Mikoyan ATL designs Ye-152, MiG-23, MiG-25

L

lancer21

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
9 January 2010
Messages
672
Reaction score
401
I will take them in turn:

Ye-152
What if it will be put in production? I have read that the R-15 engine was initially very problematic, so how about just sticking with the twin engine version powered by the R-11F engines initially? Do you think they have a reasonable chance of fixing the R-21F from the Ye-8 by about 1964-65 when i expect my Ye-152 to be in production? Or perhaps have an earlier R-13-300 if they focus on it? Would it worth having it instead of the rather poor Yak-28, or indeed massive Tu-28 (i know why they built it, but they could easily have two smaller, faster interceptors for every clunky Tu-28, they would have to built more airfields in the North though, or if not just adopt in-flight refueling for at least some interceptors)

MiG-23
How much weight would they save if they just use a fixed wing but with high lift devices to give as much STOL capability as reasonably possible, perhaps similar in planform to the one on MiG-25, or perhaps inspired by the Mirage F1/F2 wing, or indeed perhaps something like Mikoyan studied later for this pretty bird below?(basically a fixed wing MiG-23 design from the early seventies). Based on what i can read around, it seems they could easily save 1000kg, possibly significantly more in empty weight, which can be used to either improve performance, or take some stress of the engine, it will not need so much power so the engine could be made a bit less powerful hence more durable etc.

MiG-25
How much weight would they save if they relax the speed requirement and build it in conventional alloys rather than steel? What would be the maximum speed feasible with conventional alloys of the day, M2,5 or so? As to the engine, perhaps then instead of the humongous if impressive R-15s, how about two afterburning early D-30F of about 10,000-11,000kgf (based on the first D-30 version, just stick a burner to it)?
 
Last edited:
lancer21 said:
I will take them in turn:

Ye-152
What if it will be put in production? I have read that the R-15 engine was initially very problematic, so how about just sticking with the twin engine version powered by the R-11F engines initially? Do you think they have a reasonable chance of fixing the R-21F from the Ye-8 by about 1964-65 when i expect my Ye-152 to be in production? Or perhaps have an earlier R-13-300 if they focus on it? Would it worth having it instead of the rather poor Yak-28, or indeed massive Tu-28 (i know why they built it, but they could easily have two smaller, faster interceptors for every clunky Tu-28, they would have to built more airfields in the North though, or if not just adopt in-flight refueling for at least some interceptors)
Click to expand...

Ye-152 was pushing the 'tube with wings' layout too much IMO. Granted, the Yak jet fighters were meh.

lancer21 said:
MiG-23
How much weight would they save if they just use a fixed wing but with high lift devices to give as much STOL capability as reasonably possible, perhaps similar in planform to the one on MiG-25, or perhaps inspired by the Mirage F1/F2 wing, or indeed perhaps something like Mikoyan studied later for this pretty bird below?
Click to expand...

Now we're talking. The 'big Mirage F.1' is a suggestion what I've made a few times before. It keeps aircraft simple to design and produce, that brings the cost and risk down, that in return makes easier to phase out all the MiG-15/-17-19 fighters in an affordable fashion. No need to twice redesign the wing box (wonderful), the fighter can do 9G more easily that a VG fighter without titanium wing box (as the F-14 had; again, great).

lancer21 said:
MiG-25
How much weight would they save if they relax the speed requirement and build it in conventional alloys rather than steel? What would be the maximum speed feasible with conventional alloys of the day, M2,5 or so? As to the engine, perhaps then instead of the humongous if impressive R-15s, how about two afterburning early D-30F of about 10,000-11,000kgf (based on the first D-30 version, just stick a burner to it)?
Click to expand...

Very high speed was the reason why MiG-25 was made in the 1st place.
We can certainly see the 'Flogger lite' version of it for early 1970s, even with R-35F-300 engines and greater application of duraluminium alloys. Likely to shave a few tons from the empty weight, and still as fast as F-14 or F-15.
 
lancer21 said:
Ye-152
What if it will be put in production? I have read that the R-15 engine was initially very problematic, so how about just sticking with the twin engine version powered by the R-11F engines initially? Do you think they have a reasonable chance of fixing the R-21F from the Ye-8 by about 1964-65 when i expect my Ye-152 to be in production? Or perhaps have an earlier R-13-300 if they focus on it? Would it worth having it instead of the rather poor Yak-28, or indeed massive Tu-28 (i know why they built it, but they could easily have two smaller, faster interceptors for every clunky Tu-28, they would have to built more airfields in the North though, or if not just adopt in-flight refueling for at least some interceptors)
Click to expand...
The engines were only half the problems of the Ye-150 series - the fire control system was a dud as well, with among other things issues developing the electronics and missiles.

lancer21 said:
MiG-23
How much weight would they save if they just use a fixed wing but with high lift devices to give as much STOL capability as reasonably possible, perhaps similar in planform to the one on MiG-25, or perhaps inspired by the Mirage F1/F2 wing, or indeed perhaps something like Mikoyan studied later for this pretty bird below?(basically a fixed wing MiG-23 design from the early seventies). Based on what i can read around, it seems they could easily save 1000kg, possibly significantly more in empty weight, which can be used to either improve performance, or take some stress of the engine, it will not need so much power so the engine could be made a bit less powerful hence more durable etc.
Click to expand...
The problem is that such a fixed wing would, for the desired short-field performance, by necessity be larger and draggier, cancelling out any performance gains from the lighter weight. And in any case, the long-standing teething problems of the MiG-23 generally had little to do with the VG wing and the engines.

lancer21 said:
MiG-25
How much weight would they save if they relax the speed requirement and build it in conventional alloys rather than steel? What would be the maximum speed feasible with conventional alloys of the day, M2,5 or so? As to the engine, perhaps then instead of the humongous if impressive R-15s, how about two afterburning early D-30F of about 10,000-11,000kgf (based on the first D-30 version, just stick a burner to it)?
Click to expand...
The USAF, during development of the Eagle, estimated that you could push a fighter to Mach 2.7 before you had to start using advanced heat-resistant materials.

A D-30 variant would likely cause significant delays in the MiG-25. The original D-30 models only barely ran before the MiG-25 took flight, and "just stick a burner on it" shows you don't understand how complicated turning a non-afterburning civil engine into an afterburning military engine is. The Volvo RM8 shows the effort needed: the Swedes had to redesign basically every part in the JT8D it was based on so it would be suitable for supersonic flight.
 
CV12Hornet said:
And in any case, the long-standing teething problems of the MiG-23 generally had little to do with the VG wing and the engines.
Click to expand...

After the mid-air disintegration(s?), the 1st redesign of the wing box was done. After another occurances of the same problem, it was re-designed for the 2nd time. No ability to do 9G even after the 2nd redesign.
 
tomo pauk said:
After the mid-air disintegration(s?), the 1st redesign of the wing box was done. After another occurances of the same problem, it was re-designed for the 2nd time. No ability to do 9G even after the 2nd redesign.
Click to expand...
Given the constant AOA and stability problems, I'm not convinced a fixed wing is going to solve the maneuverability problems, since they seem to be at least as heavily tied to aerodynamic issues.

That's not to say the wing box wasn't a problem, but going back to my earlier wording: I said little to do with the VG wing. It was only one of about a thousand problems that plagued the MiG-23 to the end of its service life.
 
lancer21 said:
MiG-23
How much weight would they save if they just use a fixed wing but with high lift devices to give as much STOL capability as reasonably possible, perhaps similar in planform to the one on MiG-25, or perhaps inspired by the Mirage F1/F2 wing, or indeed perhaps something like Mikoyan studied later for this pretty bird below?(basically a fixed wing MiG-23 design from the early seventies). Based on what i can read around, it seems they could easily save 1000kg, possibly significantly more in empty weight, which can be used to either improve performance, or take some stress of the engine, it will not need so much power so the engine could be made a bit less powerful hence more durable etc.
Click to expand...

So T-6?

973a0f71efe2a6da06a1c162341b74f5.jpg
 
Which, for those who aren't familiar with it, ditched the fixed-wing planform and went variable-geometry to get a smoother ride at low level. Which, admittedly, isn't really the concern for the MiG-23.
 
sferrin said:
tomo pauk said:
sferrin said:
So T-6?
Click to expand...

Wing was unlike what the MiG-25 had, ditto for the wing of Mirage F1 - as were the suggestions by the fellow member.
Click to expand...
Guess you missed this part, "just use a fixed wing but with high lift devices to give as much STOL capability as reasonably possible".
Click to expand...

We can use the high lift devices on a wing with less aggressive sweep, and/or on a wing with reasonable area ws. weight. The T-6's wing checked neither of those boxes.
 
tomo pauk said:
sferrin said:
tomo pauk said:
sferrin said:
So T-6?
Click to expand...

Wing was unlike what the MiG-25 had, ditto for the wing of Mirage F1 - as were the suggestions by the fellow member.
Click to expand...
Guess you missed this part, "just use a fixed wing but with high lift devices to give as much STOL capability as reasonably possible".
Click to expand...

We can use the high lift devices on a wing with less aggressive sweep, and/or on a wing with reasonable area ws. weight. The T-6's wing checked neither of those boxes.
Click to expand...
ptdjpe81uz961.jpg

mig23pd-1.jpg

mig23pd-4.jpg
 
sferrin said:
mig23pd-4.jpg
Click to expand...

What the lift-only engines have with "high lift devices on a wing with less aggressive sweep, and/or on a wing with reasonable area ws. weight"?
 
tomo pauk said:
sferrin said:
Why do you think they went with a swing-wing? It's not like they'd never heard of blown flaps and such before.
Click to expand...

Not the 1st time, and certainly not the last time a technical company made a decision that looked great, but not so great once in production and/or in service.
Click to expand...
You say that as if the MiG-23 were an aberration. Lots of other people came to the same conclusion, i.e. swing-wings are the way to go.
 
sferrin said:
You say that as if the MiG-23 were an aberration. Lots of other people came to the same conclusion, i.e. swing-wings are the way to go.
Click to expand...

Many more of the others said 'why bother'.
F-14 used the titanium wing box, welded by the machines custom-made by Boeing for the STT transport aircraft. Applying titanium on a fighter that was to replace the affordable MiG-17/-19/early -21s was not done (for obvious reasons), necessitating two redesigns of the wing box due to mid-air disintegrations of early MiG-23s. Still unable to do 9G maneuvers even after the 2nd redesign.
MiG company never again made a swing-wing fighter, ditto for Sukhoi. West saw only one fighter in service with swing-wing as-designed.
 
I have been distracted recently by everything hapening around now, but let me just say that i'm rather bwildered by on one hand rightly seing VG use on MiG-23 as a mistake, but on the other hand the VG wings on F-14 claimed to be having some kind of magical properties. MiG-23, Su-24 and even Su-17 showed significant increases in weight when switching from the non-VG prototypes. So going the other way, imo absolutely no doubt that a non-VG F-14 would be significantly lighter (especially beneficial given it's very poor initial TW ratio), laws of physics don't care if the plane is russian or american or whatever, they are the same for all.

Note that after the F-14 the americans never built another VG fighter, same for USSR , and everyone else. Others more technically minded can go into it more deeply, but obviously, in the end VG just doesn't worth the expense and complications, especially for a
fighter. Btw the Mirage F1 that i use a yardstick here, as i understand it turns better than a MiG-21 (iirc 17 deg/sec vs 13 deg/sec), and implicitly than MiG-23 (which even in the best versions apparently turns about as good as MiG-21). So a fixed wing, significantly lighter MiG-23 with a moderate sweep wing akin to the Mirage one, should at least be turning better than the delta wing MiG-21 isn't it?
 
Last edited:
lancer21 said:
Note that after the F-14 the americans never built another VG fighter, same for USSR , and everyone else. Other more technically minded can go into it more deeply, but obviously, in the end VG just doesn't worth the expense and complications, especially for a a fighter. Btw the Mirage F1 that i use a yardstick here, as i understand it turns better than a MiG-21 (iirc 17 deg/sec vs 13 deg/sec), and implicitly than MiG-23 (which even in the best versions apparently turns about as good as MiG-21). So a fixed wing, significantly lighter MiG-23 with a moderate sweep wing akin to the Mirage one, should at least be turning better than the delta wing MiG-21 isn't it?
Click to expand...
On paper, yes. In practice, the MiG-23's maneuverability problems were not solely the province of the weak wing box and wing design - the ML had to aerodynamically redesign to the fuselage, too, and still was a poor turn fighter afterwards. And the ML was on the plane's third wing design.

As for why variable-sweep wings died out, tech advances - computer-based automatic flight controls and more spare thrust - meant that designers didn't have to put up with the compromises inherent in variable-sweep wings, and so didn't.
 
CV12Hornet said:
A D-30 variant would likely cause significant delays in the MiG-25. The original D-30 models only barely ran before the MiG-25 took flight, and "just stick a burner on it" shows you don't understand how complicated turning a non-afterburning civil engine into an afterburning military engine is. The Volvo RM8 shows the effort needed: the Swedes had to redesign basically every part in the JT8D it was based on so it would be suitable for supersonic flight.
Click to expand...

While overall i appreciate your posts, i took issue with your rather presumptuous "shows you don't understand how complicated turning a non-afterburning civil engine...etc."comment. Of course it's not easy, but USSR is an aeronautical powerhouse, so if they gave priority to such a D-30 project, they would have made it work. Facts are in 1966 Soloviev started the design of the D30F, rated at 11500kgf. Demonstrator engine (izdelyie 38? i have to recheck) was already running in 1967 and testing continued for several years. As i understand it this demonstrator helped pave the way to the larger 15,500kg D30F6 for MiG-31. Meanwhile various afterburning D-30F variants were in contention to power the future Su-27/T-10, ratings evaluated were between 11,000 and 13,000kgf iirc, but in the end the AL-31F was chosen. Also D-30F was in contention to power Su-17 variants (early seventies), but eventually they stuck with AL-21F.

So yes, i contend that if started early enough (original D-30 was running in 1963), an afterburner 11,500 kgf D-30F might power my ATL slower, lighter MiG-25 in time for production in the late sixties. Meanwhile they can perhaps use couple of 10,000kgf AL-7Fs for the prototypes, it's smaller and lighter at about 2000kg than the 2400kg R-15.

Hmmm... this could even transform into some kind of D-30 wank, USSR gets a tactical aircraft turbofan engine 10 years early, powering MiG-25, MiG-23, Su-17, Su-24 etc.
 
lancer21 said:
While overall i appreciate your posts, i took issue with your rather presumptuous "shows you don't understand how complicated turning a non-afterburning civil engine...etc."comment. Of course it's not easy, but USSR is an aeronautical powerhouse, so if they gave priority to such a D-30 project, they would have made it work. Facts are in 1966 Soloviev started the design of the D30F, rated at 11500kgf. Demonstrator engine (izdelyie 38? i have to recheck) was already running in 1967 and testing continued for several years. As i understand it this demonstrator helped pave the way to the larger 15,500kg D30F6 for MiG-31. Meanwhile various afterburning D-30F variants were in contention to power the future Su-27/T-10, ratings evaluated were between 11,000 and 13,000kgf iirc, but in the end the AL-31F was chosen. Also D-30F was in contention to power Su-17 variants (early seventies), but eventually they stuck with AL-21F.

So yes, i contend that if started early enough (original D-30 was running in 1963), an afterburner 11,500 kgf D-30F might power my ATL slower, lighter MiG-25 in time for production in the late sixties. Meanwhile they can perhaps use couple of 10,000kgf AL-7Fs for the prototypes, it's smaller and lighter at about 2000kg than the 2400kg R-15.

Hmmm... this could even transform into some kind of D-30 wank, USSR gets a tactical aircraft turbofan engine 10 years early, powering MiG-25, MiG-23, Su-17, Su-24 etc.
Click to expand...
The MiG-25 was already flying with the R-15 engine in 1964; 1966/1967 is still too late to get your notional afterburning D-30 onto the MiG-25. And I still contend that the D-30 first running in 1963 is too late for an afterburning variant to be used on the MiG-25; the R-15 itself was developed in the late 1950s and gives an estimate for how long such an extensive redesign needs to be done in advance, as the R-15 itself needed extensive rework to run at variable fighter speeds.

As for the AL-7F, while that engine was lighter than the R-15 it's also bulkier (allegedly; I admittedly can't find a source on the engine's dimensions outside of Wikipedia): 51 inches in diameter versus 38, and 262 inches in length versus 246. I also suspect the Soviets thought the R-15 would be better for the sort of extended high-speed flight the MiG-25 was expected to engage in.
 
In the case of the MiG-23, what about incorporating the wing design principles of the Su-17 - part fixed/part VG, as opposed to a full-blown, full length VG wing design?
In this way it wouldn't have to be shoulder-mounted, and a simpler main landing gear design could be used, equating to more fuselage space for fuel (always in need of Soviet fighters.)

Regards
Pioneer
 
BLACK_MAMBA said:
tomo pauk said:
Who else designed and produced a swing-wing land-based fighter?
Click to expand...
France dabbled with the Mirage G series... The Tornado ADV comes to mind...

Yes, prototypes and maybe not the best dogfigter, but still swing wing & land based fighters.
Click to expand...

Tornado ADV was a bomber turned into a fighter, not a bespoke fighter.
Fortunately for Dassault's piggyback, the Mirage Gs were not produced as a service machines
 
tomo pauk said:
Tornado ADV was a bomber turned into a fighter, not a bespoke fighter.
Click to expand...
Six roles originally defined at the start of the MRCA project
- source http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/aircraft/types/type-details/panavia-tornado-ids.htm

The Tornado was originally designed to fulfill six different roles. After the Tornado went into service another role was defined; defense suppression, Italy and Germany procured the purpose built Electronic Combat Reconnaissance (ECR) version. This type is armed with the High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). The six original roles were:
1. Interdiction Strike.
2. Counter Air Strike
3. Battlefield Interdiction
4. Close Air Support
5. Reconnaissance
6. Interception

This last role was not taken up but the RAF went one step further and developed the Air Defense Variant (ADV) now called the Tornado F.3.​
Click to expand...
Adaptation of the Tornado's basic design to interception was factored in from the start.
 
Pioneer said:
In the case of the MiG-23, what about incorporating the wing design principles of the Su-17 - part fixed/part VG, as opposed to a full-blown, full length VG wing design?
In this way it wouldn't have to be shoulder-mounted, and a simpler main landing gear design could be used, equating to more fuselage space for fuel (always in need of Soviet fighters.)

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
The MiG-23 would benefit from taller, more robust main landing gear more than simpler - the landing gear track was rather too narrow and the airplane too low to the ground. It seems the new wing setup would allow for that, so yes, that would be a benefit.
 
Kind of odd to hear the MiG-23 described as a VG mistake. They made over 5,000 of them -- the engineers looking at real data during those decades just weren't as smart as our forum heads, I suppose.
How would you get the short-field performance, for example, the Soviets desired without VG?
 
tomo pauk said:
Tornado ADV was a bomber turned into a fighter, not a bespoke fighter.
Fortunately for Dassault's piggyback, the Mirage Gs were not produced as a service machines
Click to expand...
The question however still was "designed and built a VG fighter" which the ADV was even though it really came out a decade too late in the middle of the FBW era. I already admitted it wasn't the perfect fighter, but it fits the description. Arjen however gave a more historically complete answer.

_Del_ said:
Kind of odd to hear the MiG-23 described as a VG mistake. They made over 5,000 of them -- the engineers looking at real data during those decades just weren't as smart as our forum heads, I suppose.
How would you get the short-field performance, for example, the Soviets desired without VG?
Click to expand...
It is a funny thing on the internet. Soviet engineers were no fools and persisted with improving the Mig-23 over decades, yet today we question even their initial reasoning without deep consideration for the requirements that birthed the idea. If the design was that inherently flawed there would have been plenty chance to revise it, but they didn't... That could only mean that it met the Soviet requirements for it like short rough field performance etc! NATO didn't have the same requirements apart from the F-14's unique environment so it doesn't surprise me that they never delved that deep into VG. Later better design capabilities and the growth of computers negated any advantage VG held so the idea pretty much died.
 
_Del_ said:
Kind of odd to hear the MiG-23 described as a VG mistake. They made over 5,000 of them -- the engineers looking at real data during those decades just weren't as smart as our forum heads, I suppose.
How would you get the short-field performance, for example, the Soviets desired without VG?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's always amusing watching people arm-chair quarterback how terrible and "obsolete" VG aircraft are. As if nobody ever considered the pros and cons over the last half a century.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
tomo pauk said:
sferrin said:
tomo pauk said:
sferrin said:
So T-6?
Click to expand...

Wing was unlike what the MiG-25 had, ditto for the wing of Mirage F1 - as were the suggestions by the fellow member.
Click to expand...
Guess you missed this part, "just use a fixed wing but with high lift devices to give as much STOL capability as reasonably possible".
Click to expand...

We can use the high lift devices on a wing with less aggressive sweep, and/or on a wing with reasonable area ws. weight. The T-6's wing checked neither of those boxes.
Click to expand...
View attachment 674831

View attachment 674832

View attachment 674833
Click to expand...
What is the name/designation of the aircraft in these pictures? I am trying to find more photos but I cant search properly because I don't know the name.
 
Phantom Fanatic said:
sferrin said:
tomo pauk said:
sferrin said:
tomo pauk said:
sferrin said:
So T-6?
Click to expand...

Wing was unlike what the MiG-25 had, ditto for the wing of Mirage F1 - as were the suggestions by the fellow member.
Click to expand...
Guess you missed this part, "just use a fixed wing but with high lift devices to give as much STOL capability as reasonably possible".
Click to expand...

We can use the high lift devices on a wing with less aggressive sweep, and/or on a wing with reasonable area ws. weight. The T-6's wing checked neither of those boxes.
Click to expand...
View attachment 674831

View attachment 674832

View attachment 674833
Click to expand...
What is the name/designation of the aircraft in these pictures? I am trying to find more photos but I cant search properly because I don't know the name.
Click to expand...
MiG Faithless will get you there.
 
sferrin said:
Phantom Fanatic said:
sferrin said:
tomo pauk said:
sferrin said:
tomo pauk said:
sferrin said:
So T-6?
Click to expand...

Wing was unlike what the MiG-25 had, ditto for the wing of Mirage F1 - as were the suggestions by the fellow member.
Click to expand...
Guess you missed this part, "just use a fixed wing but with high lift devices to give as much STOL capability as reasonably possible".
Click to expand...

We can use the high lift devices on a wing with less aggressive sweep, and/or on a wing with reasonable area ws. weight. The T-6's wing checked neither of those boxes.
Click to expand...
View attachment 674831

View attachment 674832

View attachment 674833
Click to expand...
What is the name/designation of the aircraft in these pictures? I am trying to find more photos but I cant search properly because I don't know the name.
Click to expand...
MiG Faithless will get you there.
Click to expand...
thank you very much!
 
Technically its the Mikoyan-Gurevich Izdeliye 23-01 or MiG-23PD (first MiG-23 prototype).

Made 27 flights in total, which proved the idea wasn't great.
 
Last edited:
My first thought was that the MiG-23PD looks very much like a Mirage F1, with lower mounted wings. I wonder if the removal of the lift fan and the mounting of the wings and a more powerful engine could have improved (and possibly simplified the design). It could be that the parameters laid out by the VVS were too dissimilar from a Mirage F1 style fighter.
 
The MiG had a much better engine than the Mirage, just ask the South Africans who were left behind in the dust, over Angola... my bet would be on a fixed wing MiG-23. Can't do any bad to the manoeuvrability, although it may cripple the STOL capability. Talking about the Mirage F1 again, it had honest-to-god STOL capabilities, even with a fixed wing.
Or you could do a VG wing MiG-23 the right way from the beginning, and that would be... a Mirage G. It touched down at 108 kt once.

Dassault just like MiG and Sukhoi, same year 1966 learned to hate lift jets with the III-V. Eight lift jets plus one TF30 of Tomcat and F-111 reputation (shudders...) plus one APU, total 10 engines. Test pilot Jean Marie Saget noted how much a giant PITA it was to get all ten engines working together at takeoff.
 
Archibald said:
The MiG had a much better engine than the Mirage, just ask the South Africans who were left behind in the dust, over Angola... my bet would be on a fixed wing MiG-23. Can't do any bad to the manoeuvrability, although it may cripple the STOL capability. Talking about the Mirage F1 again, it had honest-to-god STOL capabilities, even with a fixed wing.
Or you could do a VG wing MiG-23 the right way from the beginning, and that would be... a Mirage G. It touched down at 108 kt once
Click to expand...
I think ditching the STOL would be worth it to make a better MiG. I would also say that a bubble canopy would be nice too, that problem plagued the MiG-23/27 family.
 
Soviet engineers knew they had weak engines so overall went with less drag and long runways. Swingwings didn't change the need for either design element, but at the time everyone was exploring the swingwing concept so it was a necessity by perception. If only someone had explored ramp takeoffs...
 
MadRat said:
Soviet engineers knew they had weak engines so overall went with less drag and long runways. Swingwings didn't change the need for either design element, but at the time everyone was exploring the swingwing concept so it was a necessity by perception. If only someone had explored ramp takeoffs...
Click to expand...
Yeah poor engines seem have been and still be a problem for the Soviets and later the Russians. Soviet single engine jet development culminated in the MiG-21. The Tumansky engine seems to have worked out. After that they could not build a single engine production Jet that was better (I posit that the MiG-23 did not live up to the task of replacing the MiG-21). Any thoughts?
 
Phantom Fanatic said:
Yeah poor engines seem have been and still be a problem for the Soviets and later the Russians. Soviet single engine jet development culminated in the MiG-21. The Tumansky engine seems to have worked out. After that they could not build a single engine production Jet that was better (I posit that the MiG-23 did not live up to the task of replacing the MiG-21). Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Enines were powerful enough from mid-1960s on.
MiG-23 should've looked like a 'baby MiG-25' - fixed wings, slanted intakes, obviously just one engine. Cuts on development time and cost, cuts the manufacturing and maintenance cost, too. Yes, it might get to M 2.1-2.2 instead of M 2.3, and will need another 300 m for take off and landing, so be it.
Yes, MiG-23 was unable to replace the MiG-21 in the 1:1 ratio.

Furthermore, instead of MiG-29 as we know it, the company should've designed the Soviet F-16. Or even the Soviet F-20. The MiG-29 as we know it was even less capable of replacing the MiG-21 fleets around the world. MiG-31 and Su-27 are more than capable to cover the 'high' part of the high-low mix.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom