Mig-15Bis/Mig-17 cockpit near completion

[+ordway 23]

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

 

Please this is getting silly!!

 

Well just remember that the Mig-21 cockpit gunsight that was done here at combat ace did indeed have fixed crosshairs and a moving reticle. So they got that from somewhere.

[Guest Tazkiller]

Ordway,

 

What is represented here is post combat gun footage that has been modified in the lab to give refrence.

 

Nothing more.

 

It did not and does not represent footage from the cockpit.

 

Problem with this sim is just because u can do it does not mean it is; or was ever real.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Tazkiller

[Guest Tazkiller]

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

 

 

Yes graphics in Mig Alley where poor.

 

But that is where it ends.

 

As far as flight models and combat engine. Even years old!!

 

It leaves the entire Strike Fighter Series in the DUST!!!!!!!

Edited April 6, 2008 by Tazkiller

[Gr.Viper 131]

Anyone got the CD I linked to yet? :yes:

I wish this was higher res

 

 

 

This one's from movie about USAF testing Mig-15. Sight looks different.

 

Have Fun

[Heck 496]

I don't know anything about the artificial horizon, but on the subject of cockpit mirrors, I have closely examined every photograph in the following volumes: Mig Fifty Years of Secret Aircraft Design, by Belyakov and Marmain; and Mig-15, by Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant, and can find no evidence of cockpit mirrors on any Mig-15 or 15bis, with the sole exception of the Sp-5 which was a modified Mig-15bis used as a test bed for the Izumrud RP-1 radar. And this "periscope," as it's called in the book, doesn't appear on any other plane, and would be impossible to miss, because it's a huge, wonky looking zit on top of the windscreen frame. All cockpits do seem to have the top strap across the top of the canopy, however.

 

And on the subject of cockpit mirrors in general; by the time I see someone in a cockpit mirror, he's usually already shooting, so their presence is kind of moot....

 

Heck

[Gr.Viper 131]

SP5 scope?

 

Found another design...

[+Jug 99]

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.

 

 

Most cockpits I have flown in have the landing lights switch right above or near the landing gear lever. This is so you can find the switches by feel. This could be one of the switches you have indicated.

[Canadair 16]

I like this thread. Very interesting to see what Warsaw Pact FELLOW aviators were dealing with in their cockpit

And see that their manuals were like ours after all

Aviation has no boundaries

[+Jug 99]

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.

The MiG-15 and MiG-17 suffered from the same problem that the F-101 had. A high T-tail at extreme angle of attack is blanked off from the airflow by the aircraft's wing. The result from this is a pitch-up out of control 'departure'. So I would suppose the pitchups witnessed in combat were the results of that. The problem was so common in the F-101 that a 'kicker' was added to the control column that physically notified the pilot that the critical angle of attack was near. The airspeed limitation is based on a traditional two part elevator. That means the movable elevator is the back half of the fixed elevator that will not move. Airspeed limitations are based on the structural limits of the fixed front half of the elevator. The F-86 had a movable slab which enabled the aircraft to transit the transonic region without critical stress to the empanage. A movable slab means the elevator is a single part and the whold thing moves to control or trim pitch. Incidentally, this is what Chuck Yeager discovered when his aircraft cruised through Mach 1 for the first time in history. His aircraft was the first fitted with a movable slab instead of the two section elevator described above. Most aircraft with traditional two piece elevators experience either control freeze or structural failure if the Mach limit of the aircraft is exceeded. Subsequent to Yeagers proof, F-86's were fitted with the slab and many attribute this engineering difference as one of the main reasons the F-86 dominated the MiG-15 in Korea.

 

The efficiencies of the high T-tail can be exploited by civilian aircraft, because they are not likely to be involved in a high AoA dogfight, but subsequent to the F-101 there have been no US fighter aircraft, nor Russian for that matter, designed with the high T-tail.

 

Another antidote is the Rhino (F-4) itself was designed with a straight slab on its tail, but when the aircraft was rotated for takeoff the wing blanked off the tail at that angle of attack and the pilot would lose pitch control at a critical moment. First takeoff try was a F-4 chugging down the runway nose lifting off and then settling back to the runway again and again all the way down the runway until it took the departure end barrier. That is why you see the sharply angled down slab that is on all F-4s.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Jug

[+ordway 23]

Ordway,

 

What is represented here is post combat gun footage that has been modified in the lab to give refrence.

 

Nothing more.

 

It did not and does not represent footage from the cockpit.

 

Problem with this sim is just because u can do it does not mean it is; or was ever real.

 

Hmmm Taz,

 

However there is more!

 

No Kum-Sok also states*:

 

"The optical image (of six diamonds) would dissappear as we move in on the target. Then we had to rely on a simple cross-hair sight."

 

Now, not in one single photograph of the sight area (out of maybe 40 including Korean war era film footage US and Soviet), do I see the P-40-type iron crosshairs. So I suppose, it might be optical cross hairs like the Mig-21 sight supposedly had in its gunsight.

 

I want to model these optical crosshairs if they existed. So I need the Mig-15 manual to explain this to me.

 

*"Mig-15 to Freedom" No Kum-Sok. McFarland. pp. 101-102

Edited April 6, 2008 by ordway

[+ordway 23]

SP5 scope?

 

Found another design...

 

Might this be it?

 

"The modification featured a peculiar gun camera mounting on top of the canopy in what looked like a slightly oversized rear-view mirror housing, with the camera taking pictures through the gunsight using a mirror arrangement. The Izumrud radar was also fitted to three MiG-15UTI trainers, which were given the designation of "MiG-15UTIP". The Izumrud would not be fitted to any production MiG-15 fighters, but it would become a popular fit for the next generation of MiG fighters. Interestingly, in 1952 a MiG-15bis was fitted with a complete copy of the US AN/APG-30 radar gunsight used by the F-86, with the copy designated the "SRD-3 Grad (Hail)". The Izumrud radar turned out to be the better bet."

 

http://www.airtoaircombat.com/background.a...d=42&bg=837

[+ordway 23]

Most cockpits I have flown in have the landing lights switch right above or near the landing gear lever. This is so you can find the switches by feel. This could be one of the switches you have indicated.

 

Thanks Jug, you might be on to something there!

 

Richard

[Gr.Viper 131]

Might this be it?

The first pic seems to be it. And it's a radar-equpped MiG.

On the second pic you see a TS-27 rear-view periscope that was installed on MiG-15bis since 1952

[+Paladrian 11]

Here's the iron gunsight, the only crosshair the manual seems to talk about is this one

 

 

I think Tazkiller is right about the crosshair being from the camera

[+ordway 23]

Here's the iron gunsight, the only crosshair the manual seems to talk about is this one

 

 

I think Tazkiller is right about the crosshair being from the camera

 

Great job Paladrian! You found the iron crosshair!

 

That makes my job easier so that I don't have to put one in the optical sight. Now..about that mirror!....

Edited April 6, 2008 by ordway

[+The Trooper 104]

The ADI is inverted. Today I got it confirmed by a former MiG-17 pilot to be sure. The ball always stays level with the horizon, so when you pitch up, you see more of its bottom (blue) and when you pitch down more of the top (brown) side is revealed. You should be able to replicate this with the .ini lines I've posted before. The strange thing is that modern russian ADI design is completely different. Here is a better pic of AGI-1(АГИ-1) ADI used on MiG-17 and some of the late MiG-15s.

 

BTW there is a mirror in MiG-15UTI cockpit:

MiG-17 didn't have mirrors but had a periscope.

Here are some pictures you may find useful (MiG-17PF):

RP-1 "Izumrud" scope:

the cockpit:

I can post more pictures of this particular aircraft and if there is interest the next weekend I can make some better pics of it.

[Gr.Viper 131]

Hm... on the scheme I posted on previous page it says that horizon in 15bis is AGK-47 (АГК-47)

Found a Russian table on horizons http://www.crown-airforce.narod.ru/technic...gor_dannye.html

This one says MiG15 had AGI-1

[Guest Tazkiller]

Sweet photos!!!!!!!!

 

Now armed with the proper information, Ordway can really go to work!!!!!!!!!

 

Can't wait!!!!!!!!!

 

Maybe MiGs will become something more than targets for my Sabre!!!!!

 

LOL!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

Was fighting with the F2 Gun Val sabre against mig-17 and I outclassed it. Is the current mig17 FM so bad?!

[+The Trooper 104]

Hm... on the scheme I posted on previous page it says that horizon in 15bis is AGK-47 (АГК-47)

Found a Russian table on horizons http://www.crown-airforce.narod.ru/technic...gor_dannye.html

This one says MiG15 had AGI-1

 

Some of the MiG-15bis and UTI had AGI-1, but I am not sure if this was done in the factory or were refitted later. I think that Lim-2 (Polish version of MiG-15bis) had AGI-1 too.

[FastCargo 412]

You know the funny thing about this whole discussion is that even as a western-trained flyer, I can see why this was done from an engineering standpoint.

 

Now, in the ADI that's being discussed, the idea is that the horizon on the 'ball' is ALWAYS level with the horizon on the planet. In 2 axes (roll and pitch) control, that makes perfect sense. If you think about the ball being 'fixed' in space, and the aircraft rotating around it, it makes sense why it reads the way it does.

 

It's funny, but when you think about western designed ADIs, they do the same thing...but in only one axis.

 

Think about it. A western 'ball' has the blue on top, brown on bottom...when you roll, the ball rolls away so it's always level with the horizon, exactly the same as a eastern 'ball'. The horizon's match (inner and outer).

 

However, when you pitch, the ball 'over rotates' to give you the pitch picture needed. An example...if you pitch 10 degrees nose high, the ball 'pitches' 10 degrees relative to the aircraft datum line...meaning the ball actually pitches 20 degrees upward relative to the horizon.

 

Which would make no sense on first reading of it, until you thought about it for a bit.

 

With the Soviet design, at least it's consistent in both axes.

 

Ironically, the early Su-27 HUD did the exact opposite of western designs. It behaves like you'd expect in the pitch axis, but 'over rotates' in the roll axis...ie in 90 degrees of bank, the aircraft symbol is 180 degrees to the horizon.

 

Weird stuff I think about while jogging...

 

FastCargo

[+The Trooper 104]

Well, it's not hard to get used to either western or russian ADI design - they all seem equally intuitive to me. The real problem is when you have to convert from one ADI type to another. I know some guys who had to convert from MiG-17 to MiG-23BN... (MiG-23BN like Su-27 uses the new ADI type with fixed horizon and movable aircraft symbol)

[superraven 0]

btw, if it is still needed, i can make some translation from russian into english. but it will be very nice to send me the stuff directly on my email, and exatly discribe what is the question, and which place to be translated and so on. i am absolutely run out of internet now, so i even didnt look all the pages about this topic. and it will be the best to pack the translate stuff and especially pictures in archive like zip or rar. here is my mail -- sanya22@inbox.ru

[+ordway 23]

Sweet photos!!!!!!!!

 

Now armed with the proper information, Ordway can really go to work!!!!!!!!!

 

Can't wait!!!!!!!!!

 

Maybe MiGs will become something more than targets for my Sabre!!!!!

 

LOL!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that both of the current Mig-15 flight models are valid- Paskos's, Column 5's Mig 15 for the mig-15bis (or close) and USAFMTL and Your Taz's Mig-15 according to No Kum-Sok's reports. One acts as almost the poster child for a perfect flying Mig-15Bis and the other acts (but is fun to fly) as the most tempermental one that No Kum-Sok ever flew! Ie. in my opinion, these two flight models cover the entire possible spectrum...which is truly fantastic!

 

No Kum-Sok states that some Mig-15s he flew had no really nasty problems at high speeds (they basically only got stiff)...and others were known and avoided as dogs at high speeds. He stated that his Mig-15 that was flight tested by the USAF, Chuck Yeager et. al was not his usual mount and was in fact one of the less pleasant, tempermental Mig-15s to fly.

 

No Kum-Sok stated that the reason he thought many (most early Mig-15s) were so unruly at high speeds is that the level of precision was very weak in production and some wings and fuselage sections were not symmetrical to their mated halves, were off angled and the plane wanted to fly a little weird anyway at low speeds...but at high speeds, of course, these angle and drag differences were strongly exacerbated

 

...ie. especially in the transonic regime or some high attack angles, if I understand correctly and then you got your extra-nasty stalls, spins, uncommanded pitch ups, and yaw freezings at lower speeds and/or angles of attacks

compared to other more symmetrical Mig-15s.

 

He stated that his Mig-15s were built with comparatively low quality standards (at least in the former Soviet Union)...but built as quickly as possible to make high production quotas.

Edited April 7, 2008 by ordway

[+ordway 23]

Was fighting with the F2 Gun Val sabre against mig-17 and I outclassed it. Is the current mig17 FM so bad?!

 

You definitely mean the later Mig-17 and not the Mig-15, right? From what I understand, the later Mig-17 literally did outclass (or close to it) the F-86. The Mig-17 was definitely close to being a generation later than most F-86 Sabres...much more power and speed.

Edited April 7, 2008 by ordway