Vietnam Era MiG-21 top sea level speed?

[Atreides 144]

Sorry dont have access to the book, (not in the country). Gepard I was going by memory. I know about the MLD i.e the chaff/flare launchers and the dogtooth. You know it could be a Soviet MLD stationed in East-Germany.

 

Anyways dont know if you've read http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a1253fb8a-3b45-4f68-b273-fff9b8f2f73darticle by Bill Sweetman. Pretty cool stuff.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Atreides

[+Gepard 11,359]

Interessting read, indeed.

But it also showed the limitation of the US pilots, which had not had the proper manuals. I have spoken with a former east german MiG-23 pilot. He said, officially the MiG-23 had 3 swingwing angles: 72° for fast hunt, 45° for dogfight and 16° for landing. "But there was an inofficially wing position at 30°. At this angle the MiG-23 was fast as a lightning around a corner."

 

And yes, the soviets had had the MiG-23MLD. They used the M and the MLD in the 80th. But by 1989 they had switched nearly all units to MiG-29 or Su-27. Only one squadron used the 23MLD on german soil.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Gepard

[Toryu 156]

"But there was an inofficially wing position at 30°. At this angle the MiG-23 was fast as a lightning around a corner."

 

The problem with pilot-accounts is that they are highly subjective and not based on factual (physical) information.

[JediMaster 451]

Yes, because lightning doesn't go around corners...as an example.

[Toryu 156]

Well, actually, it does

[+Gepard 11,359]

Yes, because lightning doesn't go around corners...as an example.

 

Word by word translation from one language to an other is always problematic. But i could not found a good english expression for the german term "wie ein geölter Blitz".

 

By the way, if i would translate "Fallschirmspringer" word by word from german to english it would be "falling umbrella jumper", correct would be parachutist :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[Toryu 156]

"Umbrella" means "Regenschirm", not "Schirm".

"Regenschirm" is related to the french "parapluie", wherein there's already the word "para", as in "parachute".

 

The Germans germanized "parachute" into "Fallschirm" (which is, like "Regenschirm" just a literal translation from the French), whereas the lazy anglophones just kept the word that was already there.

 

French blokes - inventing your language!

 

[Derk 265]

Word by word translation from one language to an other is always problematic. But i could not found a good english expression for the german term "wie ein geölter Blitz".

 

By the way, if i would translate "Fallschirmspringer" word by word from german to english it would be "falling umbrella jumper", correct would be parachutist :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Like a "greased lightning" Michael ... ("gesmeerde bliksem" in Dutch, exactly the same) and Fallschirm is "valscherm"in Dutch, litterally the same as the German word. We do have a lot in common don't we ?? Edited September 21, 2012 by Derk

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Sorry, I've been away too long.

 

Toryu::

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?

 

I'm getting this from Yefim Gordon's Su-7/17 AEROFAX. The Su-7s were replaced in 1965 by Su-7BKL, so they converted to a different role, but kept flying a similar plane. For Su-7 avionics, get the book, but they had gun ranging radar for twin 30mm. The original S-1 fighter had 3 x 30mm, like MiG-19S, but they dropped one for the production S-2 aka Su-7.

 

 

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.

 

(1) From the start, in 1952, what became the F-104 was Kelly Johnson's "lightweight" TAC air superiority fighter, optimized for speed and climb, in memorandum of the MiG-15 vs F-86 Problem. But by 1956 or so, TAC wanted heavy fighters and so it seems they basically went without until the Phantom. (2) I think the 104A waited so long for a cannon because the fighter was abandoned, unlike the 104C which got its working Vulcans early.

 

F-104Cs flew tac escort here ~> Starfighters in action in Vietnam 1965-1967

 

While looking at that, bear in mind that Escort/CAP/etc... often requires on the spot interception of interceptors before they reach your bombers, or your AEW, tanker, etc...

 

Interceptor and Fighter are often just names that become blurred as when we compare the Zero (dogfighter) and P-38 (interceptor) and their creation and later use. Do what you have to do to replace MiG-21F (no atolls) in your game with basic Su-7 (no atolls). You then need Yefim Gordon's book for the details on how to downgrade Su-7B into an Su-7, then carry over much of the later development of the real Su-7/17 bomber variants to come up with reasonable Su-7/17 fighters to replace later MiG-21s.

 

Its fun. I assume you play The StrikeFighers. The Su should have some faults as a fighter -- higher cost so less numbers, blown flaps apparently weren't fielded (need to read more about that) so maybe need larger airfields until the swing wings, etc... and has some advantages, damage model, gun power, better payload potential, etc...

[Toryu 156]

I don't want to drag this into a discussion way apart from the topic, but I actually like discussing aircraft, so I'll do it anyway:

 

The 104 was designed in the face of the Korean War with the pilots complaining about the F-86's shortcomings in relation to the MiG-15 (mainly climb and altitude-performance).

The resulting F-104 was thus a design, that concentratet most on those two issues - as well as on a third one: Speed.

It was the first serially produced aircraft that was capable of maintaining Mach 2 in level flight.

 

As Lexx said, he TAC started thinking about heavier Nuke-Fighter-Bombers in the mid-50s and favoured complex, heavy, and expensive designs.

This did not, however, influence the 104's developent at first.

 

The F-104A was introduced as a stop-gap measure for the gap, the underperforming F-102 created. The 104A was used during the mid-late 50s to close the gap between the 102 and the definitive interceptor, the 106. It didn't possess the avionical capabilities of either Convair-Delta, but it brought promising performance (and teething-problems) to the fight.

When the 106 finally got ready for service, the ADC got rid of it's unloved, simplistic 104As.

F-104As had no A-G capability whatsoever (safe for some models that ventually HAD the gun installed), and only flew as an interceptor. It wasn't an interceptor by design, but it was an interceptor by systems-tayloring.

 

TAC had a slightly different thingy going. They needed an aircraft to replace the quickly getting obsolete F-100s. The F-104 was (performance wise) the right choice. It did, however, not bring the neccessary payload-capabilities (it DID have enough range, as opposed to most publicists' opinions).

Also getting to be a non-lovechild (lots of teething-problems/ the opposite of the complexity-loving TAC), it was quickly put on a sidetrack.

The F-104C was not an interceptor, but a fighter-bomber with impressive WVR A-A capabilitay and somewhat-satisfying A-G capability.

 

 

Discussing the Zero is a little more confusing. That's because it incorporated different desingn-features of different roles.

It was designed to have a good low-speed maneuverability. As such, it was a good "dogfighter".

But actually, it's primary design-goal was not focussed on A-A capability.

 

It was designed to achieve the longest possible patrol-time @ CAP-distance from the ship.

As such, it combined a low-power engine with a gigantic wing that has a very good efficiency (L/D) ==> good low-speed maneuvering-platfom!

The Zero in it's initial form was easily capable of endurances in excess of 12 hours!

 

The Lightning (P-38) in contrast, was designed for maximum speed and climb-performance. It's size and power later enabled it not only to fly huge distances (lots of room for additional fuel-tanks and droptanks, that ere later incorporated), but also carry lots of ordnance.

 

During WW2, the role of the aircraft was not so much determined by it's avionics-fit. Only during the later stages, special missions got special avionics and systems (e.g. radar). Many aircraft that were designed for one purpose, equally fulfilled another because of reserves in structural strength, or general performance-data.

An aircraft that can lift off a short carrier-deck very propably can haul lots of ordnance from a much longer shore-runway (as was the case with e.g. the F4U Corsair).

There are other similar or at least alike examples of aircraft having their roles changed because of their capabilities - or the lack thereof (e.g. the P-40 that was alsmost exclusively used as fighter-bomber due to it's lack of relative performance).

[Derk 265]

I don't want to drag this into a discussion way apart from the topic, but I actually like discussing aircraft, so I'll do it anyway:

 

Discussing the Zero is a little more confusing. That's because it incorporated different desingn-features of different roles.

It was designed to have a good low-speed maneuverability. As such, it was a good "dogfighter".

But actually, it's primary design-goal was not focussed on A-A capability.

 

It was designed to achieve the longest possible patrol-time @ CAP-distance from the ship.

As such, it combined a low-power engine with a gigantic wing that has a very good efficiency (L/D) ==> good low-speed maneuvering-platfom!

The Zero in it's initial form was easily capable of endurances in excess of 12 hours!

 

 

... and don't forget the fact that the engine of the Zero could run on very lean mixtures without burning it's valves or pistons, the main reason it could stay aloft for such a long time.....

Edited September 27, 2012 by Derk

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Toryu::

I don't want to drag this into a discussion way apart from the topic, but I actually like discussing aircraft, so I'll do it anyway:

 

It is a wonderful thing. Some of the best threads take on lives of their own, going beyond, but not too far, with various members coming and going.

 

 

Here's a good example of how easy it is to get trapped in what could be called sound bite historical labels, from Tom Cooper...

 

:

....the type was designed as simple point-defence fighter-interceptor that was to operate under close GCI-control and attack its targets from the rear hemisphere with R-3S (ASCC-Code AA-2 Atoll) heat-seeking missiles. The Indians, however, were to use it as an air superiority fighter, over extended ranges and well inside the enemy airspace, with minimal or no GCI-support at all – as well as a fighter-bomber. It was therefore little surprising when they required the aircraft to be armed with cannons....

:

~ India - Pakistan War, 1971; Introduction ~> http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_326.shtml

 

 

There is room for confusion there and a loss of understanding, as -21PFM was indeed created to be a GCI controlled missile armed interceptor, but the MiG-21 (ie...Ye-5) was not. The MiG-21 was never intended to carry missiles at all -- there were none for it in the USSR -- leaving guns, and to fly all types of air superiority missions, in daylight. Same with Su-7 which competed with the MiG-21 roundabout 1959, and that's where we start having fun, since the Su-7, like F-104A, was abandoned after its initial version, so we have to get creative about developing it ourselves into later fighter versions.

 

Toryu::

The F-104C was not an interceptor, but a fighter-bomber with impressive WVR A-A capabilitay and somewhat-satisfying A-G capability.

 

That's it! -- impressive WVR A-A ... that's what F-104 in general, and Su-7, as tactical fighter was made to be (but then dropped).

 

I'm going to guess the F-104C makes a better "interceptor" than F-104A, because it was simply better equipped overall as an advance beyond the original, while the F-104A as fighter was left to suffocate from birth with no further development. If the F-104 as air superiority fighter had not been abandoned, but further developed, that's where we can have more fun over The StrikeFighters.

[+Gepard 11,359]

The MiG-21 was never intended to carry missiles at all -- there were none for it in the USSR -- leaving guns, and to fly all types of air superiority missions, in daylight.

 

Ehm this statement is not 100% correct. When the soviet council of ministers gave the order to develope a new Mach 2 capable fighter plane to the OKB's MiG, Suchoi and Jakovlev it was demanded to develope a plane which was prepared to carry missiles.

It is correct, that at this time the soviets had not had working missile designs, but they had designs in the pipeline. And the capability to carry such missiles were part of the demand of the soviet military.

 

The best read for the MiG-21 story isYefim Gordons book "MiG-21".

Edited September 27, 2012 by Gepard

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Thanks. And that makes sense since by then the earlier MiGs had been modded into all weather missile armed interceptors for PVO, so I am guessing this was their idea. I don't know of any missiles in the pipeline at that time for VVS fighters until they got the sidewinder later, but, being prepared would allow them to jump that much faster into an all weather intercept version for both services. Is this Correct Thinking?

 

Gep, what are your opinions on the new big Famous Su-7-17 hardback over the smaller aerofax softback? Alot more info? The aerofax is already crammed with insane info, although frustratingly I can't find ANYWHERE where Gordon reveals the internal fuel of the Su-7 fighter....although it may be hidden in a reference to the capacity of the bomber's new wing tanks but I've not seen that yet (only the total internal for -7B).

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Do'h. Turned right to the internal fuel load, right in front of me, and its waaay less than in Su-7B. That's gotta hurt.

[Toryu 156]

The proverbial built-in fuel-emergency?

It's not a bug - it's a feature!

 

The interesting thing about "AWX"-interceptors (All-Weather) is, that even though they might be able to find their targets by help of GCI or even through their own on-board detection-systems, they might be ill-equipped to actually shoot the other guy down.

 

Imagine a radar-intercept that ends in a 5km-thick stratus-cloud layer and all you have is a peashooter-gun and two (or whatever the number is...) IR-Missiles.

 

Bomber: 1

Interceptor: 0

[+Gepard 11,359]

Imagine a radar-intercept that ends in a 5km-thick stratus-cloud layer and all you have is a peashooter-gun and two (or whatever the number is...) IR-Missiles.

 

Bomber: 1

Interceptor: 0

 

Do you mean the F-4F poor mans Phantoms?

 

Lexx, about the Su-7 i have not very much information.

The only wha i know is, that the delta wing Su-9 had a better handling at higher speeds, so it became the fighter, while the Su-7 had a better handling at low altittutes and at lower speeds, so it became the fighter bomber.

 

The missile i development i mentioned was the RS-2US (AA-1 Alkali) and their planned successors. That the Atoll copy R-3S would make the race was not expected.

[Toryu 156]

Given the role, the initial F-4Fs had...no.

 

But there are lots of other IR-missile carriers of that period, that were affected.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Gep::

When the soviet council of ministers gave the order to develope a new Mach 2 capable fighter plane to the OKB's MiG, Suchoi and Jakovlev it was demanded to develope a plane which was prepared to carry missiles.

 

Gep, I don't see it in that 21 book. Unless you have sources beyond Gordon, the things -- neither one of them Ye-2 and Ye-4 and 5, they didn't even have wing pylons. I must have skipped over that part the first time. All of them only had a single fuselage pylon for tank or rocket pod (including an interesting twin pod). On the Ye-6 it seems Mikoyan decided himself (??) to add wing pylons, for rocket pods or bombs. I need to look at some Russian sources over this.

 

Gordon offers no mention of any intention to carry missiles until well after the designs were built and testing. The earliest missile account I see is a rather fanciful hope for the rocket ship to carry K-5 against U-2 type targets, but Gordon gives no description of how guidance would be added later.

 

Thanks men! lol I'm learning more about this. I want that big Su book hoping it has more info.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Imagine a radar-intercept that ends in a 5km-thick stratus-cloud layer and all you have is a peashooter-gun and two (or whatever the number is...) IR-Missiles.

And if you trade your last gun and last 30 rounds for that radar?

 

But it wasn't a peashooter. If it was they probably could have saved it. I'd be worried about icing too lol.

[Toryu 156]

While an interesting aspect, icing is not a factor on all aircraft.

The Mirage III, for example, is not susceptible to icing at all (got that out of the Dash-1 of the Mirage IIIO that's accessible on the net).

 

The whole weather-aspect is VERY interesting and sadly not very well represented in any sim.

 

Imagine sitting in the QRA-shelter for half the night, then being scrambled at midnight. The shelter-doors open, and outisde, there's total pandemonium: freezing rain, visibility right at (possibly below) minimums and you HAVE to go out! At least you're sitting in the relatively warm and dry cockpit, while the crew-chief stands outside, getting drenched.

You're joining-up with No. and take off into a black hole (which you can't even see, dut to the threshing rain).

You're climbing through 8km of clouds and one above, the whole sky is lit up by the most beautiful star-sceen spanning accross the sky you've ever seen.

You're getting vectored to the target which tuns out to be a lost civil transport. The civvie gets back into contact with ATC and is sent on his way.

Time to RTB!

Back down through the soup. Somewhere ot there, there's No. 2 - nothing but a faint beacon of light through the dense clods. Disaster is right there, 2-3m away!

GCA brings you down to pattern altitude where No 2 does a holding-pattern racetrack. You're vectored down through the torential downpour.

Two miles out - nothing out there but rain. My god, there's high-rising terrain all around this tiny airfield - what if the GCA-people have a bad night tonight?

One mile out - NOTHING!

200ft above the ground, 0.6mn out, a faint flicker of light - you're breaking through the ceiling...right at minimums.

Flare, touchdon, vacate runway and let No 2 come in.

You're taxiing in, sweating but satisfied you did it again this night! There's at least not going to be a stupid practice-scramble tonight!

You're taxiing to the shelter, shut her down and open the canopy.

You're climbing out and the crew-chiefs asks you "Whoa, some crazy kind of weather we have tonight, huh sir?"

Your answer is short:

"Allweather!"

 

...loosely based on an anectode out of a book about the swiss Mirages

[+Gepard 11,359]

Gep, I don't see it in that 21 book. Unless you have sources beyond Gordon, the things -- neither one of them Ye-2 and Ye-4 and 5, they didn't even have wing pylons. I must have skipped over that part the first time. All of them only had a single fuselage pylon for tank or rocket pod (including an interesting twin pod). On the Ye-6 it seems Mikoyan decided himself (??) to add wing pylons, for rocket pods or bombs. I need to look at some Russian sources over this.

 

 

Lexx the following text is taken from the book "MiG-21 Fishbed" by Yefim Gordon and Bill Gunston (ISBN 1 85780 042 7) page 8:

 

"The Kremline demand wisely made no attempt to list an elaborate set of numerical requirements. Rather did it merely call for a level speed of Mach 2 at an altitude of 20km (65,600ft) whilst carrying guns and a simple radar-ranging sight, with the ability later to carry air-to-air missiles (AAMs), in each case operating under close ground control by the "Markham" radio network."

 

The Ye-2, Ye-2A, Ye-4, Ye-5 and Ye-50 were only prototypes for flight tests, not for weapon tests. Weapon tests were made with the Ye-6. As far as i know.

Air to Air missiles were not available during the flight tests of the early prototyps. When the R-3S was born, the Ye-6 prototype got launch rails (Ye-6T). They tested two versions. One with the launch rails at the wingtips (for this they developed a new wing) and a second with a launch rail under the wing hardpoint. The later was choosen, because their was no time to find the best wing planform for a wing with wingtiprails.

 

Edited September 29, 2012 by Gepard

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Okay! Funny: the big 21 book covers that on page 8 also, lol .... except no mention of the missiles nor GCI, and no mention of the radar gunsight. For such a large book 700+ pages, that section does seem thinly written.

 

I like the wingtip theme, and it seemed to work for this (but not the 152). The J-7E model comes to mind over the SF.

 

 

 

Toryu, there's a book written by Yevgeniy Savitskiy, PVO commander, from Chapter 19, translated (its the 2nd to last chapter at the link).

 

Savitskiy::

:

Or thus. It is suddenly come unexpectedly not snowy clouds, and clouds - and no longer crawl on the sky, but headlong they fly, leaving downwind its scraps and scraps. And already entirely "Martian" spectacle - night sky above the illuminated by moonlight overcast. To describe this spectacle is simply impossible. It must be seen.

 

But as to see? As if the stone, released from the gigantic sling, aircraft-interceptor mchitsya forward, concealing call to nature as any machine, which you raise from the earth. You sit in the cab - cold metallic box - and it is entirely distant from the exquisite comfort. Pointers - and their ten, now and then on three on one instrument - jump before the eyes. One incorrect motion, error - and it, possibly, no longer will be succeeded in correcting. Therefore in flight the pilot does not have time for the idle dreams.

:

~ http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/savitsky_ej3/index.html

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Looking around some more:

 

Very long article on MiG-21F (not F-13) ~> http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig21f.html

 

Works great in google translator, three pages at a time works fine. There was a proposal for ... here as its funny...

 

...two MiG-21F system with the installation of missile weapons CSD-30 radar and two missiles (apparently RS-2-U, since there was no other) air-to-air.

[+Gepard 11,359]

Ehm. Translator error. CSD-30 must be ZD-30. Its an early form of the RP-21 Saphir.

The plane what is mentioned is called MiG-21P. Only a handfull was built, most for further testing. I doubt, that it was used in fighter squadrons.

For the P a new nose was designed to have space for the radar. The rest of the plane was unchanged.

There were some problems. First, the nose had a higher drag, the plane was heavier, so that the range of the bird was shorten. The other was that the center of gravity of the plane was moved toward the nose, so the plane had a different handling and was not as easy to fly like the F-13.

To overcome the problems MiG added a tank behind the cockpit. Cg moved back to the old place and additionally fuel increased the range. Unexpected but welcome was that the backtank reduced the drag of the plane. With this tank and some other changes the bird was called MiG-21PF.