Category Mig

The FF program was an update of the production MiG-9 or FS that boosted the engines’ thrust and reinforced the pilot’s armor protection.

The BMW 003 turbojets were retooled in factory no. 17 in Kazan. This modification was at the heart of the RD-20F, later redesignated the RD-21 and built entirely with components and accessories made in the USSR. The thrust of the hotted-up engine increased to 980 daN (1,000 kg st). The brakes were also improved, and 12-mm armor plates were installed in the front and rear of the cockpit, and the windshield front glass panel was replaced by a pane of bulletproof glass 44 mm thick. The total weight of the armor was 60 kg (132 pounds). Wheel braking was much improved. Externally very similar to the FS, the FF left the factory and made its first flight in September 1947,1. T. Ivashchenko at the controls. Tests were completed by the end of the year, and the FF was produced in small quantities with the same armament as the FS.

Specifications

Span, 10 m (32 ft 9.7 in); length, 9,83 m (32 ft 3 in); height, 3.225 m (10 ft 6.7 in); wheel track, 1.95 m (6 ft 4.8 in); wheel base, 3.072 m (10 ft

0.9 in); wing area, 18.2 m2 (195.9 sq ft); empty weight, 3,471 kg (7,650 lb); takeoff weight, 5,117 kg (12,278 lb); fuel, 1,300 kg (2,865 lb); wing loading, 281.2 kg/m2 (57.6 lb/sq ft).

Performance

Max speed, 950 km/h (513 kt); climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in 2.9 min; service ceiling, 13,000 m (42,640 ft).

In addition to its usual armament suite, the experimental SD-21 was fit­ted with two wing store stations for 210-mm S-21 unguided air-to-sur – face rockets. This same prototype was tested in overload conditions with two S-21 rockets and two 250-1 (66-US gallon) drop tanks.

MG-15 bis / SD-57

This modified production MiG-15 bis was developed for tests of two automatic rocket pods (each carrying twelve 57-mm ARS-57 rockets), which were attached to the store stations usually reserved for drop tanks.

MiG-15 bis / ISh

This version of the MiG-15 bis was equipped with two wing pylons that could accept either heavy rockets, automatic rocket pods (six or twelve rockets per pod), or drop tanks. Twelve of these planes were built and flight-tested at the Nil WS.

The SDK-5 was a MiG-17 modified to simulate the flight track of a winged air-to-surface missile and to test the airborne guidance equip­ment of the whole system (mother aircraft plus missile) On this proto­type all cannons were removed. Above the air intake, a small radome housed an electromagnetic detector to vector the missile/aircraft toward its target, another small radome on top of the fin housed the antenna that received radio signals—transmitted by the mother air­craft-coordinating the missile’s/’aircraft’s flight path. Similar equip­ment was mounted to a MiG-9L during development of the KS-1 cruise missile

These four modified MiG-19S were used to develop and test air-to-sur – face winged homing missiles. During flight tests the SM-20 was carried under the fuselage of a Tu-95 bomber. The pilot was in tbe fighter cockpit, but tbe engines were off. When the preselected altitude was reached, the pilot started the engines and released his airplane from the bomber. He then had to check on the operation of the radio remote control enabled by the mother aircraft and to return to his base when the test was oyer. The first SM-20 was built in 1956, and tests started in October of that year.

The second "flying simulator” or SM-20/P was built in early 1957. The aircraft was modified to help the engines start at high altitudes—a problem that had plagued the SM-20. On this version, ignition of the combustion chamber was aided by a carburetor. In all other respects the SM-20/P was identical to the SM-20. Both aircraft were flight-tested by Sultan Amet-Khan of the LII and V. G. Pavlov of the ministry of radio equipment industry research center. The chief engineer respon­sible for both programs was A. I. Vyushkov.

Two more flying simulators were tested in 1957 and 1958, the SM – K/l and SM-K/2. Both were derived from the MiG-19S and were also intended to help in the development of flight management and guid­ance systems for air-to-surface winged missiles.

The Ye-4 and Ye-5 frontline single-seat fighters were built in 1955 and 1956. Unlike the Ye-2 and Ye-2A, built at the same time, the Ye-4 and Ye-5 had a delta wing with a sweepback of 57 degrees at the leading edge. But the fuselages were identical; so because the wheel wells for the main gear were at the same place, the legs had to be modified to retract into the delta wing. That modification gave the Ye-4 and Ye-5 a slightly larger wheel track. A high degree of commonality between the two competing aircraft was to have allowed engineers to choose the wing shape for the future frontline fighter with full knowledge of the implications of their choice.

The wing profile was a TsAGl-S9s, the ailerons were axially trimmed, and the single-slotted Fowler flaps were rectangular. The air­brakes were placed beneath the fuselage—two of them near the wing root, the third hinged farther back on frame no. 28. The three sets of fuselage fuel tanks had a total capacity of 1,570 1 (414 US gallons), and the aircraft could store an additional 400 1 (106 US gallons) under the fuselage in a "supersonic" drop tank. The two NR-30 cannons (at sixty rounds per gun) flanked the lower part of the forward fuselage The shell cases were ejected, but the ammunition belts and links were col­lected in the empty part of the shell sleeves that ran across three fuse­lage sections. A pylon under the fuselage could carry either an auto­matic rocket pod (16 ARS-57) or one FAB 500 bomb. The ASP-5N gun – sight was linked to the SRD-1M Konus ranging radar. The slab tailplane was actuated by a BU-44 servo-control unit and the aileron controls were boosted by a BU-45 servo-control unit, both of the irreversible variety. The slab tailplane was fitted with the ARU-3V feel computer to modify the gear ratio between the stick and the stabilator and to con­trol the stick load according to flight speed and altitude. The ejection seat was identical to that of the MiG-19S (the curtain type). Main equip­ment included the RSIU-4V VHF, the ARK-5 automatic direction finder, and a radar warning receiver.

The last stage of the long development process that was to lead to the MiG-21, the Ye-4 was powered by the AM-9 turbojet rated at 3,185 daN (3,250 kg st with reheat). This was virtually the only thing differen­tiating this aircraft from the Ye-5. The Ye-4 arrived at the flight test cen­ter in June 1955. After the usual proceedings (weight determinations, ground roll tests, and a few “leapfrog" takeoffs) the Ye-4 was first pilot­ed by G. A Sedov on 16 June. Factory tests ended on 20 September 1956.

During these fifteen months, several methods were tested to straighten the airflow on the wing—either six fences over the upper surface (four of which protruded ahead of the leading edge) or two

The pros and cons of the delta wing approach were assessed on the Ye-4. The wing had two fences on the lower surface, but the Ye-4 has also flown with a clean wing.

On the Ye-4 with fences on the lower surface of the wing, the wing tips were markedly pointed.

On the same Ye-4, fitted this time with six fences on the wing’s upper surface, the square wing tips reduced the span by 600 millimeters (23.6 inches).

The Ye-5 retained the delta wing and upper-surface fences of the Ye-4, but the wing tips are again markedly pointed.

fences over the lower surface and an increase in wingspan (sharp wing tips). Finally a third solution was found: a chord extension on about one-third of the leading edge that formed a vortex-generating "tooth." After this modification the Ye-4 was transferred to the LI1, where it was tested a number of times at great angles of attack.

The Ye-5 was powered by the AM-ll turbojet with 3,725 daN (3,800 kg st) of dry thrust and 5,000 daN (5,100 kg st) of maximum thrust with afterburner. Its wing had six fences (four of which protruded ahead of the leading edge). It was moved to the flight test center on 10 Decem­ber 1955 and was first piloted on 9 January 1956 by V. A. Nefyedov. During a ground run-up on 20 February the engine caught fire, and the turbine was destroyed. After being repaired at the factory the Ye-5 made eight flights between 26 March and 19 May. Tests were suspend­ed once more when the turbine broke and the engine had to be removed. On 18 October the aircraft was grounded. On 27 October the AM-11 was returned to the factory to increase the volume of the after­burner, and on 24 November the nose of the fuselage was returned to the workshop to be lengthened by 400 millimeters in order to move the aircraft’s center of mass forward and increase the fuel capacity to 1,810 1 (478 US gallons). Those modifications had a strong influence on the final choice between the Ye-5’s delta wing and the Ye-2A’s sweepback wing.

The Ye-5 resumed its test schedule on 1 April 1957 and went up thirteen times before 26 May for reassessments of the aircraft’s flight envelope after the modifications to its engine and fuselage. No fewer than ten AM-11 test models and one production engine were used to complete the aircraft’s factory tests. According to the test pilot, the Ye-5 cockpit was roomier than that of the MiG-19, and the approach and landing procedures of both aircraft were quite similar. Extension of the gear had no effect on the aircraft’s trim characteristics. There was no change in the longitudinal trim anywhere in its flight envelope, and it was easier to fly than the MiG-19 at supersonic speeds. The forward movement of the cone ahead of the air intake plane was automatic from Mach 1.4 upward.

The factory tests of the Ye-5 or MiG-21 came to a close without major problems. All of its design parameters were met except for the range, which fell short because of the excessive specific fuel consump­tion of the engine that was renamed the R-l 1. Altogether seven Ye-5s were built, two prototypes and five preproduction machines.

The following details refer to the Ye-4

Specifications

Span, 7.749 m (25 ft 5 in); fuselage length (except cone), 11.737 m (38 ft 6.1 in); wheel track, 2.692 m (8 ft 10 in); wheel base, 4.48 m (14 ft 8.4 in); wing area, 23.13 m2 (248.9 sq ft); takeoff weight, 5,200 kg (11,465 lb), fuel, 1,300 kg (2,865 lb); wing loading, 224.8 kg/m2 (46.03 lb/sq ft).

Performance

Max speed, 1,970 km/h (1,064 kt); climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in 1.6 min; service ceiling, 16,400 m (53,800 ft); range in clean configuration, 1,120 km (695 mi).

The following details refer to the Ye-5.

Specifications

Span, 7.749 m (25 ft 5 in); fuselage length (except cone), 11.93 m (37 ft 2 in); wheel track, 2.692 m (8 ft 10 in); wheel base, 4.48 m (14 ft 8.4 in); wing area, 23.13 m2 (248.9 sq ft); takeoff weight, 5,700 kg (12,565 lb); fuel, 1,500 kg (3,305 lb); wing loading, 246.4 kg/m2 (50.47 lb/sq ft).

Performance

Max speed, 1,970 km/h (1,064 kt); climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft) in 0.6 min; service ceiling, 17,650 m (57,900 ft); range, 1,330 km (825 mi), takeoff roll, 730 m (2,395 ft); landing roll, 890 m (2,920 ft).

As its appellation suggests, the MiG-21 MT was also a modified MiG – 21M. But the letter t (for toplivo fuel) indicated that the aircraft’s fuel capacity had increased significantly, from 2,650 1 (700 US gallons) to

3,250 1 (858 US gallons). All the fuel for the uplift was held in the long dorsal fairing from the back of the cockpit to the base of the tail fin; this space contained a remarkable 900 1 (238 US gallons) of fuel. The capacity of this segment was later reduced to 600 1 (159 US gallons), cutting the aircraft’s total fuel capacity to 2,9501 (779 US gallons).

The aircraft was powered by the R-13F-300 turbojet capable of 6,360 daN (6,490 kg st). Its armament and radar were identical to those of the MiG-2 IMF. The MiG-21MT was only a transitional aircraft, and only fifteen copies were built in 197] in the MMZ Znamya Truda facto­ry in Moscow. Five were allocated to the pilots of the WS service eval­uation department.

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, 8,800 kg (19,395 lb); fuel, 2,700 kg (5,950 lb); wing loading, 382.6 kg/m2 (78.4 lb/sq ft); max operating limit load factor, 8.5.

Performance

Max speed, 2,175 km/h at 13,000 m (1,175 kt at 42,640 ft); max speed at sea level, 1,300 km/h (702 kt); climb rate at sea level in clean con­figuration, 150 m/sec (29,530 ft/min); climb to 16,800 m (55,100 ft) in 9 min; service ceiling, 17,300 m (56,745 ft); range, 1,300 km (810 mi); with 800-1 (211-US gal) drop tank, 1,670 km (1,035 mi); takeoff roll, 900 m (2,950 ft); landing roll with SPS and tail chute, 550 m (1,800 ft).

The MiG-23P was a MiG-23ML specially modified for PVO intercept missions. The aircraft was guided to the interception point by ground stations. This guidance system, relayed by the AFCS navigation com­puter, set the best flight path and showed the pilot when to light up the afterburner and when to fire his cannons or missiles. Facts about the military situation were continuously transmitted by the aircraft to the ground stations. The MiG-23P’s armament was identical to that of the M1G-23ML.

MiG 23MLD / 23-18

There were no MiG-23MLDs as variants with a separate existence: they were merely MiG-23MLs that, when returned to overhaul shops, had been fitted with a duplicated SOS-3-4 unit to replace the SOUA.

This was an automatic device that, according to the aircraft’s attitude, speed, and altitude, initiated the LE flaps’ actuation for a 33-degree wing sweep angle. Extension of the LE flaps reached 20 degrees under 900 km/h (486 kt) for AO As greater than 10 degrees. Beyond 900 km/h (486 kt) when the wing sweep angle was increased to 72 degrees, the LE flaps retracted and the device was neutralized.

The retrofit kit also included additional "spread wing" warnings beyond the 16-degree sweep, passive jamming system provided by chaff launchers, and radar warning receivers (for both ground and air­borne radar). The MiG-23MLD could also be equipped with an air com­bat simulator that enabled the pilot to train himself to fire and guide missiles without actually having to fire any—the first device of its kind for a fighter. The economic advantages of this are obvious. Externally, this version could be identified by its wing-edge root extension and by small vortex generators on the Pitot probe.

Still listed as highly classified when the French edition of this book was published in 1991, the MiG-31M was first shown publicly in February 1992 It looks very much like the MiG-31, but after looking closely one notices many differences. After all, the basic MiG-31 was developed with early-1970s technology, it is no wonder that serious updates were needed

First known within the OKB as izdehye 05, the new aircraft has kept most of the MiG-31 structure. The most striking change involves the complete reshaping of the cockpit and the dorsal spine running aft

The 057 identification number on this MiG-31 M means that it is the seventh prototype of "product 05.” The one-piece windshield greatly improves the pilot’s view (Photo RR)

Seen from this angle, the most noteworthy features of the MiG-ЗШ are the deeper and broader dorsal spine, the greater area of the rudders, and the ECM/ECCM wing tip fairings. (Photo RR)

from it, which is now broader and deeper—no doubt saddle tanks were added to increase the internal fuel capacity. The three-window wind­shield has been replaced by a single-piece of rounded glass that gready improves the pilot’s view. But surprisingly, the systems operator has only two small view ports. Other modifications include a greater lead­ing edge root extension, a reduction of the wing fence’s depth on the upper surface, and the addition of a “Christmas tree" of dielectric pan­els and bodies to the wing tips (possibly to house a number of ECM and ECCM antennae). Those wing tip units are practically identical to those tested some twenty-nine years before on the first seven preproduction MiG-25Ps, but at that time they were used more as winglets and anti­flutter bodies.

The height of the fins was increased slightly. Because the rudders were enlarged as well, the base of these surfaces is not inserted into the fin any longer. All systems have been upgraded, and the aircraft is now fitted with digital flight controls, cathode-ray-tube (CRT) multifunction displays in the cockpit, and a more advanced phased-array radar (developed by Fazatron) that has a bigger diameter, altering both the shape and volume of the radome. The semiretractable refueling probe is now located on the right side of the fuselage.

Armament of the MiG-31 M includes six long-range air-to-air mis­siles beneath the fuselage and four new medium-range RW-AE air-to – air missiles on the four wing pylons. Apparently the MiG-31 M has no additional cannons.

Yet another attempt was made at overcoming the engine flameout problem. A large hollow plate was centered on the N-37 barrel square with the engine air intake plane. The resulting shape resembled (if one used one’s imagination) a babochka, or butterfly.

Hot gases from the cannon’s muzzle were sucked in a slot in the plate’s leading edge and then vented through other slots at the top and bottom of the plate. In theory, that would neutralize the effects on the airflow of the temperature rise at the air intake level, which was disrupting the engine combustion stability, and the engines could not flame out anymore. Tests carried out at the end of 1948 (as pro­duction of the MiG-9 came to an end) showed that the "butterfly" had few positive effects—in fact, it increased the plane’s drag and reduced yaw stability.

І

The FK was a modified FS used as a two-seat test bed for the guidance system of the KS-1 missile

The FK bristled with transmitting and receiving antennae—above the engine air intake, on the leading edge of the wing, and on top of the fin The test engineer was seated in the rear cockpit

The limited range of first – and second-generation jet fighters posed nightmarish problems for their operators. The first turbojets were quite thirsty, and auxiliary tanks of various types and sizes did not provide the long “legs" that the aircraft’s mission demanded. In-flight refueling was the best answer because it increased the range in direct proportion to the amount of fuel transferred.

To study the feasibility and capabilities of such a system, three pro­duction MiG-15 bis’s were modified; in total, five aircraft were involved in the development process. The equipment required at both ends of

such an operation was developed by the Yakovlev ОКБ. The refueling process unfolded this way. From the wing tips of the tanker aircraft (in this case a Tu-4 bomber) flexible hoses were released. At the end of each hose was a funnel-shaped device called a drogue. The MiG-15s were fitted with a probe in the left upper nose of the fuselage. To refu­el, the fighter pulled up to one of the drogues. Once the connection between the probe and the drogue was secure and the ball joint locked in place, the refueling operator aboard the Tu-4 activated a motor – pump that sent fuel down the hose to the fighter. The tanker could refuel two fighters simultaneously.

The first test flights helped to clear up three important points:

1. New homing equipment was needed to simplify the rendezvous of the tanker and the fighters in midair

2. Pumps with faster delivery rates would have to be developed in order to shorten the refueling process as much as possible

3. Very precise rules were required to govern the movements of both tankers and fighters during the refueling process

As the tests continued, several unfortunate phenomena came to light and complicated the procedure. Immediately after the fighter broke the link with the drogue, for instance, the fuel that remained in the tanker’s hose spilled into the fighter’s engine air intake or over its

canopy. The engine did not flame out because the VK-1 was far better in terms of combustion stability than its predecessors; but kerosene vapors did enter the cockpit via the pressurization conduit, and the pilot had no choice but to inhale them until the next air-conditioning blowout cycle. This situation was remedied by fitting the drogue with an electromagnetic shutoff valve controlled by the tanker’s refueling operator.

The MiG-15 bis in-flight refueling tests were never completed, since the coupling process required very highly trained pilots. The two men in charge of those tests conducted in 1953 were two LI I pilots, S. A. Anokhin and V. Pronyakin.