Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ordway

Mig-15Bis/Mig-17 cockpit near completion

Recommended Posts

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

 

And that's just some pics

Mig-15_112.JPG

Mig-15_113.JPG

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by starfighter2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :biggrin:

Edited by ordway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!! :haha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ordway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!! :haha:

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ordway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

M17240_241.jpg

M17242_243.jpg

 

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

 

M17108_109.jpg

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by ordway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

M17082_083.jpg

 

And finally the gunsight and a photo of it

 

M17278_279.jpg

 

dsc01232.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice Mago, I expected no less from you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :blink:

 

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.

 

MigHSIWierd2.jpg

Edited by ordway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, it is correct :ok: , and I would get dizzy too :stars:

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, it is correct :ok: , and I would get dizzy too :stars:

 

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? :biggrin:

Edited by ordway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, it is correct :ok: , and I would get dizzy too :stars:

 

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.

 

 

Mig-15Toggleswitch.jpg

Edited by ordway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So which one is right, right or right?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

dsc01232.jpg

 

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).

 

 

mig15korean-war-038-f86-ivanov1.jpg

 

korean-war-037-f86-ivanov1.jpg

Edited by ordway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, it is correct :ok: , and I would get dizzy too :stars:

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tazkiller

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

 

Please this is getting silly!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..