MiG-23PD

[blackkite]

In the 1960s, both MiG and Sukhoi Design Bureaus were ordered to build delta wing fighter with tail wings equipped with STOL lift engines and fighter with variable swept wings. (MiG had been studying variable-sweep wing aircraft since the early 1960s, but at that time TsAGI (Central Hydrodynamic Institute) thought it would be technically difficult). MiG produced the experimental aircraft 23-31 (MiG-21PD) equipped with two lift engines in 1966, and based on the data of this aircraft, the STOL experimental aircraft 23-01 (MiG-23PD) was produced. At the same time, the experimental aircraft 23-11 (MiG-23) with variable swept wings was built in the same year. In the flight test the following year, it was found that the STOL experimental aircraft 23-01 was heavy weight and could not use the aircraft space effectively, and that it was unstable during flight, so this system was not practical in terms of maintenance. Therefore, experimental aircraft 23-11 with variable swept wings was adopted.
https://mikoyanmig29.wixsite.com/mig-23flogger
http://aviationtrivia.blogspot.com/2010/11/experimental-stol-variant-of-mig-23.html
http://prototypes.free.fr/ye8/ye8-12.htm

 

[FighterJock]

I don't know if you have all seen this MiG-23 video that I have seen recently on YouTube, but it shows the MiG-23PD taking of at an airshow then quickly followed by the swing-wing variant. I thought I would post it as I think that it is important to this thread.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42S-shssRlY

 

[Vasily41]

It fooled NATO; them believing it to be a fighter prototype so they assigned it the reporting name “Faithless”.

Edit: NATO believed it to already be in production.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It was a fighter prototype. No fooling needed.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9rb9aklt7Q

http://invirtuale.blogspot.com/2013/11/23112013-mig-21-pd-fs2004.html

 

[F.L.]

It was a fighter prototype. No fooling needed.

I think what fooled the Yanks was that when the MiG-23PD was first shown in public, development had already been abandoned. So there's no need for a NATO reporting name.

 

[F.L.]

This is a rather complicated question, but if the MiG-23PD had been in service, could it have been used on the Kiev-class carrier ?
Would the lift reactor have allowed a sufficiently low approach speed ?

 

[paralay]

Maybe the plane will take off, maybe. But how to get him back on deck?

 

[F.L.]

The lift engines would have enabled a low approach speed. Certainly much higher than the Yak-38, but much lower than a normal fighter.
Would it have been enough to land on the deck ?
So the question that interests me is : what is the minimum speed of the MiG-23PD using its lift engines ?
With the aim of operating from aircraft carriers without arresting equipment.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

This is a rather complicated question, but if the MiG-23PD had been in service, could it have been used on the Kiev-class carrier ?

I think another good question would have been whether there would have been enough space for them, considering the size difference between the two types.

 

[F.L.]

This is a rather complicated question, but if the MiG-23PD had been in service, could it have been used on the Kiev-class carrier ?

I think another good question would have been whether there would have been enough space for them, considering the size difference between the two types.

The Yak-38 is 16,37m lenght,
The MiG-23ML is 16,7m lenght. (The MiG-23PD's length should be similar.)
The two aircrafts are not very different in size.

 

[Arjen]

MiG-23 is taller, with a much bigger wing - even when swept.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

This is a rather complicated question, but if the MiG-23PD had been in service, could it have been used on the Kiev-class carrier ?
Would the lift reactor have allowed a sufficiently low approach speed ?

It didn't work very well on runways, let alone carriers, so I'd say... no.

 

[F.L.]

MiG-23 is taller, with a much bigger wing - even when swept.

The MiG-23PD does not have a variable geometry wing !!!

 

[Arjen]

I stand corrected.

Definitely wider then, the Mig-23PD.

 

[paralay]

Somehow, Fedotov and I, going through the flight sheets, came across a sheet with Ostapenko's report on the completion of the task on "23-11", where Petro wrote: "Takeoff at maximum, landing at afterburner." At first we thought he was mistaken, but Pyotr Maksimovich did not think to be mistaken - it turns out that it was...All this complicated the execution of take-off and landing on this machine, and a big gain in the length of the take-off and landing distance due to the apparent weight reduction did not work.

Микоян, Гуревич МиГ-23ПД

 

[F.L.]

This article is interesting, it taught me that the MiG-21PD & MiG-23-01/PD's landing gear were fixed. I had never noticed that.

 

[F.L.]

This is a rather complicated question, but if the MiG-23PD had been in service, could it have been used on the Kiev-class carrier ?
Would the lift reactor have allowed a sufficiently low approach speed ?

It didn't work very well on runways, let alone carriers, so I'd say... no.

What's more, the MiG-23-01 clearly needed 180/200m to land, far too much for the Kiev-class aircraft carriers.
I've got my answer.

 

[GTX]

What's more, the MiG-23-01 clearly needed 180/200m to land, far too much for the Kiev-class aircraft carriers.

well there is this little invention called an arrestor system...