Vietnam Era MiG-21 top sea level speed?

[Toryu 156]

Testpilots have no big problems flying all kinds of airplanes.

Cramped cockpits or different instrument-units don't provide huge problems, as aircraft are flown by the pubished numbers anyway.

 

By the way, personally i believe that the small Tiger was the best US plane in that timeframe of Vietnam war

 

Depends. It was quite valuable for CAS in South-Vietnam and could provide a quite good sortie-rate due to it's simplicity.

 

When going "north", however, it lacked payload/ range and the vital electronical components to survive.

[MigBuster 2,884]

You are right, that the Skoshi Tiger was the most agile plane in US inventory, but only if you see North and South Vietnam as one theatre. The F-5A and E were never used over the north. They were used only in South Vietnam, so that their air superiority was wasted. By the way, personally i believe that the small Tiger was the best US plane in that timeframe of Vietnam war, but i think other guys have other favorits.

 

Not totally true - The second phase of the Skoshi project (Designation was F-5C with the Mods) included CAPs over North Vietnam, and Strike missions over the North as well (claimed in F-5 Tigers over Vietnam - A.Tambini)

 

And to your second point. I wanted to show, what the manuals stated (the data i posted are taken from a east german flight manual of the MiG-21F-13) and that was a plane was able to withstand were two different figures. And i wanted to show how the max g loads differed at different fuel loads.

That other planes could reach a max g of 12 or 15 is not disputed by me. The MiG-21 was not the strongest plane, there were a lot of types which were much stronger. And i also dont want to say, that the MiG-21 was the best of the best fighters.

 

I wasn't disputing the claims - but making the point that G is a another variable figure that people seem to take at face value (like top speed ) without taking into account the other factors involved during manouveres.

 

 

That american pilots were unable to get the maximum out of the MiG-21 had a lot to do with a completly different design philosophy. The american planes had very comfortable cockpits, while the MiG cockpits were very small. The data system are completly different, metric vs imperial, what means, that you must first calculate befor you can act if you have a bird with the wrong data display system. My personal experience is, that i get better results in game if i fly the F-4 with showing datas in metric than in imperial style.

And an other experience i made: A lot of east german car drivers had had no problems to switch from the old and outdated Trabant car to modern western car and drove the western car in a good way. The other way was much more difficult, i have rarely seen guys who have learned driving on a comfortable western car who were able to drive the Trabi in a good and efficient style. Its simpler to "upgrate" than to "downgrate". Thats so in cars and for planes too. For an american pilote the step from Phantom to the MiG-21 was a very big downgrate, so he has big problems to drive the MiG to their limits. But this does not mean, that a guy, who had always been a MiG jock wont also be unable to reach the limits of a MiG-21.

 

I am reading Americas Secret MiG Squadron at the moment (G.Peck) - which is the authors recollection of the declassified (2006) Constant Peg program that ran from 1979 to 1988. They operated mostly early and export MiGs (17/21/23) - all the MiG-21s were MiG-21F-13s it seems. The only instrument change they made across all of them was to replace the Altimeter (for one in Feet) and speedometer (For one in Knots) - because as you say its very difficult to interpret metric in a combat situation when bought up on imperial and vice versa. (but as said above maybe less problematic for test pilots)

 

Constant Peg was primarily about dogfighting and teaching US flyers how to fight them - Its an interesting read - Some of the 1v1 dogfights like the AV-8B Vs MiG-21F-13 and another where the author in a single MiG-17F takes on 4 x F-4Es make good reading......

Edited September 10, 2012 by MigBuster

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

SupGen::

Lexx, do not STFU. I, for one look forward to your "unique" perspective.

 

Sup! Yea its a long story, the greatest story never told.

 

Toryu, yea as always I "forgot" to mention Su-7 as a fictional competitor subject to fictional changes, although the Su vs MiG-21 flyoff intrigued me no end, the limited number of afterburner starts especially. If you have the inclination, examine the possibility of adding gunsight, atolls, etc... foryour self as that goes beyond this thread. Some good points are that Su did evolve into heavier payloads, and seemed to be a very, very tough air frame. Built like a LaGG lol.

 

About the US red squadron, I had read some account of that -- about MiG-23s -- the US pilots were not comfortable using it, at all, and didn't do well with it in practice engagements, or so I recall reading. What about Soviet pilots, or at least the more experienced ones willing to push it? Was it seen as useful but hot to handle in the VVS?

[Toryu 156]

Toryu, yea as always I "forgot" to mention Su-7 as a fictional competitor subject to fictional changes,

 

Wouldn't that make a Su-9 (albeit with swept wings) out of it?

 

 

The VVS very seldomly pushed it's fighters to the limits (hence their questionable design-features, or rather the lack thereof).

The US propably flew the MiGs to the limits on a more frequent basis than they were within the WP, where the main emphasis was on GCI and intercept-procedures.

 

Dogfighting-capability was not a premier design-goal of the soviet fighters.

hence the crappy view/ cockpit-layout, etc.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Toryu

[MigBuster 2,884]

About the US red squadron, I had read some account of that -- about MiG-23s -- the US pilots were not comfortable using it, at all, and didn't do well with it in practice engagements, or so I recall reading. What about Soviet pilots, or at least the more experienced ones willing to push it? Was it seen as useful but hot to handle in the VVS?

 

As far as this book goes the US had quite a few MiG-23MS (Flogger E) - downgraded export versions with **** avionics. The evaluation of this model was carried out in HAVE PAD - but in this book they summarize it as having turning performance similar to the non slatted F-4E with the same smoky engine problem the J79 had - basically an interceptor only - but very quick acceleration was better than any US jet at the time it claims.

 

The USSR would have been using the second generation MiG-23ML/MLD by then - the MLD in particular incorporated mods to take account of the kicking received in 82 - and was probably a vastly different beast according to the attached.

SovietMig23_View.pdf

Edited September 11, 2012 by MigBuster

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Toryu, recall Su-7_blank competed against MiG-21 for frontline fighter. Hanging atolls won't make it Su-9, like adding atolls to Mig-21 wouldn't make it a MiG-23. The Su7 and 9 were born as completely seperated twins back in the original Su swept vs delta experiments in the 50s. If it keeps the swept wings, it stays seven.

 

I didn't mean "dogfighting" but pushing MiG-23 hard on the job in service...fast and low, high speed g's when needed, bad weather, doing whatever it took to intercept the target, etc... Heard the maintenence was bad though, very much opposite the MiG-21 as implied by the dougnut article last page.

 

Good F-104 pilots could show what was possible (not just dogfighting), no so much the "average" guy perhaps. Dunno. MiG-23 was similar to that in my suspicion.

 

Well thanks alot MB, I hava a busy day today and here you are with that PDF. AAAHHHH

[Toryu 156]

It's not about just hanging-on a couple of Atolls, but putting in fighter-equipment, which the Su-9 had and the Su-7 didn't.

The 9 was basicly a similar iteration as the very early MiG-21, which also had one or two swept-wing prototypes.

MiG went for delta-wings on the definitive interceptor, just as did Su.

 

Do you have any surces on the differences between the Su-7 and 9?

To me, it looks like they have a lot in common.

 

 

The MiG-23 was just as much an interceptor as any MiG-"fighter" before or after. It wasn't designed to "mix it" (which doesn't prevent it's pilots from doing so).

Neither was the Phantom.

In the west, however, fighter-designs improved and got more pilot-friendly (cockpit-layout, view outside, HOTAS, HUD, etc), while the WP-birds still retained their GCI-only menthality.

Edited September 12, 2012 by Toryu

[GalmOne 1]

The early MiG-21s were actually limited by their weak (reversible) hydraulic-system. The control-forces got so high at high speeds, that safe operation at low altitudes (< 15.000ft) required speed-limitations to below 600KIAS. Later, that problem was cured, and the Migs could go all the way to Mmo.

 

Acceleration is a function of excess-power.

With bombracks and other stuff dangling from the aircraft, F-4s and F-105s usually had a disadvantage. They also had a disadvantage concerning their pilot-training and tactics. Most F-4 pilots of that time had had their initial ACM-training syllabus on the F-4 (maybe 5-10 hops) and that was thought to be enough to send them overseas.

Those pilots had no clue how to handle the aircraft A-A effectively.

Only the 8th FW did possess serious A-A capability, and thus they were (almost exclusively) given the task of escort- or CAP missions.

 

I wouldn't call the MiG-21 pilots "experienced", as they mostly engaged under GCI-orders.

The MiG-17 pilots propably were better in actual dogfights.

 

 

The slatted F-4E wasn't used in combat (IIRC, there was only a single, slatted airframe in SEA). But even the unslatted F-4s could hold it's own - the pilot-quality is of much more importance than the airplane's performance.

Same is true about the F-8, or any aircraft for that matter.

 

I looked it up and apparently under Operation Rivet Haste, a squadron of F-4E's entered service but found no MiG's according to

 

F-4 Phantom II vs MiG-21: USAF & VPAF in the Vietnam War

 

By Peter Davies

[Toryu 156]

Looks like you're right.

Maybe I mixed it up with the Israelis having one slatted F-4E during the YKW.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Toryu::

MiG went for delta-wings on the definitive interceptor, just as did Su.

 

No, they didn't.

 

It got *weird* here and not many know about it, like Grumman Tiger vs Vought Crusader but worse since there were two independent services involved, VVS vs PVO, not just one navy. Sukhoi went with swept wings for frontline VVS tac fighter in the S-2 or pre-"B" Su-7 early production batch, with gun ranging radar and gun cam, which were assigned to, at best, a pair of VVS fighter regiments in the Far East. The smaller cheaper delta MiG was eventually chosen instead for mass production. I think lindr here poasted long ago that the AL-7 was very expensive engine to manufacture, and I guess that could have led to the decision.

 

Su-9 was the concrete runway PVO strategic interceptor competing against Apple's MiG's heavy AL-7 swept wing i-series interceptors, I-3,I-5, i-7, I-75,etc...

 

Su-9, like the i-MiGs, from the start had PVO specific avionics, PVO GCI comm gear and weapons, unlike the Su-7 fighter which more resembled the MiG-21F.

 

Only later came the S-22 fighter bomber prototype for VVS; the well known Su-7B.

 

Su went with swept wing fighter, MiG went with delta fighter.

Su went with delta interceptor, MiG went swept wing interceptor.

 

Weird, yea.

 

 

I would rather have Su-7 and its VG wing derivatives as PVO inteceptor for use on more primitive and less vulnerable airfields. Strategic Air Command never sleeps.

[+Gepard 11,324]

As far as this book goes the US had quite a few MiG-23MS (Flogger E) - downgraded export versions with **** avionics. The evaluation of this model was carried out in HAVE PAD - but in this book they summarize it as having turning performance similar to the non slatted F-4E with the same smoky engine problem the J79 had - basically an interceptor only - but very quick acceleration was better than any US jet at the time it claims.

 

The USA got the MiG-23MS from Egypt. But they got it without full documentation. Especially the documentation of the autopilot was not handed out.

The MiG-23 was always flow with autopilot support. Without this support it was a beast with bad flight performance. This was the result the US pilots found out. It would be interessting to hear what they tought about the MiG-23ML which they got from Germany after unification. If i remember right 15 or so MiG-23ML were flown to Ramstein AB, handed over to the USAF and were flown in the USA. There they were used in OPFOR units for a longer period.

 

 

MiG-23ML at Ramstein AB

 

If you talk with german MiG-23 pilots they always praise the 23 as a plane with good flight charakteristics. Only the MiG-23BN is said, to be a beast, because the autopilot was not efficient enough for low flight profiles. That caused some deadly crashed.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Gepard

[Toryu 156]

The basic MiG-21 was an interceptor, not a fighter - albeit for use in the VVS, not in the PVO.

Later models got an ever-increasing *true* A-G capability, thus turning it into a light tactical fighter/ recce (21R) / nuclear bomber (21SMT).

 

The Su-7 was also not a fighter, but an attack-aircraft.

It's A-A capability is comparable to western light attack-aircraft (though for different reasons).

 

Especially the documentation of the autopilot was not handed out.

The MiG-23 was always flow with autopilot support. Without this support it was a beast with bad flight performance.

 

So the auto-pilot was basicly two-stage?

First stage engages stability-augmantation and the second stage engages the actual auto-pilot?

[MigBuster 2,884]

The USA got the MiG-23MS from Egypt. But they got it without full documentation. Especially the documentation of the autopilot was not handed out.

The MiG-23 was always flow with autopilot support. Without this support it was a beast with bad flight performance. This was the result the US pilots found out. It would be interessting to hear what they tought about the MiG-23ML which they got from Germany after unification. If i remember right 15 or so MiG-23ML were flown to Ramstein AB, handed over to the USAF and were flown in the USA. There they were used in OPFOR units for a longer period.

 

Thanks for the Picture and information

 

What information is there regarding how the autopilot influenced pilot handling during normal pilot operation? - was the physical control system augmented with a rudimentary analogue FBW system because it would have had to change control surfaces alongside the pilots inputs to be able to have any influence.

[JediMaster 451]

Sounds like the Ka-50 or Su-25T--with no AP functioning they are HIGH workload just to fly let alone fight in.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Toryu, There's some great history that gets missed by western TheSims players, especially as it can be employed for alt.history SF campaigns. Czech it out.

 

Su-7B was a later variant, an attack aircraft, having a number of improvements over the Su-7.

 

Su-7 was assigned to two VVS fighter regiments, as a tactical fighter.

 

Like the MiG-21F, and the F-104A, the Su-7 had limitations, caused by the rush to Mach 2, that hindered their promised operational use and make us want to call them "interceptors," which is fine but not a full description or their development.

 

Toryu::

The basic MiG-21 was an interceptor, not a fighter - albeit for use in the VVS, not in the PVO.

:

:

Later models got an ever-increasing *true* A-G capability, thus turning it into a light tactical fighter/ recce (21R) / nuclear bomber (21SMT).

^ this ... emphasis added...

 

Unless you fluffed your poast, as I do here *ALL* the time, and you meant to poast "light tactical fighter/bomber" ... How does increasing A-G turn an interceptor into a light tactical fighter? The MiG-21 was always a fighter, like F-104A and Su-7, and all shared limitations that came at a brief but very unique era in tactical fighter development.

[Atreides 144]

Lexx didn't the Luftwaffe inherit the MiG-23MLD upon reunification ? Weren't they tested by the Luftwaffe pilots as well. What came out of that ?

Edited September 14, 2012 by Atreides

[Toryu 156]

Toryu, There's some great history that gets missed by western TheSims players, especially as it can be employed for alt.history SF campaigns. Czech it out.

Su-7B was a later variant, an attack aircraft, having a number of improvements over the Su-7.

Su-7 was assigned to two VVS fighter regiments, as a tactical fighter.]

 

How long did the initial Su-7s last in those regiments? Were they replaced by MiG-21s?

What was the Su-7's avionics outfit? What was it's armament?

 

The MiG-21 was always a fighter, like F-104A and Su-7, and all shared limitations that came at a brief but very unique era in tactical fighter development.

 

The MiG-21 was not always a fighter. It was put into service as tactical/ front-line interceptor. The soviets didn't have "fighters" in the westerns sense back then. They almost totally focused on the defensive intercept-mission. Only later, when experiences from actaul wars (middle-east) and own considerations (the MiG-21 got behind the edge technology-wise during the late 60s/ early 70s) reflected on the MiG-21's role, the airplne got true, and increasing, A-G capability. That is the post-PFM models.

 

The F-104A is a pure interceptor (for use in ADC, later in the ANG), with no A-G capability whatsoever - except for the gun, which wasn't fitted at first.

It also didn't last very long, as it was (right from the start intended) to be replaced by the F-106. The ADC and PVO (the PVO being an own armed-forces branch) were the dedicated homeland-defenders. Then again, there were other "front-line" units, (TAC/ USAFE / PACAF) that employed dual-roles (mostly equipped with F-100s at that time).

The "dual-role" F-104C (the plane the 104 was intended to be) came a couple of months after the ADC-version and was put into TAC service.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Toryu

[Atreides 144]

Thanks for the Picture and information

 

What information is there regarding how the autopilot influenced pilot handling during normal pilot operation? - was the physical control system augmented with a rudimentary analogue FBW system because it would have had to change control surfaces alongside the pilots inputs to be able to have any influence.

 

Forward the vid to 6:12 so does this shed some light or am I all over the place ?

[+Gepard 11,324]

No, there they descripe the emergency flight controll system of the early MiG-21 prototypes. There electric driven backup systems were installed which caused a fatal crash of one prototype. Thatswhy the following planes got a hydraulic backup system.

 

LSK and later Luftwaffe had only MiG-23ML, no MLD. MLD was the next development step. Our 23 were MLA standard.

How exactly the MiG-23 autopilot system worked i dont know. If i remember right it was a 3 axis system, that acted as a limiter to avoid dangerous flight conditions. I will try to get contact with german MiG-23 gurus and i hope that i will can give you than a proper answer (i hope that my english will be good enough for it).

 

Wether the Luftwaffe had tested the MiG-23 i cant answer. I know that they intensivly tested the Su-22 and MiG-29. The MiG-21 were not tested, but with the MiG-23 i dont know.

I only know, that the Luftwaffe officers were very impressed by the weapon control system and the missiles. In 1990 the Luftwaffe had had nothing comparable. (F-4F ICE came some years later)

[+Gepard 11,324]

Here are some informations to the work modes of the MiG-23 autopilot (german language is original red is my translation into english i hope its correct, but i'm not 100% sure)

 

Betriebsarten: (modes)

 

1. Dämpfung (smoothing ?)

2. Rückführung zum Horizontalflug (bring plane back in horizonal flight mode = Panic mode)

3. Stabilisierung der Winkellage des Flugzeuges (stabilisation of plane AoA ? ... various modes)

- für Schräglage > 6° bis 180°

- bei Schräglage < 6° automatische Rückführung und Stabilisierung bei 0°

- Längsneigung +/- 90°

- Kurs (bei Schräglage < 6° und Längsneigung < +/-40°)

4. automatische Trimmung bei „losgelassenem“ Steuerknüppel (ausser in der Betriebsart Direktorsteuerung) (automaticaly trimm)

5. automatisches Herausführen aus gefährlicher Höhe nach einem Signal vom Funkhöhenmesser und Stabilisierung der am Höhenmesser eingestellten Minimalhöhe (ausser in der Betriebsart Direktorsteuerung) (recover from dangerous low altitutes)

6. Steuerung des Flugzeuges nach den Anzeigen des Kreuzzeigerinstrumentes (automatic flight at instument data)

- beim Streckenflug (.....flightpath)

- bei der Rückkehr zum gewählten Flugplatz ( .... to selected airfield)

- bei der Vorbereitung des Landeanfluges ( .....automatic airfield approach)

- beim Abfangmanöver (.... intercept course)

7. Direktor-Steuerung des Landeanfluges bis H= 50...60m ( support of landing approach min 50 - 60 meters)

8. automatische Steuerung des Flugzeuges (automatic flight modes)

- beim Streckenflug (.....flightpath)

- bei der Rückkehr zum gewählten Flugplatz ( .... to selected airfield)

- bei der Vorbereitung des Landeanfluges ( .....automatic airfield approach)

- beim Abfangmanöver mit automatischem Waffeneinsatz ( automatic intercept with automatic weapon release)

9. automatische Steuerung beim Landeanflug bis H= 50...60m (automatic landing approach pilot takes over at 50 -60 m alt)

10. Begrenzung der Schräglage im Landeanflug bei Direktorsteuerung und automatischer Steuerung (limiter during landing approach)

11. Begrenzung des Anstellwinkels auf 18° bei automatischer Steuerung ( limiter for AoA 18°)

12. Begrenzung der Überlast bei „Stabilisierung“ und „Rückführung“ (max g limiter)

Edited September 14, 2012 by Gepard

[Toryu 156]

A few minor corrections:

 

1. Dämpfung stability augmentation

 

2. Rückführung zum Horizontalflug (bring plane back in horizonal flight mode = Panic button)

 

3. Stabilisierung der Winkellage des Flugzeuges attitude-hold/ stabilization-functions

- für Schräglage > 6° bis 180° roll-attitude-hold at bank-angles between 6° and 180°

- bei Schräglage < 6° automatische Rückführung und Stabilisierung bei 0° Wing-Leveler between 6° and 0° of bank

- Längsneigung +/- 90° stablization of the pitch-orientation (works between "straight up" and "straight down")

- Kurs (bei Schräglage < 6° und Längsneigung < +/-40°) "heading hold" for bank-angles lower than 6° and pitch-angles between +/-40°

 

4. automatische Trimmung bei „losgelassenem“ Steuerknüppel (ausser in der Betriebsart Direktorsteuerung) autotrim - n/a in mode "7"

 

5. automatisches Herausführen aus gefährlicher Höhe nach einem Signal vom Funkhöhenmesser und Stabilisierung der am Höhenmesser eingestellten Minimalhöhe (ausser in der Betriebsart Direktorsteuerung) automatic recovery to preset minimal altitude (Radar-Alt.) - n/a in mode "7"

 

6. Steuerung des Flugzeuges nach den Anzeigen des Kreuzzeigerinstrumentes Flight-Director functions for

- beim Streckenflug cruise

- bei der Rückkehr zum gewählten Flugplatz return to selected airfield

- bei der Vorbereitung des Landeanfluges approach

- beim Abfangmanöver automatic intercepts

 

7. Direktor-Steuerung des Landeanfluges bis H= 50...60m autoland-function down to 200...150ft

 

8. automatische Steuerung des Flugzeuges autopilot-functions (obviously coupled with Flight-Director functions mentioned above)

- beim Streckenflug cruise

- bei der Rückkehr zum gewählten Flugplatz return to selected airfield

- bei der Vorbereitung des Landeanfluges approach

- beim Abfangmanöver mit automatischem Waffeneinsatz automatic intercept with automatic weapon-release *

 

9. automatische Steuerung beim Landeanflug bis H= 50...60m autoland down to 200...150ft

 

10. Begrenzung der Schräglage im Landeanflug bei Direktorsteuerung und automatischer Steuerung bank-angle limiter during approach

 

11. Begrenzung des Anstellwinkels auf 18° bei automatischer Steuerung AoA-limiter (18°) in mode "8"

 

12. Begrenzung der Überlast bei „Stabilisierung“ und „Rückführung“ g-limiter in modes "2" and "3"

 

* I guess this function requires data-link to the GCI-station.

[+Jug 99]

All of these statistics and numbers don't make a jet driver whip one or the other. It's how you deploy your advantages and how you live with your limitations. In other words, experience. It is also true that you can only fight when you have gas in the tank. The MiG-21 was designed, like the British Lightning, as a point interceptor and was severely limited in prolonged engagements. I always thought it might be a good idea to split your CAP duties for target area and enemy airfields. Those jets coming in to land were usually easy targets with no petrol.

 

How can anyone think that a MiG of any flavor can top-in higher than a Thud on the deck?

[MigBuster 2,884]

A few minor corrections:

 

 

Fantastic - thanks for that guys - quite a few modes in there

[Atreides 144]

LSK and later Luftwaffe had only MiG-23ML, no MLD. MLD was the next development step. Our 23 were MLA standard.

How exactly the MiG-23 autopilot system worked i dont know. If i remember right it was a 3 axis system, that acted as a limiter to avoid dangerous flight conditions. I will try to get contact with german MiG-23 gurus and i hope that i will can give you than a proper answer (i hope that my english will be good enough for it).

 

Wether the Luftwaffe had tested the MiG-23 i cant answer. I know that they intensivly tested the Su-22 and MiG-29. The MiG-21 were not tested, but with the MiG-23 i dont know.

I only know, that the Luftwaffe officers were very impressed by the weapon control system and the missiles. In 1990 the Luftwaffe had had nothing comparable. (F-4F ICE came some years later)

 

Ok I'm a bit confused here cause I have a world airpower journal with a MiG-23MLD in East German air force colours the pic is crystal clear and they state that its an MLD.

[+Gepard 11,324]

Ok I'm a bit confused here cause I have a world airpower journal with a MiG-23MLD in East German air force colours the pic is crystal clear and they state that its an MLD.

 

If you can post this picture.

But believe me, the LSK had had only MiG-23MF and MiG-23ML (MLA standard). If you want i can post all tactical and production id numbers.

From the side the MLD you can discriminate from the ML by the chaff flare dispensers. From above you can see a dogtooth on the non movable part of the wing.