MiG-23 cockpit?

[MechaStalin 10]

Any of these done or in progress? This is probably my favorite plane to fly in WoE but not having a proper cockpit is a bit of a downer.

[+Jarhead1 27]

I am using a Mig 25 pit for it right now thats modified but i hope someone makes one too, i love that bird

[+Typhoid 231]

I am using a Mig 25 pit for it right now thats modified but i hope someone makes one too, i love that bird

 

 

what's wrong with the one that came with it?

[+Jarhead1 27]

Nothing is wrong with it, i just experiment with them, some time someone will probobly come out with an actual one

[+Typhoid 231]

Nothing is wrong with it, i just experiment with them, some time someone will probobly come out with an actual one

 

you mean like this?

 

this is a little nicer than the one I was in.

[+Jarhead1 27]

Yeah, like that, i would build it if i was smart enough, but i'm not, did u fly floggers or something?

[+Typhoid 231]

Yeah, like that, i would build it if i was smart enough, but i'm not, did u fly floggers or something?

 

besides helping to shoot two down, I was in a Mig-23 cockpit at a time and place that shall remain nameless. I did not fly it. the program was recently declassified - Constant Peg

[+Jarhead1 27]

What AC did u fly?

[+Typhoid 231]

What AC did u fly?

 

primarily the E-2 and E-4B.

 

Also had time in the TA-4J, P-3C, S-2F, T-2B, T-39D, E-3 (NATO and USAF), T-34B, KA-6D, Cessna 150 & 172, Piper 140, 180 and 200, Bonanza, Arrow II and Seneca.

 

now I just fly a desk.......

[FastCargo 412]

I was in a Mig-23 cockpit at a time and place that shall remain nameless. I did not fly it. the program was recently declassified - Constant Peg

 

I remember checking out the 'Petting Zoo' back in the day...pretty neat stuff for a young bomber guy.

 

FastCargo

[Nicholas Bell 117]

besides helping to shoot two down, I was in a Mig-23 cockpit at a time and place that shall remain nameless. I did not fly it. the program was recently declassified - Constant Peg

 

Here's a good article on Constant Peg with some interesting information on the MiG's. >>Constant Peg Article<<

 

In the mid-80's while stationed in Germany I got to touch and climb into a Flogger as part of my intro to 32nd AADCOM (I was in a IHAWK unit). The thing that really struck me was how poorly manufactured the plane was (as mentioned in the article above). I remember the rivets. I also remember a fuselage fuel tank which was integral with the aircraft skin. They told me it they leaked all the time and were not self-sealing. Tapping on it sounded like hitting an empty steel drum. The cockpit was pretty low tech.

 

I saw a lot of Soviet equipment and was uttered shocked at how bad it was. Maybe it was all export stuff. The point of the program was to show incoming officers the reality of enemy - "that Soviets were not 10 feet tall" and that we could defeat them despite their supposed numerical superiority. Events a few years later seemed to prove that out.

 

Now Typhoid, you must tell us a bit more of your combat experience! :yes:

[+Typhoid 231]

Here's a good article on Constant Peg with some interesting information on the MiG's. >>Constant Peg Article<<

 

In the mid-80's while stationed in Germany I got to touch and climb into a Flogger as part of my intro to 32nd AADCOM (I was in a IHAWK unit). The thing that really struck me was how poorly manufactured the plane was (as mentioned in the article above). I remember the rivets. I also remember a fuselage fuel tank which was integral with the aircraft skin. They told me it they leaked all the time and were not self-sealing. Tapping on it sounded like hitting an empty steel drum. The cockpit was pretty low tech.

 

I saw a lot of Soviet equipment and was uttered shocked at how bad it was. Maybe it was all export stuff. The point of the program was to show incoming officers the reality of enemy - "that Soviets were not 10 feet tall" and that we could defeat them despite their supposed numerical superiority. Events a few years later seemed to prove that out.

 

Now Typhoid, you must tell us a bit more of your combat experience! :yes:

 

that matches with what I saw. What struck me was the incredibly low-tech instrumentation and very poor visibility from the cockpit. It was at least a generation behind our stuff, and I was flying the oldest version of our stuff (we called ourselves in Carrier Air Wing Five the Antique Flying Club of Westpac). Had it gone hot, it would have been a slaughter. Our primary concern would have been all the falling Soviet debris...........(and papercuts from filling out all of the after-action paperwork)

 

the engagement that I referred to above was the second Gulf of Sidra incident. I was the Flag TAO for the 6th Fleet Commander. Exciting morning......

[Wrench 9,847]

Ok...and this don't happen often...I'm officially impressed!

 

My personal thanks to ALL you people in uniform, past and present, who served. As I never got my chance too...

 

BZ!!!

 

Wrench

Kevin Stein

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

The MiG-23, at least the 3rd Party (Rafael/Bpao) model, is made nicely -- nay, perfectly -- for using a chopped cockpit inside. I don't have WoE so I'm not sure about the new Thudwire -23 model. Here are some external free camera views inside the external model's pilot compartment -- fortunately, the hazy canopy "glass" is one-sided and is not seen from inside the model, yet is still visible from the outside to offer a needed "glass" appearance.

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2007 by Lexx_Luthor

[+nele 0]

For perfectionists, two types of cockpit would have to be developed-one for M/MF, other for ML/MLD series. And 2-3 -other- different for 23BN/27 series

 

MiG-23 was designed from the outset to be produced from relatively cheap materials. The "drumlike" fuselage/tank is made of steel, and has pressurized inert-gas protection against fire/explosion. Quality was definitely and issue, but even later and earlier "M" models had much of quality difference (later were much better). Cockpit had a little better visibility at first, but cracks were detected in canopy so the heavy mid-frame was introduced to split glass into two stiffer sections. However, the pilot sits quite tall in the cockpit and biggest obstruction is toward the rear and forward downwards (the nose cone).

 

Control panel-well, it is comparable to one of "Fishbed" in quality and equipment (and those are quite nice and dependable). "ML" series have some "Autopilot" steering/stailization modes that are non-existent in contemporary Western fighters (alt.hold, autolevel, combination of those with dumping for maneuvering etc.). Controlability/stability problems were also quite nicely solved with AoA limiter on ML. The biggest danger was for pilots re-qualified from MiG-17/21 to 23, "Frescos" and "Fishbeds" were forgiving lame pilot errors-23 didn't.

 

Taking a look at an early example is quite deceiving to judge entire -23 series and upgrades, that counts thousands of them. There are even 23S interim models in "pedestals" in Eastern Europe, and those were not liked even by MiG-buerau pilots. Contrary, some pilots preferred later MLD's to -29's, mainly because of better equipment. To put it together in the sentence of one experienced Soviet pilot that flew all fighter MiGs- "-29A were flown by seregants-and -23MLD by captains!"

 

Nele

[Nicholas Bell 117]

the engagement that I referred to above was the second Gulf of Sidra incident. I was the Flag TAO for the 6th Fleet Commander. Exciting morning......

 

Thank you for a job well done, Typhoid!

 

Control panel-well, it is comparable to one of "Fishbed" in quality and equipment....Taking a look at an early example is quite deceiving to judge entire -23 series and upgrades, that counts thousands of them...

 

Nele

 

Nele you are a fount of knowledge, and I always enjoy your posts! I just have to ask - how you know so much?

[MechaStalin 10]

For perfectionists, two types of cockpit would have to be developed-one for M/MF, other for ML/MLD series. And 2-3 -other- different for 23BN/27 series

 

MiG-23 was designed from the outset to be produced from relatively cheap materials. The "drumlike" fuselage/tank is made of steel, and has pressurized inert-gas protection against fire/explosion. Quality was definitely and issue, but even later and earlier "M" models had much of quality difference (later were much better). Cockpit had a little better visibility at first, but cracks were detected in canopy so the heavy mid-frame was introduced to split glass into two stiffer sections. However, the pilot sits quite tall in the cockpit and biggest obstruction is toward the rear and forward downwards (the nose cone).

 

Control panel-well, it is comparable to one of "Fishbed" in quality and equipment (and those are quite nice and dependable). "ML" series have some "Autopilot" steering/stailization modes that are non-existent in contemporary Western fighters (alt.hold, autolevel, combination of those with dumping for maneuvering etc.). Controlability/stability problems were also quite nicely solved with AoA limiter on ML. The biggest danger was for pilots re-qualified from MiG-17/21 to 23, "Frescos" and "Fishbeds" were forgiving lame pilot errors-23 didn't.

 

Taking a look at an early example is quite deceiving to judge entire -23 series and upgrades, that counts thousands of them. There are even 23S interim models in "pedestals" in Eastern Europe, and those were not liked even by MiG-buerau pilots. Contrary, some pilots preferred later MLD's to -29's, mainly because of better equipment. To put it together in the sentence of one experienced Soviet pilot that flew all fighter MiGs- "-29A were flown by seregants-and -23MLD by captains!"

 

Nele

 

Yeah, the MiG-23's cockpit was fairly similar to the MiG-21s to keep training to a minimum. Would it be possible to take a MiG-21 pit for WoE, remove the radarscope, and give it the radar on the HUD?

[+Typhoid 231]

"However, the pilot sits quite tall in the cockpit and biggest obstruction is toward the rear and forward downwards (the nose cone)."

 

not what I remember. I'm average height and sitting in the cockpit, I could not see very well over the nose or looking aft. The seat sat fairly low. The panel eats up a lot of visibility. Visibility to the sides and over were good of course. I remember thinking that I was glad I didn't have to try to land that beast.

 

And you all are quite welcome and thanks for your thanks. It was my honor to serve.

 

The Sidra engagement was certainly a highlight, and I added 18 SCUD engagements during the Gulf War.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Typhoid

[MechaStalin 10]

You have to remember though that cold war MiGs were designed primarly as interceptors and dogfighters second. If the MiG-23 was to dogfight It was meant to do it from a ways out using look down shoot down etc rather than getting up and close. Although it is still a very nimble plane in a dogfight.

[+Typhoid 231]

You have to remember though that cold war MiGs were designed primarly as interceptors and dogfighters second. If the MiG-23 was to dogfight It was meant to do it from a ways out using look down shoot down etc rather than getting up and close. Although it is still a very nimble plane in a dogfight.

 

we expected them to come in a "slashing attack" and run like hell out the other side - followed by the next pair. Also a section of 4 would come in with two doing a "hook" out to one side so a combined multi-axis in fast and out the other side with our wreckage falling across the country side. Didn't quite work out that way for them...............

[+Gepard 11,295]

The major quality improvement step was from MiG-23MF to ML. The ML was lighter and stronger. The engine was much more efficent, so that the aft tank could be removed. The weapon system was also improved.

You must understand, that the MiG-23 was developed as counterpart to the planned F-111 fighter versions.But when entered the service they had to face the F-15 and F-16. The developed MiG-23 tactic against this planes was hit and run. Avoid close combat at all costs, hold the speed high, fire the medium range missiles and run away with full burner.

The syrians claim some (if i remember right 10) F-16 kills in 1982 due MiG-23MF while using medium range missiles and using hit and run tactics. One or two years later they claime one F-15 kill due MiG-23ML.

There is no official confirmation by israeli sources.

The MiG-23 was not the loved plane. In the east german airforce LSK/LV it was originally intended to build up a big MiG-23 force. When the MiG-23 was available in 1977 and the first service experiences came in it was decided in 1980 to wait till the MiG-29 was exported by the soviets.

Flight tests in Manching after the reunification of Germany showed that the MiG-23 was underestimated by western services. It proved better than expected. 12 MiG-23ML were exported to the USA in early 1991 to give them a chance to find out the real weak points of this bird before the Gulf War began.

 

If you ask from where i have my knowledge. I served out my military time from 1988 to 1990 in the LSK/LV.

[+Typhoid 231]

The major quality improvement step was from MiG-23MF to ML. The ML was lighter and stronger. The engine was much more efficent, so that the aft tank could be removed. The weapon system was also improved.

You must understand, that the MiG-23 was developed as counterpart to the planned F-111 fighter versions.But when entered the service they had to face the F-15 and F-16. The developed MiG-23 tactic against this planes was hit and run. Avoid close combat at all costs, hold the speed high, fire the medium range missiles and run away with full burner.

The syrians claim some (if i remember right 10) F-16 kills in 1982 due MiG-23MF while using medium range missiles and using hit and run tactics. One or two years later they claime one F-15 kill due MiG-23ML.

There is no official confirmation by israeli sources.

The MiG-23 was not the loved plane. In the east german airforce LSK/LV it was originally intended to build up a big MiG-23 force. When the MiG-23 was available in 1977 and the first service experiences came in it was decided in 1980 to wait till the MiG-29 was exported by the soviets.

Flight tests in Manching after the reunification of Germany showed that the MiG-23 was underestimated by western services. It proved better than expected. 12 MiG-23ML were exported to the USA in early 1991 to give them a chance to find out the real weak points of this bird before the Gulf War began.

 

If you ask from where i have my knowledge. I served out my military time from 1988 to 1990 in the LSK/LV.

 

concur. We considered it roughly comparable to the F-4, though not as good a turn capability. We made the assumption that the overall tactic was to throw more Mig-23's at us than we could put missiles in the air.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Typhoid

[Nicholas Bell 117]

We made the assumption that the overall tactic was to throw more Mig-23's at us than we could put missiles in the air.

 

Takes a lot of MiGs to do that in WOE even with the wingman as they are. In my recent campaigns (on hard AI) flight of four F-15's regularly comes home with dozen or more kills. The only casualties are to SAMs, or friendly fire (my wingman shot me down)

[MechaStalin 10]

concur. We considered it roughly comparable to the F-4, though not as good a turn capability. We made the assumption that the overall tactic was to throw more Mig-23's at us than we could put missiles in the air.

 

It depends on the variants, but the MiG-23 is sort of in a funny position as it has no direct equivelent. It's a bit better than the F-4, although thats not a general thing and really matters on which F-4 and 23 variant you're looking at, but not quite as good as the F-16 and F-15, but when doing tests an F-16A pilot said the MiG-23 was roughly the same capability wise, sans AMRAAM of course. But it was no match for the F-15 unless its a later variant like the ML or MLD and its 4 or 5 MiGs vs 2 or so F-15s.

Edited July 21, 2007 by MechaStalin

[Bulldog 0]

I was under the impression the reason we don't have a real MiG-23 cockpit was the fact having the radar display appear in the HUD was not possible?