MiG MFI / I-90 - MiG 1.44 / MiG 1.42

It's almost sad to see that thing like that. I wonder what happened to the Su-47. Is that thing parked on display like that too?
 
AAAdrone said:
I wonder what happened to the Su-47.
Click to expand...
the same...it wil barely fly again...
top photo taken during last MAKS by Marina Lystceva
 

Attachments

  • 005haprx.jpg
    005haprx.jpg
    56.1 KB · Views: 1,624
  • su-47.jpg
    su-47.jpg
    115.9 KB · Views: 1,621
What Su-27 airframe is that seen besides the S-47 ?? ... is it the one with these boxy engine-exhausts ??

Deino
 
It's really interesting how these projects in Russia always end up being nothing more than tech demonstrators that end up being placed in a pseudo-boneyard to be forgotten.
 
overscan said:
These pictures (from Paralay's site) appear to show the TsAGI test model which was seen by visiting French engineers and others in the early 90s and which generated the first speculative 3 views of S-32.
Click to expand...

Just my observation - but this TsAGI test model looks very Rockwell X-29 influenced!

Regards
Pioneer
 
Matej said:
And Yak MFI? In other words, why not to move the cockpit a bit forward, at least by half meter? As you can see, the WT model of the KFX has the meaningful shape, so I am trying to figure out, if it is the same case as with the Yak MFI model (because currently it is the only available source of the information about Yakovlev MFI entry).
Click to expand...


The answer to this question:


this Yak design had an additional lift engine in front on the cockpit and behind the radar, and a tilting rear nozzle, for ultra-STOL. It is not certain if it really is MFI timeframe or later, in the 1990s.


http://www.paralay.com/lfsyak.html
 
overscan said:
Matej said:
And Yak MFI? In other words, why not to move the cockpit a bit forward, at least by half meter? As you can see, the WT model of the KFX has the meaningful shape, so I am trying to figure out, if it is the same case as with the Yak MFI model (because currently it is the only available source of the information about Yakovlev MFI entry).
Click to expand...


The answer to this question:


this Yak design had an additional lift engine in front on the cockpit and behind the radar, and a tilting rear nozzle, for ultra-STOL. It is not certain if it really is MFI timeframe or later, in the 1990s.


http://www.paralay.com/lfsyak.html
Click to expand...


Interesting, as arguably the F-35B is moving in the direction of ultra-STOL for real-world operations rather than STOVL (let alone VTOL) due to weight growth. Or is/was rolling landing strictly a RN thing?
 
Back then if someone would have said, "the Russian one won't look like that but the Chinese one will resemble it somewhat" it would have shocked more than a few people.
 
now it confirmed by MiG business proposal documents that 1.44 was MiG-39
 
Oh - neat to finally have the designation. I always thought it was a beautiful plane.

The article above mentions U.S. analysis expecting 16 control surfaces... any idea what they could be? Two rudders, two trimmers on the rudders, four leading edge devices, two canards, two ailerons and two flaperons (or elevons or elevflaperons or whatever) still only gives 14 control surfaces... which is probably a high count anyway? Maybe they were including 2d thrust vectoring?
 
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/26/russias_mysterious_first_stealth_fighter_found_on_bing_maps
 
It's standing there for ages as well as on Google and Yandex maps. Maybe it's just little bit better shot quality at Bingo.
 
Next week Foregn Policy will discover existence of S-37...
 
Any info on this type ???
 

Attachments

  • Russian concept pre T50.JPG
    Russian concept pre T50.JPG
    46.7 KB · Views: 1,230
Some moreon the SLM-22/SLM-32 and DM 5.12 test models.


In 1987-1988, we received an order from the OKB. PO Dry for the development and construction of such a model to dynamically flying fighter of the 5th generation, which then did not have another name. Our model of this aircraft called SLM-22. According to the recommendations of experts and TsAGI OKB. PO Dry model should have a scale 1/4 of the future of the aircraft, forward-swept wing, similar to the control system. Mass model increased to 900 kg. It was necessary to revise the method of landing such a heavy model and the way to start, as we apply methods before landing and launch from an aircraft carrier for such weight model and its dimensions were not good.
During 1987, was built two models of SLM-22 and executed on these three flights. These models do not have a motor. Running the models was carried out with the help of a helicopter, which is raised to a height of model 6 ... 8 km. The model was suspended from a helicopter on the cable length of 40m. After separation from the suspension of the helicopter model was part of a nose dive and as a required rate of transition to an investigational flight mode. Landing models used the following scheme: after the end of the planned research while reducing to a dangerous height automatically produced from the tail section of a torus of synchrotron-parachute. After slowing down a flight or fall pattern to the desired values produced main landing parachute. Model landed horizontally on three shock absorber. Delivery model after flight experiments on the so-called technical position or, more simply, the base was carried out also on the suspension of the helicopter. Received the materials testing, OKB. PO Sukhoi has made significant changes in the external forms of the created aircraft.
before us was given the task - to quickly develop and build a new model for the aircraft and install it on a jet engine. Subject to change almost all of the external contour. Practically had to build a new flying dynamically similar model.
At the end of 1991, this model was built. It was called we SLM-32. It was a model of the future fighter P-37. Model made eight flights was obtained extensive data on the characteristics of the simulated aircraft. According to the results of flight tests of the model have been made significant adjustments to the design of future aircraft.
During these years, OKB. AI Mikoyan began working on the fifth generation fighter. We also received an order to build a flying dynamically similar model designed aircraft, which had the name "5.12". Future aircraft had scheme "duck" with a front driven horizontal tail. According to the technical task of the model must have a scale 1/4 of the future aircraft and weight 900 kg.
For OKB AI Mikoyan work was carried out in 1979 - 1989 years. Models in this series are designed for the MiG-29, MiG-29UB, MiG-29S. Just tested 13 variants of models with different variants of the geometry of the aircraft, avionics, controls, external suspension, mass and center of gravity. Models were carried out following the program experi-mental studies:
study of stability, controllability, corkscrew, inference methods of spin, in particular by the "swing";
research on the effectiveness of controls, including vortex generators;
research new methods for improving the stability and councils-lyaemosti at high angles of attack (mode "super maneuverability").
We have built two model airplane 5.12 which we called DM 5.12. Models do not have the motor. Way to start a flight and landing were similar to flying model SLM-32. Unlike the SLM-32 - on the number of modes used not one parachute large area, and three conventional rescue parachute. So it was cheaper. First as shock absorbers used inflatable bags. Research for flying model aircraft for 5.12 took place in the period 1987-1992. Was performed 10 operations of this model. Worked out the layout of the future aircraft control laws, and most importantly - the flights were investigated at high angles of attack at stall and a corkscrew. The results obtained make it possible-poured to make substantial modifications to the aircraft of the future.
Click to expand...

 

Attachments

  • m_dm512.jpg
    m_dm512.jpg
    8 KB · Views: 3,067
  • m_slm32.jpg
    m_slm32.jpg
    7.5 KB · Views: 3,056
  • u_sml-22.gif
    u_sml-22.gif
    73.8 KB · Views: 2,130
Soon the cutaway 1 44 MiG look forward to it ......!!

Motocar
 
In regards to the wedged air intake featured on drawings of the 1-42 design wouldn't it have been easier to add euro-fighter stealthy smiley face air intake features on the final fighter. To test the square intakes on the 1-44 and than have to re-test wedge shaped intakes later seems strange. Adding the euro-fighter style intake doesn't seem like that radical of a change to the original design. Below is a euro-fighter intake and the 1-44 intake covered with tarps the tarps make an optical illusion to the intake making it look like a stealthy smiley face design.
 

Attachments

  • 4078167545_47fc90de10_b.jpg
    4078167545_47fc90de10_b.jpg
    358.4 KB · Views: 1,265
  • 138772303290216548225_055905.jpg
    138772303290216548225_055905.jpg
    225.3 KB · Views: 1,353
Empire said:
In regards to the wedged air intake featured on drawings of the 1-42 design wouldn't it have been easier to add euro-fighter stealthy smiley face air intake features on the final fighter. To test the square intakes on the 1-44 and than have to re-test wedge shaped intakes later seems strange. Adding the euro-fighter style intake doesn't seem like that radical of a change to the original design. Below is a euro-fighter intake and the 1-44 intake covered with tarps the tarps make an optical illusion to the intake making it look like a stealthy smiley face design.
Click to expand...


It depends on the reasons for doing so. If the reason was to have a more efficient inlet at higher Mach numbers, then the method they were pursuing was the better design. I don't think they were too concerned with the LO signature of the 1-42/1-44 design.
 
I think they were interested in a low RCS in the front hemisphere why else cant the vertical stabilizers. To me the 1-44/42 would have been a souped up euro-fighter like design. If they had gone ahead with the project. Here is my take on the 1-42 design. Give the air intake a stealthy smiley face modification, RAM for the leading edges of the wings, vertical stabilizers, canards, and the intake edges plus interior. Internal weapons carriage. Stealthy radome design cant the dish. They probably could have got the front RCS down to a little better than the euro-fighter just because of the internal weapons bay.
 
Empire said:
I think they were interested in a low RCS in the front hemisphere why else cant the vertical stabilizers. To me the 1-44/42 would have been a souped up euro-fighter like design. If they had gone ahead with the project. Here is my take on the 1-42 design. Give the air intake a stealthy smiley face modification, RAM for the leading edges of the wings, vertical stabilizers, canards, and the intake edges plus interior. Internal weapons carriage. Stealthy radome design cant the dish. They probably could have got the front RCS down to a little better than the euro-fighter just because of the internal weapons bay.
Click to expand...

The reason to cant the vertical tails is for the same reason they did so on the F/A-18, vortex impingement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Sundog,What modifications do you think the soviets would have had to make to the 1-44 to get a fighter that could tangle with the f-22? Also have you heard what radar they were planning to use in the 1-42 ?
 
1.44 is being advertised as one of static exposition aircraft at official MAKS 2015 Facebook page
Only thing I'm worrying about is that they will decide to 'refresh that old paint'
 
Hallelujah! P-42 was rumored to be displayed too, hopefully they are able to drag it out to... And while i am being greedy, the holy grail, Su-47...
 
Good try...
From Putnam's "MiG aircraft since..."
 

Attachments

  • Putnam-MFI-.jpg
    Putnam-MFI-.jpg
    105.9 KB · Views: 942
So Flateric in your best opinion what changes would have to have taken place to turn the I-44 into the I-42 fighter. Would it have tried to incorporate stealth features or did it rely on speed, maneuverability, and its radar to defeat aircraft like the f-22.


Thanks Empire
 
Empire said:
Hi Sundog,What modifications do you think the soviets would have had to make to the 1-44 to get a fighter that could tangle with the f-22? Also have you heard what radar they were planning to use in the 1-42 ?
Click to expand...
N014 was the intended radar, a passive phased array design. Never built, but would have been something like the N011M Bars.
 
Last edited:
Quoting myself from some years ago

N014

OKB: Tikhomirov NIIP

Associated with the Mikoyan 1-42/1-44 project, the passive phased array N014 radar project from NIIP was abandoned. Supposed to track 40 targets. Range up to 420km. Used in conjunction with the N012 tail radar. The antenna was scanned electronically and mechanically to increase angular coverage.

Some elements or techniques from it were applied to the N011M.

NIIP have experimented with bistatic radar techniques, which were probably intended for N014.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder how big a reflector would need to be to get a return at 420km? Maybe useable for anti-satellite work?
 
The 1.44 demonstrator will be shown publicly for the first time at MAKS-2015:
missiles2go.ru

Запоздалый праздник: выкатили 1.44!

С утра 24-го августа присутствующие на МАКСе ждали, когда же выкатят обещанный 1.44… И вот оно свершилось. Около 14-00 его провезли через всю статическую стоянку, слово перед почетным строем.…
missiles2go.ru missiles2go.ru

Flateric have you heard if some MFI (and other contemporary projects) details like pics of various models, configurations studied etc. will be declassified by MiG for the occasion? Thanks.
 
I doubt it will be more than the prototype, but I am sure enterprising forum members will photograph the whole aircraft.
 
Nice pics in that link.

A question....are the engine intakes and exhausts covered on static displays as a matter of routine/for health and safety reasons?
I assumed that it was there to protect the aircraft and its engines.
The 1.44 in the photos linked by Lancer21 above has all the covers...were the engines left in the aircraft after its two (reported) flights?

Wouldn't that be surprising, considering the advanced nature of the original AL41?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom