Mig-15Bis/Mig-17 cockpit near completion

[Gr.Viper 131]

This one from a Mig made for Armed Assault http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cockpitvj7.jpg

 

And that's just some pics

 

Sight thingie http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?a...mp;d=1201686613

 

And there's always the Farposst place where I found a whole CD with text pics and vids. Never ever seen it in a store...

http://www.farposst.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7534

[AntEater 0]

We really need a MiG-15/17 pit and it is great somebody is making one.

However, the whole "communist" thing seems to be a bit overblown here.

Engineers are engineers first, and communists/capitalists/fascists/whatever second. While totalitarian regimes do have some influence, it usually does not extend into engineering decisions, as long as they work. Especially since Mikoyan and Gurevich were born before the revolution. Also, an Armenian and a Jew is not exactly the most cliche' "evile empire" constructor team either.

Also, the 1950s book of a defector might not be the best primary source now that we have access to russian sources.

Defectors usually tell their new masters exactly what they want to hear, no matter from which side they defect to which.

Especially since 90% of the material about that defecting MiG turned out to be rubbish, like Chuck Yeager's statements.

Far better material can be found online and in publications now, and the web gives us even access to people who flew these planes operationally.

[+starfighter2 117]

There is no good or bad military airplanes from moral side of view- it only depends who sits behind commands. There is no Red or Blue engineers - just good and not so good in technical aspect. Superiority of design is also more/less a mith.

Bottom line - pilot was, is and always will be most important "instrument" in fighter plane. If engineers can help him with "best there is" solutions, even better. I don't believe that UCAV's (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles)will "delete" men from cockpit in near future.

 

In this case,MiG-15 and Sabre in Korea was equal measured by strengths and weaknesses of both planes. Superior combat training and WWII ace pilots lead to 8:1 combat ratio in Sabre favour.

Edited April 5, 2008 by starfighter2

[+ordway 23]

We really need a MiG-15/17 pit and it is great somebody is making one.

However, the whole "communist" thing seems to be a bit overblown here.

Engineers are engineers first, and communists/capitalists/fascists/whatever second. While totalitarian regimes do have some influence, it usually does not extend into engineering decisions, as long as they work. Especially since Mikoyan and Gurevich were born before the revolution. Also, an Armenian and a Jew is not exactly the most cliche' "evile empire" constructor team either.

Also, the 1950s book of a defector might not be the best primary source now that we have access to russian sources.

Defectors usually tell their new masters exactly what they want to hear, no matter from which side they defect to which.

Especially since 90% of the material about that defecting MiG turned out to be rubbish, like Chuck Yeager's statements.

Far better material can be found online and in publications now, and the web gives us even access to people who flew these planes operationally.

 

Well hotshot. :yes: Can you find better provable hard info about this mirror or missing mirror. I'm all ears.

 

By the way, you are correct to bring up this issue in my opinion-but wrong in that you do not present hard evidence to the contrary while having such a righteous attititide without hard evidence first.

Note that everyone else in this thread who makes a statement backs up their statements with hard evidence.

 

Secondly, this defector was a professor at my university-Embry Riddle Aeronautical University...where I got a masters in Aviation. Until you (or anyone) can prove this mirror statement wrong, my statement stands.

But of course, you might be right

Edited April 5, 2008 by ordway

[Guest Tazkiller]

The MiG-15 of the Korean War era never had a MIRROR!!!!!!

 

PERIOD!!!!!!!

 

All photos that feature a Mirror are Western adaptation.

 

It's just that simple!!!

[+ordway 23]

There is no good or bad military airplanes from moral side of view- it only depends who sits behind commands. There is no Red or Blue engineers - just good and not so good in technical aspect. Superiority of design is also more/less a mith.

Bottom line - pilot was, is and always will be most important "instrument" in fighter plane. If engineers can help him with "best there is" solutions, even better. I don't believe that UCAV's (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles)will "delete" men from cockpit in near future.

 

In this case,MiG-15 and Sabre in Korea was equal measured by strengths and weaknesses of both planes. Superior combat training and WWII ace pilots lead to 8:1 combat ratio in Sabre favour.

 

BTW, a real I'm having a real hard time figuring out just how much and at what point the Mig-15s were handicapped at what speeds by having the controls stiffen, going into uncommanded pitch up atttitudes and yawing (snaking). I think I read that the Mig-15s were so rapidly built that each Mig-15 (at least the early ones) differed in handling qualities so drastically that it just mattered what factory built it on what day. Some flew to their design limits perfectly and others acted like demons.

 

Some flight tests stated at Mach .86 they had problems and others at higher Mach numbers I remember reading.

Edited April 5, 2008 by ordway

[+ordway 23]

The MiG-15 of the Korean War era never had a MIRROR!!!!!!

 

PERIOD!!!!!!!

 

All photos that feature a Mirror are Western adaptation.

 

It's just that simple!!!

 

I hate to bring up the mirror thingie Taz...but evidence please How do you know that?

[AntEater 0]

I couldn't care less about mirrors, it was just some general things I noticed.

But as an academic you should know that it is imperative for good work to use the most up-to-date and reliable sources, no matter wether they show a mirror or not.

It is just that it seemed to me you gave to much credence to a single source, while ignoring others readily available.

[Guest Tazkiller]

Well there is a wealth of information aviable both hard copy and internet on the MiG.

 

Easiest visual proof.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a6_1175505466

[+ordway 23]

Well there is a wealth of information aviable both hard copy and internet on the MiG.

 

Easiest visual proof.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3a6_1175505466

 

Sweet, look at that gunsight reticle (early British copy manufactured in Poland I believe) that had the British round circle with the dot in the middle. Yeppur. I don't see any rearview mirror like No Kum-Sok said in the three documentaries shown.

Edited April 5, 2008 by ordway

[+starfighter2 117]

Sweet, look at that gunsight reticle (early British copy manufactured in Poland I believe) that had the British round circle with the dot in the middle. Yeppur. I don't see any rearview mirror like No Kum-Sok said in the three documentares shown.

I told you so...regarding gunsight

[Guest Tazkiller]

Sweet, look at that gunsight reticle (early British copy manufactured in Poland I believe) that had the British round circle with the dot in the middle. Yeppur. I don't see any rearview mirror like No Kum-Sok said in the three documentares shown.

 

 

No Kum-Sok is a man of great honor. His book is of great reference. And my autographed copy is guarded dearly!!!! LOL!!!!!

[+Paladrian 11]

Here you have 2 images from the manual that show the 2 sections of the ADI, with "Спуск" at the top and "Подьем" at the bottom

 

 

If you don't know russian like me, then they are probably not conclusive, but at least you can compare with the one in the photos and conclude they are the same instrument. The picture that convinced me is the following, that shows the airplane climbing

 

 

Having only 2 choices, the label clearly reads "Подьем" in the ADI, so it must have moved to the bottom section as I claimed

 

Perhaps one of our russian speaking friends can translate these portions of the manual for us

[+ordway 23]

Here you have 2 images from the manual that show the 2 sections of the ADI, with "Спуск" at the top and "Подьем" at the bottom

 

If you don't know russian like me, then they are probably not conclusive, but at least you can compare with the one in the photos and conclude they are the same instrument. The picture that convinced me is the following, that shows the airplane climbing

 

 

Having only 2 choices, the label clearly reads "Подьем" in the ADI, so it must have moved to the bottom section as I claimed

 

Perhaps one of our russian speaking friends can translate these portions of the manual for us

 

Yeha! thanks! Please, Russian speakers can you translate this for us? In particular we need to know that if when you dive the airplane, does the little airplane symbol appear to climb above the horizon line more and more on the instrument and the more you dive, the more the little airplane symbol appears to climb higher above the horizon line (white line in the middle)?

 

Thanks.

Edited April 5, 2008 by ordway

[+Paladrian 11]

Now the next shows the plane taking off on the left page. The aspect of the ADI is taken at the top of the maneuver, with the plane at zero elevation and left bank, it is consistent with the claim that it appears fixed with the rest of the world

 

 

And finally the gunsight and a photo of it

 

 

[+starfighter2 117]

Nice Mago, I expected no less from you

[Guest Tazkiller]

http://www.chosin.com/kumsok.html

 

http://www.goldengatewing.org/documents/Proptalk_2004-11.pdf

Edited April 5, 2008 by Tazkiller

[+ordway 23]

Now the next shows the plane taking off on the left page. The aspect of the ADI is taken at the top of the maneuver, with the plane at zero elevation and left bank, it is consistent with the claim that it appears fixed with the rest of the world

 

Okay, is this what we are talking about (Look at HSI)? Let's hear some feedback please. I am getting dizzy.

 

Thanks.

 

Edit: I fixed the ball slip indicator on the HSI and added the "Спуск" at the top and "Подьем" at the bottom

. Secondly, I added an earlier gunsight reticule which is a round British-style circle with a dot in the middle...but I think both would be correct. No Kum-Sok mentions a US style six diamond reticule in at least some of the Mig-15Bis' he flew.

I also just dimmed the sight reticule to make it more pale like a light and less yellow.

 

Edited April 5, 2008 by ordway

[+Paladrian 11]

Yep, it is correct , and I would get dizzy too

 

If anyone is interested in the complete manual just let me know

[+ordway 23]

Yep, it is correct , and I would get dizzy too

 

If anyone is interested in the complete manual just let me know

 

Hmmm, so in Viper's pic earlier in this post (Mig-Alley I believe), the Mig-15 is diving and the HSI is showing blue I believe. In mine, I am climbing and it is showing blue... in the HSI. So which one is right, right or right?

Edited April 5, 2008 by ordway

[+ordway 23]

Yep, it is correct , and I would get dizzy too

 

If anyone is interested in the complete manual just let me know

 

Thanks, I need to know what that lower left toggle switch is for (the style varies for different references I have). I know the upper left one is the spoilers (Correct?) according to a FS reference I have.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2008 by ordway

[Gr.Viper 131]

So which one is right, right or right?

I think MiG Alley pit is sort of half-baked... Do stuff by the book

[+ordway 23]

Now the next shows the plane taking off on the left page. The aspect of the ADI is taken at the top of the maneuver, with the plane at zero elevation and left bank, it is consistent with the claim that it appears fixed with the rest of the world

 

 

 

and for comparison, here are at least two reported Mig-15 (Fagot-A?) (Yawn, fagot does not mean what you think it means... it was a real name for a bundle of sticks of firewood and and the NATO name for the Mig-15) reticules with F-86s supposedly getting whacked. Note these reticules are the round British-made-in Poland types.

 

(and double yawn, "fagged out" does not mean what you think it means...it means tired out or bedraggled).

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2008 by ordway

[+ordway 23]

Yep, it is correct , and I would get dizzy too

 

If anyone is interested in the complete manual just let me know

 

Does your manual have anything about those crosshairs in those pictures above. I have lots more Mig-15 gunsight photos with those crosshairs.

[Guest Tazkiller]

Thats from the camera. A long way from the gunsight.

 

Please this is getting silly!!