Category Mig

The SN project marked the OKB’s second attempt to develop rotat­ing cannons in the vertical plane. But unlike the experimental SU (a modified MiG-15), in which the cannons’ angular movement was limit­ed by their position under the engine air intake, the rotating cannons on the SN were housed in the aircraft’s nose. This arrangement led to a complete reshaping of the front of the fuselage:

—because the axial engine air intake had to be replaced by two intakes, one on each side of the fuselage, the structure of the nose was modified up to frame no. 13, making the fuselage 1.069 m (3 feet, 6.1 inches) longer

—the main gear was fitted with KT-23 wheels for better braking, and the doors were moved to the sides of the air intake ducts —the cockpit canopy was enlarged to improve the pilot’s view —the fuel capacity was increased by 501 (13 US gallons)

—the instrument panel was rearranged and topped by special sight­ing equipment

On paper, the SV-25-MiG-17 system was supposed to give the air­craft a decisive advantage. Pointing the fighter toward an intruder is a maneuver that costs a pilot many precious seconds. If he makes even the slightest error or if his adversary proves to be more agile, he has no choice but to withdraw from the engagement. If he chases an enemy aircraft in a curved trajectoiy, the fighter pilot has to point his aircraft toward a point in space ahead of the intruder (a process called target correction). But if the fighter’s angular velocity is too low, its pilot will once more be forced to withdraw. Rotating guns are more accurate and can be pointed toward a predetermined point; moreover, they give the fighter pilot a far better chance to aim and shoot first.

The SV-25-MiG-l 7 system consisted of three 23-mm TKB 495 rotat­ing cannons. The angular displacement of the weapons in the vertical plane (27 degrees, 26 minutes upward, and 9 degrees, 48 minutes downward) was electrically controlled. These experimental guns, developed in Tula by two famed armorers, Afanasyev and Makarov, had a rate of fire of 250 rounds per minute—a record for a single can­non at the time. The whole unit weighed 469 kg (1,034 pounds); the rotating support mount by itself, 142.4 kg (314 pounds); the ammuni-

tion, 139.7 kg (308 pounds); and miscellaneous equipment, 70 kg (154 pounds).

The experimental SN prototype was the first MiG jet fighter to have lateral air intakes. From the MiG-25 forward, this became the standard arrangement on all MiGs.

The factory tests were conducted by G. K. Mosolov in 1953, and state trials began on 15 February 1954 under GK Nil WS pilots Yu. A Antipov, A. P. Molotkov, N. P. Zakharov, S. A. Mikoyan, V. N. Makhalin, A. S. Saladovnikov, and V. G. Ivanov They completed a total of 130 flights, mainly on a specially modified Ilyushin 11-28 twin-jet bomber; only three of the test flights involved the SN. Thirteen flights were dedicated to firing exercises against ground targets. Altogether, the pilots fired 15,000 rounds with the SV-25-MiG-l 7.

The results of those tests were far from satisfactory to N. I Volkov, MiG’s program manager. The SN’s maximum speed proved to be 60 km/h (32 kt) slower than that of the production MiG-17. Its climb rate had also suffered 0.4 additional minutes were needed to climb to 5,000 m (16,400 feet), and 1.5 additional minutes to climb to 10,000 m (32,800 feet). The aircraft’s service ceiling was almost 500 m (1,640 feet) lower. And to top it all off, the aircraft’s maneuverability had deteriorated. For instance, a tight 360-degree turn could be completed in 77 seconds at best—15 seconds slower than was possible in a production MiG-17.

When the guns were fired, other unpleasant surprises occurred. For example, firing in gusts with the three weapons rotated upward or downward altered the aircraft’s flight path in the opposite direction. It was impossible to fire the cannons at all when the weapons’ slew angle exceeded 10 degrees upward unless special equipment was used to bal­ance the angular momentum of their recoil. The setbacks suffered while experimenting with rotating weaponry on both the MiG-15 and the MiG-17 convinced the OKB once and for all that any such system would be useless if installed too far from the center of gravity in single­seat fighters. All research work in that direction was subsequently abandoned.

The SN was powered by a VK-1A with a rated thrust of 2,645 daN (2,700 kg st).

Specifications

Span, 9.628 m (31 ft 7 in); length, 12.333 m (40 ft 5.5 in); height, 3.8 m (12 ft 5.6 in); wheel track, 3.849 m (12 ft 7.5 in); wheel base, 3.368 m (11 ft 0.6 in); wing area, 22.6 m2 (243.3 sq ft); empty weight, 4,152 kg (9,150 lb); takeoff weight, 5,620 kg (12,385 lb); fuel, 1,455 kg (3,207 lb); wing loading, 248.7 kg/m2 (51 lb/sq ft).

Performance

Max speed, 1,047 km/h at 2,000 m (565 kt at 6,560 ft); 1,058 km/h at 5,000 m (571 kt at 16,400 ft); 1,027 km/h at 10,000 m (555 kt at 32,800 ft); 986 km/h at 12,000 m (532 kt at 39,360 ft); climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in 2.54 min; to 10,000 m (32,800 ft) in 6.9 min; service ceiling, 14,500 m (47,560 ft); range, not recorded.

In the mid-1950s the OKB masterminds had a bright idea: create a mobile launching ramp to enable a fighter to take off without an air­field. The council of ministers and the ministry of aircraft production signed two decrees in April 1955 approving the development of a pow­erful rocket booster tied to “a takeoff system with no takeoff roll" for the MiG-19S (a system referred to in the West as ZELL, for zero-length launch). The system was composed of a specially modified MiG-19S called the SM-30, a PU-30 launching ramp mounted on the chassis of a YaAZ-210 self-propelled vehicle, and a PRD-22 solid-propellant rocket booster. The management of the project was entrusted to M. 1. Gurye­vich, with A. G. Agronik responsible for the test phase.

The big girder that carried the aircraft was also the launching ramp. This PU-30 ramp-trailer had a rotating lifting device to position the aircraft. The PRD-22 booster, whose impulsion reached 39,200 daN/sec (40,000 kg st/sec), was developed by an OKB team under the command of I. I. Kartukov. Its total operating time was limited to 2.5 seconds.

Once the ramp was positioned, the aircraft—with wheels up—was placed on special brackets and attached to its rocket booster and to the guide rails with shear bolts. The ramp was set at a 15-degree angle. The pistol was at the ready. The pilot climbed the cockpit access ladder, started the two RD-9B turbojets, went to full throttle, fired up the after-

burners, and depressed a knob to light up the booster rockets. The booster thrust added to the turbojet reheated thrust sheared the attach­ment bolts and imparted instantly to the aircraft a 4.5-g force. Locked at the start, the rudder and elevator were unlocked three seconds later as the aircraft left the guide rails.

Compared with the standard production aircraft, the SM-30 con­tained a number of modifications made necessary by the launch

process:

—the air intake duct’s upper skin panel was stiffened, as was the no. 15 frame, the lower hatches, the no. 2 fuel tank walls, and fuselage frame nos. 22, 24, 25, 26, and 30; two symmetric keels were placed under the rear fuselage to transmit the booster thrust to the aircraft —the wing root attachment was reinforced by redesigning the mounting bolts

—the attachment fittings on fuel tank nos. 2 and 3 were strengthened —a lock for the flying controls was fitted to the tail unit, as well as a pilot-operated emergency override device —the ejection seat was equipped with a special helmet meant to immobilize the pilot’s head

The first launch was made with an unmanned machine since the operation of the aircraft and all the systems had to be checked first without endangering anybody’s life. The first launch confirmed the accuracy of the design data. Two highly experienced LII pilots, G. Shiyanov and S. Anokhin, were chosen for the manned tests, which were first conducted on a runway to make sure that the pilots could handle the very high g-loads to which they would be subjected on the PU-30 ramp. Other unmanned ramp launches served to measure those g-loads more precisely. At no time did they exceed 5 g. The first manned ramp launch took place on 13 April 1957 with Shiyanov at the controls. Before the rocket booster burned out, the aircraft had already exceeded the design safety speed that kept increasing. A slight bank attitude was easily countered by the pilot, who then flew the aircraft as usual and landed back at his base.

Shiyanov was launched five times. Anokhin took to the cockpit for the sixth manned attempt as well as the seventh, on 30 June 1957, in which the aircraft carried its full payload—two rocket pods and two 760-1 (201-US gallon) drop tanks. After the eighth launch (made by Shiyanov) the ramp and the SM-30 were moved to the GK Nil VVS test center, where V. G. Ivanov, a military test pilot, was launched six times. Five other military pilots, L. M. Kuvshinov, V. S. Kotlov, M. S. Tvelenyev, A. S. Blagoveshchenskiy, and G. T. Beregovoy (a future spaceman) made one launch each.

This extract from the final test report is especially noteworthy:

1. The launching phase does not present any particular difficulty and can be managed by any MiG-19 pilot

2. When launched with unlocked flying controls, the pilot feels much more secure because he can intervene at any time; besides, the locking system proved to be useless

3. To weigh the tactical pros and cons of such a system, it would be advisable to build a small batch of units (ramp + aircraft)

4. It is essential to develop a reliable landing system that does not require a runway

Expressed that way, the last point called on engineers to attempt the impossible. Nevertheless, they endeavored to reduce landing roll in two ways. The first involved the deployment of large drag chutes before touchdown, while the second entailed the use of arresting gear like that on aircraft carriers. Steel wires linked to hydraulic brakes by pulley blocks were set across the runway, and a MiG-19SV was equipped with an arrester hook whose control and position indicators were located in the cockpit. With this device the MiG-19 could be brought to a stop in 120 m (394 feet) after hooking the wires, with deceleration forces reaching -2 g. Once the tests were completed, a demonstration was given to Marshal G. K. Zhukov, minister of defense, who also endorsed the concept of landing without runways. The ramp

Because of its compound power plant, the MiG-19SU or SM-50 offered exceptional performance.

launching system was subsequently abandoned, but the idea of rocket – assisted takeoff (RATO) from runways continued to be explored.

Without a doubt, the MiG-21 is one of the most famous military aircraft in the world. Its name is known by specialists and the general public alike. Few of its competitors share the same level of name recognition: the Spitfire in Great Britain, the Mirage in France, and the Flying Fortress in the United States —that is about all. The MiG-21 owes its fame to many reasons. Even in World War II no other aircraft has had as many versions (more than thirty) No other aircraft has been operat­ed by as many countries (forty-nine). And no other aircraft has found itself involved in as many armed conflicts.

Fifteen primary versions of the MiG-21 were mass-produced for twenty-eight years (from 1959 to 1987) in three factories in the USSR. The aircraft was also built under license in Czechoslovakia, China, and India. No fewer than seventeen world records were set by several spe­cial versions (the Ye-33, Ye-66, Ye-66A, Ye-66B, and Ye-76). As is the case for any aircraft whose family has developed over several decades, the combat effectiveness of the MiG-21 improved over time thanks to the technical progress made in three basic fields:

1 Improvement of the thrust-to-weight ratio for better performance

— static thrust of the turbojet went up by over 40 percent: from 5,000 daN (5,100 kg st) to 6,960 daN (7,100 kg st)

— maximum speed at sea level increased from 1,220 km/h (659 kt) to more than 1,300 km/b (700 kt)

— initial rate of climb jumped from 130 meters per second (25,600 feet per minute) to 225 meters per second (44,300 feet per minute)

— acceleration time from 600 km/h (324 kt) to 1,100 km/h (594 kt) at sea level decreased from 28 to 19.3 seconds

— maximum operating limit load factor increased from 7 to 8.5

— maximum operating indicated airspeed (IAS) was raised from 1,200 km/h (648 kt) to 1,300 km/h (702 kt)

— maximum authorized hedge-hopping time at 1,000 km/h (540 kt) increased from 28 to 36 minutes

2. Reinforcement of the weapon system

— the number of loading options expanded from twenty to sixty – eight because of the addition of multipurpose hard points

— the minimum distance at which a flying target could be destroyed closed from 1,000 m (3,280 feet) to 200 m (655 feet) thanks to the installation of built-in cannons

3. Growth of the aircraft’s safety of flight and operational availability

— flight time per accident was stretched from 3,000 to 39,600 hours

— the aircraft’s lifetime was brought up to 2,100 hours

— mission preparation time was reduced by 30 to 40 percent

When in 1954 all of the OKB’s efforts were focused on the concep­tion of a modern fighter capable of flying at twice the speed of sound or faster, its engineers had no preconceived ideas of which aerodynamic strategy to select. Sweepback wing? Delta wing? Both shapes had their proponents. Whatever the chosen approach, all of the specialists knew full well that their research would have to go off in hundreds of direc­tions whether aerodynamics, power plants, or systems were con­cerned. The main problem was obviously to make the right choice for the aerodynamic design formula. This is why several experimental pro­grams were launched simultaneously in two quite distinct directions: the sweepback-winged Ye-2 and Ye-2A and the delta-winged Ye-4, Ye-5, and Ye-6.

Everyone knows that the latter formula prevailed in the end. But it should be noted that the victor was in fact a tailed delta configuration.

MiG has always maintained that only this well-balanced scheme could (unlike the French Mirage III) secure a satisfactory degree of maneu­verability at low speeds due to a high lift coefficient in this sector of the flight envelope. The OKB also decided to use the axial flow turbojet and the variable geometry air intake (with a multiposition cone) that helped to recover the engine inlet pressure over a wide range of angles of attack (AOA) and at supersonic speeds. Other criteria included sim­plicity of manufacture and ease of maintenance; in short, it was meant to be a trouble-free aircraft for maintenance personnel, the field sup­port crew, and the pilots. Here begins the long story of the MiG-21.

This new interceptor inherited most of the MiG-21’s features: four hard points under the wing (two for weaponry and two for 490-1 [129-US gal­lon] drop tanks), the fuel tank in the dorsal fairing with a capacity of 340 1 (90 US gallons), the R-11F2S-300 turbojet and SPS system, and the three-axis AP-155 autopilot. But the guidance system was the more sophisticated Lazur-M ("azure"). The MiG-21S came equipped with the new RP-22S radar, and the old PKI-1 gunsight was replaced by the ASP – PF. Armament included two R-3R air-to-air missiles and bombs or rock­et pods under the wing as well as the GP-9 gun pod (a twin-barrel GSh – 23 with 200 rounds) under the fuselage. A direct offspring of the MiG – 215, the Ye-7N was fitted with a pod under the fuselage to cany a small tactical nuclear bomb.

The MiG-21S was mass-produced for the WS in the Gorki factory between 1965 and 1968.

Specifications

Span, 7.154 m (23 ft 5.7 in); fuselage length (except cone), 12.285 m (40 ft 3.7 in); wheel track, 2.787 m (9 ft 1.7 in); wheel base, 4.71 m (15 ft 5.4 in); wing area, 23 m2 (247.6 sq ft); takeoff weight, 8,150 kg (17,960 lb); fuel, 2,320 kg (5,115 lb); wing loading, 354.4 kg/m2 (72.7 lb/sq ft); max operating limit load factor, 8.5.

Performance

Max speed, 2,230 кш/h at 13,000 m (1,204 kt at 42,640 ft); max speed at sea level, 1,300 km/h (702 kt), climb rate at sea level (half internal fuel, full thrust) with two R-3S missiles, 115 m/sec (22,640 fit/min); climb to 17,500 m (54,400 ft) in 8 5 min; service ceiling, 18,000 m (59,000 ft), landing speed, 250 km/h (135 kt); range, 1,240 km (770 mi); with 800-1 (211-US gal) drop tank, 1,610 km (1,000 mi); takeoff roll, 900 m (2,950 ft); landing roll with SPS and tail chute, 550 m (1,800 ft).

The decision to build a two-seat trainer for the MiG-23 was made quickly: it was announced in a decree of the council of ministers dated 17 November 1967, fewer than six months after the prototype rollout However, the ministry’s directive went beyond a straightforward train­er and called for some sort of combat capacity—hence the designation UB (Uchebniy Boyevoi training-combat) Derived directly from the MiG-23S, the MiG-23UB was powered by the same engine, the R – 27F2M-300 rated at 6,760 daN (6,900 kg st) dry and 9,800 daN (10,000 kg st) with afterburner. The only structural modifications resulted from the rearrangement of the forward fuselage, the second cockpit taking the place of the equipment hay.

The ministry’s decree allocated the following missions to the new aircraft:

1. Day and night training in clear and adverse weather conditions to teach pilots how to take off, handle the full flight envelope with different types of weapons or dummy missiles, and land

2. Combat within the limits of the aircraft’s weaponry: the GSh-23L cannon, rockets, bombs, air-to-surface missiles (to attack ground or naval targets in visual mode), R-3S infrared-guided air-to-air missiles, or Kh-23 air-to-surface beam-rider guided missiles (since the two-seater had no radar, the latter’s guidance equipment was housed in small pods under the wing glove)

All of this weaponry (except the cannon) was carried under four store points: two under the fuselage and two under the wing glove. In the front cockpit, the student pilot’s equipment included the ASP-PFD fire control system (without the ranging device) and the weapon selec­tion panel. All other controls were duplicated, and the instructor’s set took priority. The nose was weighted to compensate for the lack of radar.

The MiG-23UB differed from the MiG-23S in many points:

1. Structurally, the nose section was modified up to the no. 18 bulk­head to make room for the second cockpit; the equipment bay and the standby hydraulic generator with its windmill were con­sequently moved back by reducing the capacity of fuel tank no. 1 —normally 7001 (185 US gallons)—and, to compensate, adding a tank in the rear fuselage to carry 470 1 (124 US gallons)

2. On-board equipment included the SOUA active angle-of-attack limiter (a few planes that were not so equipped used the SUA-1 critical AOA warning device and the R1S stick shaker), the UUA-1 attitude indicator, the Polyot-11-23 flight management system (including the RSBN-6S landing and short-range navigation device, the SKV-2N2 heading and vertical reference unit, and DV – 30/DV-10 signal transmitters) linked to the SAU-23UB automatic flight control system, three-axis artificial feel units and trims, radio-altimeter, automatic direction finder, marker receiver, the SORTS warning light display panel, IFF interrogator and transponder, radar warning receiver, the SPU-9 intercom, and the MS-61 tape recorder

The MiG-23UB wing, like that of the single-seater, "jumped” from type 1 to type 3. With the type 1 wing the MiG-23UB could carry only a single drop tank under the fuselage; but with the type 3 wing it could carry one drop tank under the fuselage and two drop tanks on non­swiveling pylons under the outer wings for ferry flights. The gear wheels all had brakes, and the two cockpits were equipped with KM-1

ejection seats and a centralized emergency abandonment system. A periscope was installed on the jettisonable part of the rear canopy so that the instructor could see more clearly while taking off, landing, and taxiing.

The MiG-23UB was rolled out in March 1969 and was first piloted in May by M. M. Komarov. The factory tests (carried out by Komarov and P. M. Ostapyenko) and the state trials lasted until 1970. That year the aircraft was approved for duty in WS and PVO fighter regiments, and it was produced in the Irkutsk factory until 1978.

Specifications

Span (72′ sweep), 7.779 m (25 ft 6.3 in); span (45° sweep), 11.928 m (39 ft 1.6 in); span (16° sweep), 13.965 m (45 ft 9.8 in); fuselage length (except probe), 15.66 m (51 ft 4.5 in); wheel track, 2.658 m (8 ft 8.7 in); wheel base, 5.772 m (18 ft 11.3 in); wing area (72° sweep), 34.16 m2 (367.7 sq ft); wing area (45° sweep), 35.5 m2 (382.1 sq ft); wing area (16° sweep), 37.35 m2 (402 sq ft); takeoff weight, 15,740 kg (34,690 lb); max takeoff weight, 18,000 kg (39,670 lb); landing weight, 12,400 kg (27,330 lb); fuel, 4,000 kg (8,815 lb); with three 800-1 (211-US gal) drop tanks, 6,350 kg (13,995 lb); wing loading (72° sweep), 460.8-526.9 kg/m2 (94.5-108 Ib/sq ft); wing loading (45° sweep), 443.4-507 kg/m2

(90.9-103.9 lb sq ft); wing loading (16° sweep), 421.4-481.9 kg/m2 (86.4-98.8 lb/sq ft); max operating limit load factor, 7.

Performance

Max speed in clean configuration (72° sweep), 2,490 km/h or Mach

2.35 at 12,500 m (1,344 kt at 41,000 ft); max speed in clean configura­tion at sea level (72° sweep), 1,200 km/h (648 kt); max operating Mach number, 2.35; max operating Mach number with four R-3S mis­siles, 2; max operating Mach number with four R-3S missiles and 800-1 (211-US gal) drop tank, 0.8; service ceiling, 15,800 m (51,825 ft).

While confirming the acceptance of the MiG-25RB, the decree signed by the council of ministers in 1972 outlined the path of future updates for the MiG-25 family The WS command was already asking for a range increase at medium and high altitudes, as well as more speed and a higher service ceiling The Mikulin-Tumanskiy OKB proposed the R-15BF-2-300, an upgraded R-15B-300 rated at 13,230 daN (13,500 kg st) with afterburner—an increase of 3,225 daN (3,290 kg st)—that retained the size and connection points of the existing engine and rea­sonable specific fuel consumption

Development of the new aircraft was to happen in two stages First the range and rate of climb would be enhanced without structural mod­ifications The aircraft would be reengined after their operational life expired—a sure way to grow younger. Second, the aircraft structure would be modified, removing the little duralumin still used in the for­ward fuselage and the few non-heat-resisting wing elements so that the aircraft could fly at speeds above Mach 3. The MiG-25’s never-exceed Mach number (Mne) of 2.83 was in fact somewhat theoretical: the later­al stability margin and the structural lifetime were supposed to dimin­ish beyond that figure, but a number of pilots have (more or less inten­tionally) exceeded Mach 3 without causing damage to the aircraft or sending it to the overhaul shop to check for structural yielding.

The first stage was carried to a successful conclusion. The factory designation of the new product was Ye-155M, but the certification doc­uments sent to the FAI after several record attempts in 1975 and 1977 called it the Ye-266M. Unfortunately, the excessive engine develop­ment time and the lack of factory availability delayed the second stage of the upgrade; as a result these modifications either remained experi­mental or did not go beyond the computational phase.

Nevertheless, the results obtained during the first step were very encouraging compared with the MiG-25P or R performance. The ser­vice ceiling increased to 24,200 m (79,375 feet), and the range at super­sonic speed to 1,920 km (1,190 miles)—2,510 km (1,560 miles) if one adds the auxiliary tank’s 5,300 1 (1,400 US gallons). Another R & D channel consisted of powering the Ye-155M with two D-30F turbofan engines rated at 15,190 daN (15,500 kg st) with afterburner. It was developed by P. A. Solovyev out of the core engine of the D-30, the power plant capable of 6,665 daN (6,800 kg st) that had powered the Tupolev Tu-134 twin-jet airliner since 1963.

This engine change led to significant structural modifications that did not, however, change the aircraft’s silhouette drastically; and the fuel capacity was raised to 19,700 1 (5,200 US gallons). Two prototypes were constructed with two D-30Fs. They were used essentially as test beds for developing the engine that would later power the MiG-31. The takeoff weight of this variant reached 37,750 kg (83,200 pounds), the maximum takeoff weight 42,520 kg (93,715 pounds), and the internal fuel weight 16,270 kg (35,860 pounds). Due to the turbofan’s better spe­cific fuel consumption its range on internal fuel reached 2,135 km (1,325 miles) at supersonic speeds and 3,310 km (2,055 miles) at sub­sonic speeds. Its service ceiling topped out at 21,900 m (71,830 feet).

Ye-266M Records

The documents sent to the FAI showed that the Ye-266M was powered by two turbojets rated at 13,720 daN (14,000 kg st). In fact, the aircraft was powered by two R-15BF-2-300 turbojets at 13,230 daN (13,500 kg st). These six world records (including one absolute world record), established more than fifteen years ago, were still standing as this book went to press.

17 May 1975

Time to climb to 25,000 m (82,000 feet), 2 minutes, 34.2 seconds. Pilot, A. V. Fedotov

Time to climb to 30,000 m (98,400 feet), 3 minutes, 9.85 seconds. Pilot, P. M. Ostapyenko

Time to climb to 35,000 m (114,800 feet), 4 minutes, 11.7 seconds. Pilot, A. V. Fedotov 22 July 1977

Altitude with a 2,000-kg (4,400-pound) payload, 37,080 m (121,622 feet). Pilot, A. V. Fedotov

Altitude with a 1,000-kg (2,200-pound) payload, 37,080 m (121,622 feet). Pilot, A. V. Fedotov 31 August 1977

Altitude without payload, 37,650 m (123,492 feet). Pilot, A. V. Fedotov. Absolute world record

One MiG-9 airframe was to be reengined with a single 1,470-daN (1,500-kg st) TR-1A turbojet developed by A M. Lyulka. While match­ing the performance level of the production model, the design takeoff weight of the FL was 350 kg (770 pounds) lower.

To fit the TR-1A—the first jet engine developed and built entirely in USSR—into the airframe in place of the two BMW 003s, the tail sec­tion of the fuselage had to be modified. Moreover, the engineers left room for an afterburner then in the works that would boost the thrust to 1,960-2,450 daN (2,000-2,500 kg st).

The 1-305 was an important aircraft first and foremost because of its built-in potential. The cannon arrangement was again modified; all three arms were now on the same horizontal plane. One experimental N-37 (120P) with forty-five rounds occupied the middle space, with one NS-23 (115Р) with 80 rpg on either side. The 1-305 featured a pressur­ized cockpit and an ejection seat. To improve the aircraft’s operational efficiency, most of the systems were to have been upgraded with the RSIU-10 transceiver, the Baryum-1 IFF, the N1-46 ground position indi­cator, and the Ton-3 direction finder.

The 1-305 airframe was almost completed at the end of 1947 Unfortunately, the TR-1A turbojet burst soon afterward on the test

bench At that time a brand-new aircraft, the 1-310 S (commonly known as the MiG-15) looked like a more promising venture As a result the FL was discontinued.

Specifications

Span, 10 m (32 ft 9.7 in); length, 9.7 m (31 ft 9.8 in); height in level flight position, 3.2 m (10 ft 9.9 in); wheel track, 1.95 m (6 ft 4.8 in); wheel base, 3 32 m (10 ft 10.7 in), wing area, 18.2 m2 (195.9 sq ft); takeoff weight, 4,570 kg (10,072 lb); fuel, 1,485 1 (386 US gal); wing loading, 261 kg/m2 (53.5 lb/sq ft).

Performance

Max speed, 885 km/h at 5,000 m (478 kt at 16,400 ft); max speed at sea level, 897 km/h (484 kt); climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in 4 86 min; to 10,000 (32,800 ft) in 13.24 min; service ceiling, 13,400 m (43,950 ft); landing speed, 155 km/h (84 kt); range at 10,000 m (32,800 ft), 1,050 km (652 mi), takeoff roll, 815 m (2,675 ft); landing roll, 665 m (2,180 ft).

The development of an all-weather fighter for the PVO had become a necessity. When the first Soviet airborne radars appeared at the end of the 1940s, it was decided that the MiG-15 bis would receive this advanced equipment. But first a number of questions had to be answered regarding the capabilities and efficiency of both the radar control unit when engaging enemy aircraft and the sighting system in blind flying (at night or in clouds).

The council of ministers called for development work on both the airborne radar and the aircraft on 7 December 1948. The first ranging

radar, the Toriy, was developed by A. B. Slepushkin, pioneer of Soviet radar technology. It was a peculiar system: its one antenna both trans­mitted and received signals. It was housed in a small radome made of a specially developed dielectric material. The Toriy was not easy for the pilot to control while trying to intercept enemy aircraft because it could not track targets automatically.

From the start MiG OKB engineers were determined not to let the efficiency and performance of the MiG-15 bis suffer because of the addition of radar. Production MiG-15 bis no. 3810102 built at factory no 1 was sent to the OKB workshop and modified, becoming the SP-1. The two guns on the left of the fuselage were removed; only the N-37D with forty-five rounds was retained. The ASP-3N gunsight was replaced by a new model, and the S-13 camera gun usually placed above the air intake was moved to the right side of the fuselage. Most important, a radar display was set into the instrument panel. With that display the pilot was able to track an invader, bring his aircraft into line with it, and measure its distance before firing.

As it turned out, many other modifications had to be made, mainly structural ones:

—because of the radar installation and armament removal, the fuse­lage nose section was made over up to the no. 8 frame and length­ened by 120 mm (4.7 inches)

—the area of the airbrakes was increased, and their shape and axis of rotation were altered (22 degrees in relation to the vertical)

—the cockpit windshield was fitted with 64-mm-thick bulletproof glass, and the shape of the windshield and the canopy was changed in order to retain a good forward view despite the nose modifications

—the wing anhedral was increased from 2 to 3 degrees —the front leg of the landing gear had to be moved 80 mm (3.5 inch­es) forward to bring the NR-37 cannon axis as close as possible to the aircraft datum line

—the wheel fork was replaced by a half-fork, and the double gear doors were replaced by a single door —the elevator control was fitted with a BU-1 servo-control unit

The SP-1 prototype was equipped with an ARK-5 automatic direc­tion finder and an MRP-48 marker receiver. After the factory flight tests conducted in December 1949 by A. N. Chernoburov and G. A. Sedov, the aircraft was transferred to the Nil WS on 31 January 1950 for its state trials. They ended on 20 May 1950.

The test report noted a number of defects. The pitching stability was too scanty at landing, and compared with the MiG-15 (SV) the dynamic stability margin had decreased. In straight level flight, the air­craft tended to bank to the left and then side-slip at 940-950 km/h (508-513 kt) Poor aileron efficiency limited the bank angle to 5 degrees.

The report concluded that the SP-1 could not be used as an all – weather interceptor because its Toriy ranging radar did not work properly. The all-weather radar tests were conducted by Suprun, Kalachev, Pibulyenko, Blagoveshchenkiy, Antipov, Dzyuba, and Ivanov, all military pilots. Several passes were made in attempts to locate 11-28 and Tu-4 bombers. The SP-1 was not certified because it was too difficult for a pilot to fly his aircraft and operate the radar at the same time—and moreover, the Toriy was not very reliable. Its manufacturer upgraded the unit, which then became known as the Toriy A and was installed on the MiG-17 (SP-2). But its most serious shortcoming was not addressed: the Toriy A still could only track incoming aircraft manually.

In 1951 five SP-ls equipped with RP-1M radars were assembled at factory no. 1. On 25 November one was sent to the Nil WS for trials, but the aircraft and its upgraded radar unit still failed to earn certifica­tion. Like the MiG-15 bis, the MiG-15P bis (SP-1) was powered by a 2,645-daN (2,700-kg st) VK-1 turbojet.

Specifications

Span, 10.085 m (33 ft 1 in); overall length, 10.222 m (33 ft 6.5 in); wheel track, 3.852 m (12 ft 7.6 in); wheel base, 3.075 m (10 ft 1.1 in);

On the MiG-15P bis the two NR-23 cannons usually found at the lower left of the MiG – 15 bis front fuselage had to be removed.

The wing anhedral of the MiG-15P bis was increased slightly, as was the area of the air­brakes.

wing area, 20.6 m2 (221.7 sq ft); empty weight, 3,760 kg (8,287 lb); takeoff weight, 5,080 kg (11,196 lb); fuel, 1,168 kg (2,574 lb); wing load­ing, 246.6 kg/m2 (50.55 lb/sq ft).

Performance

Max speed, 1,022 km/h at 5,000 m (552 kt at 16,400 ft); 979 km/h at 10,000 m (529 kt at 32,800 ft); climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in 2.15 min; to 10,000 m (32,800 ft) in 5.35 min; service ceiling, 14,700 m (48,200 ft); range, 1,115 km at 10,000 m (692 mi at 32,800 ft); takeoff roll, 510 m (1,670 ft).

This experimental version was developed to improve the handling of the MiG-17 by modifying its lift devices and adding a variable inci­dence stabilizer. This effort was made in the context of a plan drawn up by the ministry of aircraft production between 26 and 30 March 1953 to eliminate some of the shortcomings revealed during flight tests. The SI-10 was built with the MiG-17 no. 214 airframe. It differed from the production machine in several ways

—the Fowler-type wing flaps were replaced by split flaps with take­off and landing deflections of 16 and 25 degrees, respectively

—67 percent of the wing’s leading edge was taken up by automatic slats (maximum extension angle 12 degrees)

—the standard stabilizer was replaced by a variable incidence stabi­lizer with elevator (surface deflection -5 to +3 degrees)

—the SI-10 received the first spoilers ever installed on a MiG fighter, with their operation linked to that of the ailerons located on the lower surface of the wing, they extended 55 millimeters (2.16 inches) downward when the aileron displacement was greater than 6 degrees

—the wing fences were removed

The SI-10 was probably the most technically advanced fighter of its time. All of these modifications added weight to the aircraft, however: the new stabilator, 28 kg (62 pounds); spoilers, 14 kg (31 pounds); slats and flaps, 120 kg (265 pounds); and the balance weight, 70 kg (154 pounds).

The aircraft was rolled out at the end of 1954. It was powered by a VK-1A turbojet rated at 2,645 daN (2,700 kg st). Armament consisted of one N-37D and two NR-23 cannons The factory tests took place in early 1955 with G. K. Mosolov, G. A. Sedov, and A. N. Chemoburov at the controls State trials were completed in July Four GK Nil VVS

The SI-10 wing with lift augmentation at its best: automatic slats at their maximum extension angle of 12 degrees, and split flaps at their maximum deflection of 25 degrees

pilots participated in these tests S A. Mikoyan, A. P. Molotkov, V. N. Makhalin, and N. A. Korovin. They made forty-seven flights and spent thirty-two hours and ten minutes in the air. The tests proved that the variable incidence stabilizer and spoilers’ action on the pitch control significantly improved the aircraft’s handling characteristics, especially at high speeds and altitudes. However, the addition of the slats and the modification of the flaps did not seem to have any effect.

Specifications

Span, 9 628 m (31 ft 7 in); length, 11 264 m (36 ft 11.5 in), height, 3.8 m (12 ft 5 6 in); wheel track, 3 849 m (12 ft 7.5 in); wing area, 22,6 m2 (243.3 sq ft); empty weight, 4,140 kg (9,125 lb); takeoff weight, 5,490 kg (12,100 lb); fuel, 1,128 kg (2,486 lb); wing loading, 242.9 kg/m2 (49.8 lb/sq ft).

Performance

Except as noted in the table above, the SI-10’s performance data were almost identical to those of the MiG-17 (SI-02).

Still faster, still higher: those two imperatives summed up the develop­ment requests received from military authorities such as the WS and the PVO. They also summed up the specifications of the SM-50 and SM-51, two prototypes of a high-speed interceptor with a lofty service ceiling.

The SM-50 was powered by two AM-9BMs whose reheated thrust was 3,135 daN (3,200 kg st) and by the U-19 booster container with two power ratings: 1,275 daN (1,300 kg st) and 2,940 daN (3,000 kg st). The rocket engine could not be relit in flight. The SM-51 was powered by two Sorokin R3M-26 experimental turbojets derived from the AM-9BM with 3,725 daN (3,800 kg st) of thrust and by the U-19D booster contain­er. Its rocket engine had the same thrust as that of the U-19 but could be turned off and relit four times in flight. The SM-50 was developed from the MiG-19S, while the SM-51 was developed from the MiG-19P.

The booster container, planned by D. D. Sevruk and built at the MiG ОКБ, was fastened under the fuselage. It was composed of:

—the RU-013 rocket engine

—three tanks: one for the TG-02 fuel, one for the AK-20 oxidizer, and

one for the concentrated hydrogen peroxide —the combustion chamber feed pumps —the replenishment system for the three tanks —the dump valves

The rocket engine weighed 338 kg (745 pounds); the fuel, 372 kg (820 pounds); the oxidizer, 112 kg (247 pounds); and the hydrogen per­oxide, 74.2 kg (163.5 pounds). The U-19 and U-19D booster containers operated almost autonomously; their only links to the cockpit were the electrical ignition control and the dump valve control.

Both the SM-50 and SM-51 were armed with two NR-30 cannons located in the wing roots. The SM-51 was equipped with an RP-5 Izum – rud radar. The takeoff weight of both aircraft—including the booster container—was 9,000 kg (19,835 pounds).

All factory test flights of the SM-50 and SM-51 were made by V. A. Nefyedov under the supervision of Yu. N. Korolyev, chief engineer.

Their maximum speed was 1,800 km/h (972 kt), their dynamic ceiling was 24,000 m (78,700 feet), and they could climb to 20,000 m (65,600 feet) in eight minutes. Their range—not an important factor for this type of aircraft—was limited to 800 km (497 miles). The state trials of the SM-50 were carried out by two LII pilots, M. M. Kotelnikov and A. A. Shcherbakov. Five SM-50s were built in factory no. 21.

The SM-52 was identical to the SM-51 with the exception of its radar, which was the Almaz (“diamond") model.