total, of which 1100 kg weapons (possible that included M2 cartridges, 1,600 crts x 0,1 kg each are 160kg+907=1077)ù

SOLUTION: Take max weight and clean weight and the result will be, 20.611-15,198 lbs=2455 kg! Exactly the same weight indicated in Aerei. 100% matched.

All datas sobstantially matched one each other, with an average of over 99%. Minor differences of 1-10 km are simply ridicolous to tell as 'significatives at all.

Dimensions matchings, weights are almost exactly the same, speed and climb are equals, range and endurance are pratically equals, weapons load matching as well.

What about sources? If i presented them, they will been obviousely unreliables-rubbish-BS. Well, judice yourselves:

Sources: Joe's:

  • F-86 Sabre in Action, Larry Davis, Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992.
  • The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963.
  • The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.
  • The World Guide to Combat Planes, William Green, MacDonald, 1966.
  • The World's Fighting Planes, William Green, Doubleday, 1964.
  • Flash of the Sabre, Jack Dean, Wings Vol 22, No 5, 1992.
  • F-86 Sabre--History of the Sabre and FJ Fury, Robert F. Dorr, Motorbooks International, 1993.
  • Thirty Seconds over Sargodha, John Fricker, Air Enthusiast, Vol 1, No 1, 1971.


  • Aerei 6/79
  • Aeri modellismo 5/92
  • Air Enthusiast 17
  • F-86 in action (Squadron signal)

Moreover, the not exactly silly site: has datas widely matching mines.

Just to realize how silly these discussions are, and how i am seen 'rationally' as the Antichrist of wikipedia. I gave you more than enough datas to evalue my 'unsourced statements'. If someone has a serious problem with me or with knowledge about F-86 well, it's definitively his problem, not mine. It would be kindly to post me apologizes (as oops, i mistaken something--I did not know the existence of F-86F-40 block--I did not wanted to call you liar). I would expect also that user EH101 rollback will be kindly reverted, also because he posted a non-existent link (he, the guy that talks of 'reliability'). Regards.--Stefanomencarelli 09:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to decide EXACTLY on which F-86 model should be in the specifications and work your way out from there deciding on what to reference the information on. T96 grh 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the F-86F-40-NA block was the most capable of the series and probably represents a zenith for the F-86 "gunfighter" variants. FWIW Bzuk 00:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC).
In that case, Stefanomencarelli's data should be valid, but should also have an English-language reference. Either a webpage, or preferably a printed book. T96 grh 01:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The general standard is to cite an authoritative work beginning with specialized textual material (book), generalized textual material (encyclopaedia, collection or directory), periodical/journal (magazine) and other non-textual material follow including electronic records or data. The Baugher site is unusual in that it is derived from mainly reputable second-person sources which should first be cited rather than the website itself. Although there appears to be correlation in the figures provided, there is actually a great deal of variance in the specifications as stated by Lindsay Peacock and Martin Bowman in their F-86 tomes. FWIW Bzuk 01:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC).
To reiterate, there are a number of different reference sources whose figures do not agree totally. If it is accepted that the specifications table relate to the definitive F-86 variant, then the late block F-85F-40-NA is appropriate. I would suggest that the specs have a single source, perhaps the Jane's which has a large table for each aircraft type. FWIW Bzuk 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)..

This is not matter. You are simply insisting to set up an edit war and then say see? SM is making flame and edit-wars.This bad, bad boy!!

1-Why you don't start to give your datas, so we'll se where and why they are 'different' to F-86F-40 datas i have? Come on, you must do it now.

2-Do you argue that i must buy a english book to make you a pleasure and spent $$ to post here 700 bites of datas? I have written sources, i gave you internet sources, not is 'not enough'. Have courage, mr. Bzuk, to say that you are simply trying to make me a lost of patience.

Almost all the stuff in wiki is even less referenced than what i done (700 kb=three different sources..) and no dear, i don't want to buy a book just to post how F-86 wing surface is. You have it, you do it.

Your points are: 'italian resources are not 'verifiables' so they worth nothing' and 'web english language resources' are shxt as well, because Joe Baugher not 'cites directly datas (who says that? You?)' and who cares of the other website?. So with these 'rules' applied to all wiki.en what amount of 'citations' cannot be couvered? Who is enjoyed by that joke? You simply arguing that every stuff i post must been deletable. Instead, EH101 [[10]]has made a revert with a citation of an inexistent 'more reliable'. And someone not see a clear unjustice with this actions?

Make it clear: give us kindly your datas or stopping to make this ridicolous edit-war. I have a written source, i have two different sites, you have nothing except some 'different datas' that you not show. playng with couvered cards. With this steps i should accuse you of trolling and damaging wiki for your businness. I don't want, so try to stop this game.--Stefanomencarelli 14:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC) is perfeclty existing, just one click far from anybody with good will. --EH101 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Only problem with that link is that it does not cover the F-86F(-40). T96 grh 01:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Have we agreed to use the F-40 block as the representative type for the specifications table? It is generally accepted that the issue should be discussed on the talk page for a week to allow all interested parties a chance to add their comments. FWIW, this should not become a "tempest in a teapot" debate; it is merely a question to be addressed and all parties should understand that WP:PANIC is not necessary here. Bzuk 01:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC).
Since there are only two people discussing this, I say we wait until the weekend and let other people voice their opinion as well. I'll try to dig up info from Jane's in the meantime. T96 grh 11:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
to EH101: Then learn to post external links in the right manner, [[11]] seen that your posted there not functions at all.
To T96: you are fully right, thank to point it, the only 'small difference' is that that link is related to F-86K, an *entirely different beast*.

But let's give a look to F-86K 'from a reliable source' indicated by mr. EH101 and F-86K 'made in Joe':

N.A. F-86K rs N.A. F-86K jb
Dim: (lenght, wingspan, height), m. 11,3-12,49-4,57 11,3-12,49-4,57
Weight, kg 6071-9147 max 6071-9147 max
Maximum speed (km/h) 1113 at SL,/984 at 12,200 m 1113 at SL,/984 at 12,200 m
Climb: 12,200 in 7,2 min 12,200 in 7,2 min
Range/endurance (km) 437-1197 km 437-1197 km
Normal armament 4x20 mm 4x20 mm

ALL datas exactly matched one-to the other. Joe, one time more, has shown his accuracy!

As the tempest in a tea coup, is there is a guilth it's not mine, sorry Bzuk, but that's it. F-86F-40 is the best and most appreciated of all the F-86F, it must be aprecieated but another one could be added to compare it.

I propose a table of all the main Sabre versions (A/D/F/K/H) like the one i wrote in my talk. Not with mini-characters, in Ki-61 comparation i cannot literally read them. If necessary, it's possible to make a tab just for F-86F submodels (1-15-30-40). --Stefanomencarelli 11:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefano, I think the consensus here is not to use webpages for reference to specifications but instead use books (like Jane's) directly. I personally think that including specifications for more than one version of the F-86 would make the article longer and more extensive than what it needs to be. However, there might be interest in a new article that goes in to more of the technical difference between all the versions of the F-86. I suggest you start building one at User:Stefanomencarelli/F-86 Sabre versions and we can look how it comes out, ok? T96 grh 14:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi KG, in response, since there are a limited number of interested parties responding on this topic, I agree that we may want to give this discussion a bit of time to percolate. The original question revolved around providing a complete specifications table based on a definitive F-86 variant. The suggestion to extend the specifications table to other variants, e.g. A/D/E/H is interesting but is not usually provided as it increases the article size appreciably. In the case of iconic aircraft types, such as the Spitfire, a separate sub-article identifies the variants and their differences. The F-86 Sabre certainly has the same iconic quality and could benefit from a similar treatment. As to consensus-driven decisions, that is the "core" of collaboration in Wikipedia since no one editor can undertake the task of creating an entire article, instead people work together and the most effective way to make that happen is to come to agreement on "the way forward." As to the use of reference sources, the guidelines point to WP:RS which identifies peer-reviewed scholarly works considered the most authoritative with specialized books by recognized experts in the field, generalized books following with periodicals and finally, web-based information sources as accepted resources. According to WP:RSUE, in the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are used in preference to foreign-language sources. Online discussion forums/blogs are considered unreliable and are usually not accepted as reference sources on Wikipedia. FWIW Bzuk 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

I can say to not agree with consensus like you say. There are amount of pages, here in wikipedia, that relates to webpages, so i found simply absurd that 'consensus' must be shifted to: only english-paper sources, just because the one that post them is myself, a non native english speaker and a troublemaker.

With this fanatism, i expect to see deleted 90% of wiki.en webpages. If a web site is reasonably affidable i find no strange at all to use it as 'references'. It was done xxxxxxxxx times, just i am the one that has no rights? As for extra-page F-86: no thanks, i see no need to make one just to post a simple comparation tab. F-86 is already long, it could be not affected much with a tab.

The only one that really do not agrees here is Bzuk. If i was another guy that post datas i would be not so affected. Morevoer, i don't like F-86, i don't like that fanatic extremism to forbid me to edit and i don't like mix me with Bzuk or whetever else. This issue explains well why is healty to not waste too much time with wiki, especially with 'some' wikipedians.--Stefanomencarelli 20:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefano, I was referring to consensus in the particular case of the F-86. Since there are apparently quite a few webpages that give conflicting information on specific models, there is reason to require written sources - preferably books (Jane's probably the best one), even though two webpages give the same information. You see, if the F-86 Wikipage specs. refers to a webpage, someone can claim that another webpage with different information is the correct one. A paper publication would in this case trump both webpages. Similarly, if two magazines give conflicting information, a book would trump both magazines. T96 grh 22:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesen't. The only page that give us DATAS about F-86F-40 is the one of Joe Baugher , a well known and accepted author in aviation web. Everyone can claim everything. But let's go to this issue: if someone denies your datas about let's say, Saab JA 37 Viggen, because he has 'found' datas of AJ-37, so what's the point? That he mistake the version, right?

With this F-86F-40 the problem is rougly the same. So if Bzuk has 'different datas', since we cannot trust him only because he has said that, or he send us these datas, or he, like EH101, has grab the wrong version of Sabre. In every case, that someone can forbid to edit without tell what he have, well, it's not acceptable at all. I expect to see the Bzuk datas, and this is not an option.--Stefanomencarelli 11:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

F-86 specifications

Hi gang, T96 grh, the suggestion to look at a Jane's specification sheet didn't work out that well as up until 1959, the data was for the F-86E variant and in 1960/61, the only volume where the F-86F was used as the representative aircraft, it was not clear as the actual block number. I took a hike up to our local aviation museum where there is an extensive library and found Ray Wagner's The North American Sabre. London: Macdonald, 1963 which has a very complete specifications sheet on all variants. It looks like the fastest and most potent of the F-86F series is actually the block 30-NA which topped out at 695 mph at sea level and while the F-86F-40-NA had a slightly higher ceiling and improved maneuverability due to an enlarged wing, the penalty paid for tighter turns at high altitude was seen in lower performance at both higher and lower ends of the envelope. What say you people? go for the F-86F-30-NA? FWIW Bzuk 03:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

I repeat the question: are you in possess of a whole specification datas about the F-86, whetever version? If yes, post them.

In every case, F-86 need a complete set of datas. Since i have Take Off and War Machines enciclopedia, i can submit them even without Aerei, and both are former english-written operas

BTW, it worths consider that the only value you give is still totally matching with Baugher page about 'F': Both gives 695 miles with the new wing, but there were more blocks, -25, -30, -35, -40 with 6-3 wing.

F-86F-30 AKA NA-191, was not the most powerful version, just the faster. F-86F-35 was far more powerful, because it was a nuclear bomber, a new role for a mere day fighter.

F-86F-40 was the better of all. It had some wing modifics because:

Unfortunately, the improved high-speed performance came at the expense of losing the low-speed advantages of the slatted wing. Stalling speed went up from 128 to 144 mph, and the stall was now preceded by a yaw-and-roll effect. This resulted in a faster final landing approach speed and necessitated a longer landing roll.

So went in service F-86F-40 (, for export but with many USAF 'F' updated to this level, because:

The wing slats and the increased wing area markedly improved the handling, especially at low speeds. The low-speed roll-and-yaw problem which had plagued the "6-3" F-86F Sabres was largely eliminated. Stalling speed was reduced from 144 mph to 124 mph, and 800 feet were shaved from the takeoff ground run. The slat actuators and wingtip extensions added about 250 pounds to the weight, but performance was almost identical to that of a standard F-86F


This compensated very well the lost of 17 miles-hour, from 695 to 678, properly due to slat actuators, heavier, draggier, but capable to give only 200 kmh landing speed, even inferior to the 5 t. G.91R. As agility, F-86F lather versions proof their worth with Taiwan and Pakistan. Most of them were upgraded to F-40 level.

As datasheet of various versions it worth note that page:

.--Stefanomencarelli 10:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Read my comments above, this isn't a "spitting match." Wagner has full specifications data on ALL F-86 variants which is the reason for the discussion. We are debating which F block series to choose and what verifiable resources will be suitable. FWIW, read Stay Cool, Bzuk 11:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC).

Spitting match? Stay cool? I accept discussions and report precise datas and facts, and this is your gratuitous comment?

I am pretty curious to see how this datas differs to the 'unreliable J. Baugher site' and the unverifiable 'Aeri' mag. I still have to see what do you have. Simply put.

Perhaps you need as well to learn to read before write, since i already gave all the coordinates about this thing.

The last F-86F is the -40, the latest and the best of all day fighter Sabres. Post this, or post F-86A/E/F/H/Fury, whetever, i am still sure that no difference will be shown by your book respect to the stuff i have already provided. Just about gratouitus debatements about the discover of warm water.--Stefanomencarelli 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If Jane's does not indicate which of the F-models is listed in the 1960/61 edition, we can't use that reference. Since this is an issue about publishing the most reliable information of the most potent version of the F-86, I say we go with the F-30-NA information from Wagner's book unless Stefano has a book IN ENGLISH with info on the later F-86F-40-NA. The 40 is probably a better plane than the 30, but if the info is not in an English language book, I'm afraid it can't be included. T96 grh 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I will have to be careful about idioms and colloquialisms, especially if they make no sense to a non-English speaker. When I said I am not getting involved in a "spitting match," it's an expression where I meant I am not disputing you. As to the actual F-86F sub type, there is a case to be made for either the F-86F-30-NA or F-86F-40-NA series. Whereas the -30 block had higher speeds, the later variant was considered a more capable dogfighter and was the last F series built, utilizing the combat experience of U.S. Air Force and other operators in providing the best maneuverability at high altitude matched with a slight decrease in top speeds. I have the specs on all the F-series from the F-86F-1-NA to F-86F-40-NA detailed in the Wagner book. Whichever one is the most appropriate is dependent on which one editors choose. My own opinion is that the F-86F-30-NA was the fastest but the F-86F-40-NA was the most potent. I will go with either one according to people's wishes. FWIW, again this is a minor issue that really doesn't require this amount of webspace, time and effort to decide, nonetheless, let's come up with a solution. Bzuk 21:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC).
Oh, did Wagner include the -40. Well, go with that one then. If the numbers agree with Baugher that Stefano references to, there should be little else to discuss, right? T96 grh 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1-Right.F-40. Other versions are liked as well, but 40 is the best.

2-All this could had been avoided, taking more seriously Aerei and Joe Baugher site and not reverting everything i write because my 'unrealiable sources' and 'harming Wikipedia tendencies' about square meters surface and so on.

For F-86H my enciclopedia, italian version of a british one gives:


6276--9912 kg.

1114kmh--3932m/min--835 km--2913 km--15,485 m.

J73-GE-3D 4046 kgs.

3-You have this reference?:

The North American Sabre, Ray Wagner, MacDonald, 1963.

One of the ten used by J. Baugher. This closes the circle. I bet, all the datas will still match, since all the source uses the same books.

Still i don't understand why nobody cares to read Baugher quotes.Bah.

5-Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. 'Should' is not 'must', 'preference' is not exclusive, above all 'assuming the availability of a English-language source of equal quality' talks about 'equal quality' not 'english and nothing else'. --Stefanomencarelli 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Stefano, you point out 'equal quality' above. A website is a less reliable source than a printed book - even if the website itself references a book. There is one extra step where the author of a website could have made a mistake copying information. In this case about the F-86, will probably turn out to be correct. T96 grh 09:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but:

1-you'll agree that probability about Aerei and Baugher mades the same mistake is very close to nil and a bit offensive for both these sources, made by professionists not teen-ageer at their fist work.

2-A web site can make an error, but differently to a book, it can be corrected in a matter of seconds. Joe Baugher site had over 300,000 visits in the last 8 years. Do you think that if errors happened they could hadn't been signaled and corrected?

3-There are hundreds thousands sites in wikipedia used regularly and not even with source referenced. They are not questioned, while one of the best and the few availables that gives a enciclopedic and professional work (if nothing else because he uses dozens books and sources) is 'not reliable enough'? I know, written sources should be preferred. But hell, a bit of good sense here! Only in F-86 page there are more than 40 web sources. Baugher cannot be under the average.

4-Books: are you sure that *every thing wrote in a book is automatically the truth*? There are a lot of mistakes in books. Just think about the ratio of 14:1 to Sabre, reported for decades, but scrapped to 4:1 or even less in the works made since 1970. If you present a 1960 book be sure that this was not still happened.

5-Also books are usually based on other operas: if you grab an history book, or a scientific one, you'll find bibliographies with dozens other books and operas: so the work to join these sources in a new opera is nothing new, and nobody assure that the new opera is free by errors. Remember, wiki search reference, not truth.

With a bit of good sense we could have avoided this discussion already with Aerei datas, and surely with Baugher datas coupled with the other site, still with the same datas as well. Three different sources stating the same stuff, a bit 'strange' for an unreliable source.

6-To cut the bull's head, for the sake of the 'verifiability' (wiki not asks for truth) cross the fingers and wait for finally datas of Bzuk, that arguably only will confirm what already is known, believe me.--Stefanomencarelli 11:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally we have Bzuk's datas. I know now why he did was not 'in agreement'. He stated that wing surface of Sabre was 95 m2..

He states that range was 1350 NM and simultaneusly 1900 km..

He states that 597 miles are still 1100 kmh..

I forget: he stated 687 miles, cleary a error, they must been 678 (also because 688 was the 'top speed' of normal F-86Fs, while F-40 wing was quite draggier).

I should roll-back this edit for the 'too many error' issue. It should deserved it. But i am 'different' to some others wikipedians here, and i am proud to be.

I says that, because, apart funny errors like these, all the datas matched with Aerei and Joe Baugher.

So i talk about warm water: after all these days, the datas are still the ones i stated. So i ask: with a bit of 'common sense' it worthed to censure me, because my 'unreliable' datas sources? Seriously, someone here should meditate about this question or i mistake something?

The phrase in our Baugher page: Baugher's articles on US aircraft are masterful works with a wealth of detail on all aspects, from the initial design phases to the ultimate fate of the built aircraft. means something to who roll-backs at first sight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talkcontribs) 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart this, here the text for F-86s Sabres in Italy. They are important, also because F-86K were used for half europe and G.91R born with a 'heavy influence' by F-86.


One of the main costumer was Italy, with a total of 179 delivered between 1955 and 1957. These aircrafts were Canadair Mk 2 and Mk 4 Sabre, and had a complex history being second-hand. They were put in service with RAF when this service struggled because Hawker Hunter and Supermarine Swift were still not available, while MiG-15s in Korea displayed all the obsolescence of Meteors and Vampires. So UK admitted this harassing situation and accepted, even if with reluctance, to order as 'intermin' some Canadair Sabres [1]. This was one of the greatest order ever, comprising 430 machines delivered between 1952 and 1956. They began in service too late for Korea, and served mainly in Germany[2]. Their employ was brief, because already in 1956 Hunters replaced them, so few memories remains of UK Sabres. 302 returned in USA between 1956 and 1958, repainted and sent to Yugoslavia and Italy. This latter received a total of 180 units between 1956 and 1957, but one crashed in delivery trip. The other 179 machines replaced swiftly the old F-84 and Vampires, and equipped[3]:

  • 4a Aerobrigata-Gruppi 9o, 10, 12o
  • 2o Stormo (later 2a Aerobrigata)-Gruppi 8o,13o 14o

Frecce tricolori had also six F-86s, painted in blue, from 1961 to 1964, when they were replaced with G.91Rs.

F-86s were liked and found basically similar to MB.326 in flight, more than G.91R. They were used as interceptors, and experimented the new Sispre C-7[4], the first italian missile. It was a short range AAM, with IR guidance, never entered in service but used as base for experimental atmosferic activity[5].

F-86K were the 'tactical' version of 'D' (they had guns insted of rocket-launchers), and were purchased to serve with NATO all-weather fighter units. They were new built ones, assembled by Fiat under license, with a contract signed on 16 May 1953. These interceptors had a quite effective radar and four 20 mm guns. Served in Italy with 6, 12, 17, 21, 22, 23 Gruppo from 1956 to at least 1964. A total of 224 were built, with 62 for AMI, 88 for the Luftwaffe and around sixty for Ad'lA and Nederlands airforce each. Around 20 ex-frenchs were put in Italian service few years lather[6].

In service, Sabres displayed good handling, but they were not too stables as firing platforms, rated quite inferior to the heavier F-84Fs Thunderstreak/Thunderflash[7]. They cannot intercept Camberras, capables to fly over 15 km altitude, and follow them led F-86s to stall smoothly[8]. F-86Ks were less agiles, but the after-burner was a powerful tool and they could reach, after a dive, an horizontal speed of mach 1,17[9]. Differently to F-86 day-fighters, these aircrafts had two AAMs AIM-9B Sidewinders (the C7 was not put in service).

F-86Ks had also a very good and user-friendly AI radar, pilots stated far more friendly-user and with similar range to F-104G[10]. Range was up to 74 km as theorical capability, but the effective range was realized with 10 miles scale, and varied between 12 and 22 km. It was very precise. F-86K required for the first time a very complex training, also because it was not available a two-seat version. Syllabus was 100 hours in T-33/RT-33, and for the first time, an air simulator. F-86K radar allowed to close to targets even in the mushrooms. but the aircraft itself lacked a TACAN and had only a ILS, so it required a very heavy workload for the pilot[11].

Another reason that led F-86s so much worthy in Italy was their importance for advanced aircrafts experience. The G.91R program was called also 'little Sabre' and resembled much the F-86, even if smaller and with special capabilities for not prepared runaways. In all the respects, Canadair F-86/F-86Ks were really a key element for the italian industry and military aviation, also because they were all delivered in MDAP programs, with conditions much simplified and economic[12]:.


Baugher encyclopedia about F-86s: F-86KCanadair F-86

About C7 missiles: C7 [[12]] [13]

About Sabre service:

Ieramanno, Roberto, Sabre Day Fighter, Aerei April 1994 pag 32-26

Gianvanni, Piero, Special F-104, Ed.Ai. editions, Florence, 1998.--Stefanomencarelli 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this section is workable, and I'm willing to work on it, but Stefano, you still don't understand how to do sources. Sticking them at the end of an article is not sufficient. A footnote for the source needs to be attached to the sentence that you got from the source. If you'll go back and do that, then I'll get to work on cleaning up the paragraphs. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But no, it's obvious that this paragraph was written without caring to sourcing. It's just a text proposed in a talk, after all.C7 missile is really intriguing, as i never heard of it before, but this is told by several sources, not just Baugher.

  • In F-86 page someone could say to mr. Bzuk that i am affected by LOL every time i see 95m2 for F-86 wing surface? I understant that not all the sources matches, but hell, this is matched with B-47 rather than F-86.
  • 597 NM where cames from? It must been miles (land miles) not Nautical miles. What's the point to give max speed above the sea level and Nautical miles for high altitude? Obviously it's not true, and once time, long ago aircraft performances were on miles, not knots. One time i hope they will be in kmh.
  • 687 miles for F-40 at low alt while the standard F had 688 in not credible as well. The difference quoted by Baugher is 9 miles, and this makes sense: who should been worried with a one mile loss speed? Instead, there was a bit concern for 9 miles loss, but still far compensed with low speed handling. If there was just one mile, who would be worried? --Stefanomencarelli 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The specifications table for the F-86F-40-NA in the F-86 Sabre article now corresponds to the published charts from the Standard Aircraft Characteristics (S.A.C.) charts prepared by the U.S. Air Force and North American Aviation NA54-389 (revised 1 May 1957) provided in Wagner's landmark work, The North American Sabre (1963). Where there may be errors is entirely my fault in converting measurements to metric equivalents. FWIW Bzuk 21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

Ok i know that everything i write is 'closesly' followed. Now, approfiting of this for once, i want to fit the above paragraph in the main page. Before it happens, someone is able to intervent here and eventually discuss the thing? If not, i'll post it soon. --Stefanomencarelli 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • ^ Baugher, Canadair F-86
    • ^ Baugher, Canadair F-86
    • ^ Baugher, Canadair F-86
    • ^ Baugher, Canadair F-86
    • ^ Astronautix, C7
    • ^ Baugher, F-86K
    • ^ Iermanno, P.35
    • ^ Iermanno, P.35
    • ^ Gianvanni, p.5
    • ^ Gianvanni, p.6
    • ^ Gianvanni, p.6
    • ^ Baugher, Canadair F-86