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

Trident said:
Paralay beat me to it - I was also going to point out that this purpoted 1.44 panel looks a lot like the Su-27SM cockpit...
Click to expand...

Well, hapiness was so possible...anyway, it was shown in middle of 1.44 maiden flight video footage. Hope one day we will see the real one.
 
This MiG LIIDB hangar in Zhukovsky was the place where 1.44 was in storage from 1994 to at least end of 2000. With a high level of probability, it's still there.

in winter of 1999, 1.44 was rolled out of hangar for a several hours for video footage, made by Wings of Russia stidio and photographers - you can see fingerprint building and trees behind the aircraft, with giant hangar at the portside. Not clear, if this event was prior, during or after official 1.44 presentation.
 

Attachments

  • MiG_Hangar_.jpg
    MiG_Hangar_.jpg
    209.5 KB · Views: 1,083
  • MiG_Hangar.jpg
    MiG_Hangar.jpg
    151.9 KB · Views: 1,044
  • 144_5.jpg
    144_5.jpg
    48.5 KB · Views: 1,154
  • 224580227884.jpg
    224580227884.jpg
    27.6 KB · Views: 1,057
  • 3b8cc519bf1e.jpg
    3b8cc519bf1e.jpg
    60.6 KB · Views: 1,005
To note is a cavity at the bottom of fuselage for *conformal* carriage of missiles pallete, details of MLG well, and rarely seen aircraft HUD.

Also goes Yuri Vorotnikov, 1.44 chief designer
 

Attachments

  • yuri_vorotnikov.jpg
    yuri_vorotnikov.jpg
    35.3 KB · Views: 525
  • 91c84433d7d8.jpg
    91c84433d7d8.jpg
    17.3 KB · Views: 599
  • cb6e0ad213c4.jpg
    cb6e0ad213c4.jpg
    79.8 KB · Views: 581
  • 89f511fe571a.jpg
    89f511fe571a.jpg
    71.2 KB · Views: 556
  • 435822a5f2ae.jpg
    435822a5f2ae.jpg
    59 KB · Views: 617
  • 4088a5c75365.jpg
    4088a5c75365.jpg
    50.4 KB · Views: 626
we have shoot some today as well...
 

Attachments

  • Clipboard02.jpg
    Clipboard02.jpg
    127.5 KB · Views: 705
  • Clipboard01.jpg
    Clipboard01.jpg
    170.8 KB · Views: 639
sic transit gloria mundi...

please do not re-post at outer internet

f34b06ebc654t.jpg


maden with a kind help from Miroslav Gyrosi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
to my knowledge, the only MFI ad that was ever published (Military Parade, #5/1999)

caption says "MFI - This Is A Step Into XXIth Century"
 

Attachments

  • MFI_AD_1999.jpg
    MFI_AD_1999.jpg
    107.9 KB · Views: 897
It isn't mock up. But MiG-1.44 prototype itself. During early 90's. 94 iirc?
 
::)

It is one of the three photos that were made public from the experimental construction hangar at MiG showing the 1.44 prototype. And it is not "Hightechweb.com" but hitechweb.genezis.eu
 
The most important: customer (in other words money)
Partial reasons: engine development problems (AL-41F), collapse of the Soviet Union, different post cold war requirements, strong position of the Sukhoi OKB....
 
Matej said:
overscan said:
I'm not criticising, it just doesn't quite "feel" correct compared to the photos.
Click to expand...

Do not hesitate to do that. Any constructive criticising is welcome. Where do you see differencies? Maybe i can redraw it.

Regarding to production version of MiG MFI (1.42), it is known that it should have double delta wing, refueling probe, wedged air intakes, rounded dielectric radome, some communication antenas, FLIR and a bit redesigned bomb bay. But the question is, if it is enough. These expectations are based only on two test flights. Maybe if the test program goes well, there should be a lot of another improvements.
Click to expand...

May i ask , did more info surfaced in the last few years about the planned production MFI? I've seen the great drawings of Paralay, and looked thorough on this forum( hope i didnt missed anything!), but i'm wondering if something "oficial" surfaced more recently , a drawing , or a model , something about it ...

( i dont want to bicker or anything , but the only thing that i find striking about Paralays 1.42 renderings are the fins ...they just dont look right , they look like they are taken from the F-22... MIG really intended to modify them that way , or is it speculation ?)
 
Google Maps updated...
 

Attachments

  • 1.44.jpg
    1.44.jpg
    246.6 KB · Views: 788
Okay, let me see if I can figure some of this out. From what I've read, the prototype of the MiG MFI that flew was the 1.44? And the proposed production variant would have been the 1.42?

Does anyone know why the inlet layout would have been changed between the types? According to a book I own on aircraft design, an inlet layout similar to that on the 1.44 was considered for the F-15, but was rejected in part due to interference effects. Was that the reason for the change? The Concorde seemed to do fine with such an arrangement (two vertical wedge inlets beside each other on each nacelle). Well, I don't know the technical term for that inlet type. Two-dimensional inlets, perhaps?
 
The prototype was really only a technology demonstrator, more like the EAP than a true prototype. It was to validate the basic canard-delta aerodynamics and the engines. The 1.42 design would've been more refined, adding a cranked wing, a new intake, a radar nose, and likely other minor changes. No idea why they wanted to alter the inlet. Maybe the new design would've worked better at high AOA or something.
 
IIRC, variable shock control on side mounted wedge intakes are easier to implement than a fuselage shielded vertical wedge intake with a splitter plate on top
 
Also, does anyone know if the engine faces were hidden (partially or completely) on the MiG 1.44 or Su-47?
 
There was a pretty pronounced upwards curve to the intake, as it had to pass up and over the nose gear and weapon stations.
 
From what i've read aparently the Mig 1.42 in its final form was suposed to have an N-014 radar made by Phazotron...i am not sure tho , is this radar a PESA or AESA?
Also the rear facing radar is a N-012 right ?(i'm asking , because some sources say that Su-35(Su-27M) or even the Su-34 have/were suposed to have a rear faceing N-014 !!! confusing...)

Thanks.
 
What I found interesting on the Yakovlev MFI model is the cockpit moved significantly rearwad, against the area ruling and pilot's comfort. Why? Is it only because nobody bothered to do better model or does it have any good reason? I am asking because I realized, that the similar approach was done on the korean KFX 201 model.
 

Attachments

  • kfx1.jpg
    kfx1.jpg
    28.6 KB · Views: 2,159
Mato, look at here - KFX is just *so small*
 
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).
 

Attachments

  • KFX.jpg
    KFX.jpg
    97.1 KB · Views: 2,207
Are there any good photos of this jet in flight? All I see are the grainy video stills. Also - anyone know how many flights it made?

thanks!
 
InvisibleDefender said:
Are there any good photos of this jet in flight?
Click to expand...
If they ever were, no one was published. Judging from quality of video, no one bothered too much to fix that historical moment in high quality.

InvisibleDefender said:
Also - anyone know how many flights it made?
Click to expand...
two
 
I like the 1.44 a lot. Flateric, is there a page or a document that would explain in simple words, and with 3-view plans if possible, the differences between the MiG 1.42 and the 1.44? I tend to get confused between the two! Thanks in advance.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
I like the 1.44 a lot. Flateric, is there a page or a document that would explain in simple words, and with 3-view plans if possible, the differences between the MiG 1.42 and the 1.44? I tend to get confused between the two! Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I second the request. I'm thinking of building a 1/72 model of the 1.42 using the modified Zvezda model kit of the 1.44, and such plans, and(I'm dreaming now) perhaps overlaid top and side views of both designs would certainly come in handy.
 
But to do it, someone must declassify 1.42...and fact that 1.44 was not allowed for static display at MAKS since 1999 in spite of MiG numerous requests to MoD, this doesn't bring much of optimism.
 
flateric said:
But to do it, someone must declassify 1.42...and fact that 1.44 was not allowed for static display at MAKS since 1999 in spite of MiG numerous requests to MoD, this doesn't bring much of optimism.
Click to expand...
Is it still classified? Paralay features a comparison of top and side views of the two designs, but it's anybody's guess how accurate/ to scale these are. At any rate, the 1.42 seems slightly bigger, with a wedge intake and different wing outline:
 

Attachments

  • MiG-1.42 2.gif
    MiG-1.42 2.gif
    47.7 KB · Views: 1,091
  • Mig-1.44 and 1.42.gif
    Mig-1.44 and 1.42.gif
    75.7 KB · Views: 1,025
Lets call it expected differences, not the officially confirmed ones. MiG 1.42, it means supposed serial configuration should have compared to the MiG 1.44 demonstrator: two angles on the wing's leading edge, different shape of the vertical tail surfaces, wedge-shaped air intake, refueling probe, circular shape of the front radome, much blended and clear fuselage and other small details like the optimised service doors, antennas, chaff and flare dispensers, towed decoys, maybe the provision for the flushed AAMs around the air intake like the Eurofighter and so.

Since it is very likely, that the MiG submission for the PAK FA was based on the MFI, this can be reason why it is still so classified.
 

Attachments

  • mfi_1.jpg
    mfi_1.jpg
    194.5 KB · Views: 840
  • mfi_2.jpg
    mfi_2.jpg
    162.6 KB · Views: 711
  • mfi_3.jpg
    mfi_3.jpg
    294.7 KB · Views: 671
  • mfi_4.jpg
    mfi_4.jpg
    367.9 KB · Views: 337
Did anyone get the accurate number of I.44's size?
If you search internet via google, 19, 20, 21.7 even 22meter will be found at variant forum and website.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom