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

[flateric]

Does anyone know the faith of MiG-1.44? Where is it now?

It's somewhere here, inside RSK MiG hangars at Gromov LII.
http://www.kosmosnimki.ru/#x=38.141...y=55.583650&mt=0LMuINCW0YPQutC-0LLRgdC60LjQuQ))

 

[flateric]

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...

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.

 

[flateric]

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.

 

[flateric]

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

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1997/1997 - 0956.html

 

[flanker]

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c119/DrTomcat/razno/BEN_8008.jpg
It is alive! Picture credits to Sebastijan. Picture taken at MAKS. (yesterday i think)

 

[flateric]

we have shoot some today as well...

 

[flateric]

sic transit gloria mundi...

please do not re-post at outer internet

maden with a kind help from Miroslav Gyrosi

 

[Matej]

Gyurosi. Wow, do you know him? The world is sooo small.

 

[flateric]

The world is sooo smal.

didn't you know?

 

[Matej]

You didn't mention. He works for the ATM - the same magazine, for which I do most of my commercial drawings.

 

[flateric]

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"

 

[F-23 Blackwidow II]

Here is an image of the mockup of the MiG 1.42/1.44 from Hightechweb.com. Hope you enjoy the pic.

 

[flanker]

It isn't mock up. But MiG-1.44 prototype itself. During early 90's. 94 iirc?

 

[Matej]

:

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

 

[verner]

Pardon my ignorance but why didn't this AC make it?

 

[Matej]

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....

 

[verner]

Alright, thank you sir.

 

[lancer21]

I'm not criticising, it just doesn't quite "feel" correct compared to the photos.

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.

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 ?)

 

[flateric]

Google Maps updated...

 

[Kryptid]

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?

 

[SOC]

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.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

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

 

[Kryptid]

Also, does anyone know if the engine faces were hidden (partially or completely) on the MiG 1.44 or Su-47?

 

[SOC]

There was a pretty pronounced upwards curve to the intake, as it had to pass up and over the nose gear and weapon stations.

 

[lancer21]

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.

 

[Matej]

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.

 

[flateric]

Mato, look at here - KFX is just *so small*

 

[Matej]

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).

 

[InvisibleDefender]

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!

 

[flateric]

Are there any good photos of this jet in flight?

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.

Also - anyone know how many flights it made?

two

 

[Stargazer]

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.

 

[Foxglove]

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.

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.

 

[flateric]

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.

 

[Foxglove]

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.

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:

 

[Matej]

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.

 

[Matej]

Well, there was something unclassified that represents the real shape of the 1.42 - http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,422.msg28796.html#msg28796

 

[Wil]

Hello!

More pics at good resolution:

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/8982/mfi1.jpg
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/3799/mfi2.jpg
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2273/mfi3.jpg
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5055/mfi4.jpg

 

[rousseau]

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.

 

[fightingirish]