mig-21 with magic R-55 aam IS DEADLY.
UNFOURTUNATLY MIG 21 DOES NOT HAVE THE RADAR OR THE AIR-AIR MISSLES IF IT HAD it wouldbe the best dog fighter ever.
What is the history of R-55 with Iraqi Mig-21? It is hard to believe Iraqi had R-55 missiles at all, any photos, thanks.
There are rumors that in Serbian book Bis climb rate is presented in F-4 format for comparison to be possible, but I can put F-13 graph as interesting to match with 23’s. What can be deduced…max SL climbs are ?? And where are M2000, Super F-4, Gripen, F-18, F-14 ?
.
Adriann, sadly that the F-13 climb diagram is rude and I know that very well bcs I have the manual in my hand right now. No excuse, this manual was translated/issued in Czech 1962, so as a matter of fact it is even older. If you had the original one you would notice that next to this diagram a different numbers of best climb rates are written, conditions clean with afterburner.(1000m…142.5m/s, 5000m….117,5m/s, 16000m….87m/s, 19000m….18.5m/s) I`m looking for another F-13 aerodynamics manuals right now, there are some left, but it will take a bit more time as I assumed. At last it is difficult to approximate F-13 climb rates from those Mig-23 climb charts, there were a lot of differencies, starting with excess power, weight and L/D ratio.
Was this a relatively cool or warm system? I’d imagine if its inlet air the friction should be heating up the tubes the air travels to a certain extent. Otherwise this is relatively ambient compressor air, right?
During a preflight check, a ground personal should check the blowing air released from flaps cavities for a time 10-15seconds. You could hold your hand there without any problem.
and such details are behind the scope of that official publication..;)
Finally, you admitted my point here. Would never raise this issue again, but you forced me to with your “official Mig-data” book claims. 😉
To cut a longer story short. The MiG-21s did not differ by basic model only but by Block built too or by later upgrades during life-time.
Of course, nothing unusual in general I think. During a service life changes were constantly introduced, bigger at MIG production plant, some smaller bulletins at user maintenance depots. I could tell Things about our Migs-29…Anyway when Dresden overhaul factory cancelled their activities with soviet aircrafts/helicopters in the nineties, there were plans to take over the those business, to transport all support tooling-jigs for the heavy maintenance and continue here. Well, something went wrong with our politicians, therefore not all was transfered. I;m still working with colleagues remembering trips to Dresden.
I said one could think that 23’s climb is in Mirage F-1 class, according to that graph. But instead, it is in M 2000 class (with similar T/W, about 1). French are telling that 2000 has SL climb rate ~ 280 m/s, while from this graph 23 climbs at 190 m/s. Just an example of positive and negative marketing.
Dart shape is relevant, as for its lower max lift.
Adrian, turn forward several pages in the Mig-23ML manual where it states explicitly max. climb rates during a steady climb at a constant airspeed. Could you please post a graph showing BIS climb rate from that Serbian book?
That means limit load with half fuel/2 AAMs – MF -8.5, Bis 8g. I do not know their service life with equal fatugue spectrum.
Well, according to Czechoslovak airforce directive 04/81, the total lifetime of the Mig-21MF was stated 2400hours/30years, but I cant help with the BIS figures. I presume the BIS had the same g-limits as the MF (8,5), Sainz please correct me if I;m wrong.
I have real concern abount this picture: being related to Mig-21MF… as far as I know Ng max of 8.5 is only for Mig-21bis (with structural improvment such as Tip75)… are you sure ? ?
Topolo I`m posting scans from original Mig-21 pilot manuals(all say to be direct translation from Russian to Czech) and not ballpark figures from the public OKB-MIG book as Sens keeps doing here. As you can compare, his data about max. operating limit load factor comming from the MIG book made for aviation freaks are not correct and rather deceiving. Since the Mig-21PF the airframe can handle 8,5g and not as he claims about the Mig-21PFM. The same max Ng 8,5g was applied for the Mig-21R Type94R as well.
Similar contradiction will arise when comparing max. climb rates of all Mig-21 types as his book is giving unrealistic numbers again. Just a few examples…
Mig-21F-13, Type 74, max. initial climb-rate, clean, SL 155m/s
Mig-21PF, Type 76, max. initial climb-rate, 2 R-3S, SL 152m/s
Mig-21MF, Type 96A/96F, max. initial climb-rate, 2 R-3S, SL 148m/s
Regarding operating limit load factors, here is data from manuals , PF, MF and R.
Those systems are as old as the Su-27, check this video at 1:35 you will see the FOD MESH inside the intake and at 6:25 you can see those bottom intake louvers, which are spring loaded and are opened/closed(suck-in/release pressure) in order to ensure compressor stable operation. Similar systems has been used with the baseline Mig-29.
For the Tip 74 OKB MiG gives an initial climb-rate of 175 m/sec in clean at sea-level.
For the Tip 76 with half fuel and 2 R-3S it is 205 m/sec.
For the Tip 77 in clean it is 175 m/sec.
For the Tip 94 with half fuel and 2 R-3S it is 125 m/sec. (from now such load as Tip 94 configuation)
For the Tip 94R similar and recce-pod it is 105 m/sec.
For the Tip 95 similar to Tip 94 it is 115 m/sec.
For the Tip 15 in clean it is 160 m/sec.
For the Tip 96 similar Tip 94 it is 115 m/sec.
For the Tip 96F see Tip 15.
For the Tip 96T in clean it is 150 m/sec.
For the Tip 50 similar Tip 94 it is 200 m/sec.
For the Tip 75 similar Tip 94 it is 230 m/sec.
For the Tip 68 on half fuel and 2 R-3S it is 115 m/sec.
For the Tip 69 in clean it is 150 m/sec.For the MiG-pilots the initial climb-rate till 100 m/sec could be red in a linear way, when above it is no longer linear and a conditional acceptance at best. Typical climb-rates are well below 100 m/sec in general.
what source? Mig-21 aircraft manuals state different numbers.
French are telling that 2000 has SL climb rate ~ 280 m/s, while from this graph 23 climbs at 190 m/s.
please explain where is this diagram showing 190m/s climb rate?
I`m glad that you and Mr. Irra agree with me…;)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pRKkhMubtac
Martinez, Eastern pilot manuals are by definition rough with purpose to give pilot general idea of a/c ability. Usually, weight is not clearly defined.
Note that Soviet flight manuals weren`t that structured as the US NATOPS documents. There were separate manuals to calculate range and flight duration, separate manuals dealing with aerodynamics, aircraft, pilot and flight instructions and combat employment as well. As already pointed out there existed practical aerodynamics and flight characteristics pilot manuals which are very detailed ones giving exact weight/wing loading values, therefore your definition “rough with purpose” is an arrant nonsense in general. Compared to those aerodynamics manuals the F-4 performance data appendix looks poor and miserable. Some diagrams in other manuals might not be as accurate as you would wish, mostly bcs they dealt with different aspects of pilot instructions, but when important the weight info was there. I wonder, whether you are refering to the Serbian book when complaining about data discrepancies? Not to mention, there could also be typographical errors caused by translation.
I have heard that Serbian book is based on Technical manual graphs with dot by dot conversion to unified F-4 format. (Maybe Serbs are not that stupid, remember they downed 117).
A funny comparison 😀 Actually, a hungarian brain Zoltan Dani, a former colonel of Yugoslav army found the way how to shot down US stealth, so therefore you should listen to Sainz here as hungarians are even smarter than Serbs in that matter. All I can see so far, you`ve sent diagrams without weight info copied from former soviet or serbian Mig-21 manuals, so where is the “dot by dot conversion” to flawless F-4 format?
Trying to find logic in rough undefined diagrams you mentioned, is fatuous business. Of course, STR F-13 graph is from pilot’s manual. I can send you whole page.
you right, there is a mistake, could be a wrong speed value as well or the 33 sec turn is correct. Should get another F-13 manuals next week, hope I will clear things up. Regarding Serbian book, please send the page where all soviet manuals are listed , those ones used to create that book. thanks
These diagrams are both from official manuals. But I doubt this MF graph (non-soviet) since 4.5 g at 5 km altitude with 8000 kg weight is too optimistic. There are bunch of too optimistic F-13 data and graphs. I think they are product of roughness and incompetence. Like that 5.5g at 5 km altitude, ceiling above 20 km, Cdo of 0.012…Some data&sources do not deserve wasting time. Also, I do not remember but manufactured used different limit G philosophy for F and newer models, so direct comparison is more difficult.
Funny, another three original MF manuals with diagrams, tables and explanatory text claim the same. There are diagrams also comparing both engines the R11F2S-300 and the R13-300. The Mig-21M with the weaker R11F2S-300 performed 4.2g STR at 5000m altitude and weight 8000G. Reduced weight to 7000G increases STR to 4.5g. The Serbian book is probably a mess of wrongly designated and screwed up diagrams, so you happen to be confused. Nevermind, but for sure the STR diagram you posted is not comming from the Mig-21F13 manual.
Anyway, when saying the word “optimistics”, what other original manual data have you been confronting the Serbian book with? Geez, what is the problem with ceiling above 20000m and could you please more elaborate how 5G pulled on the F13 differed to 5G on the MF? Thanks
I don’t have any info on what this ‘SPS’ system in the MiG-21 is other than the limited Google references…but it sounds similar to the boundary layer control system in the F-104.
In the F-104, this system was used with the landing flap only. It was ineffective when used to maneuver with…the low speed limit of 240KIAS and the limited g available at that speed made that a poor choice.
Here is a picture of the system.
The soviet SPS(sduv pogranichnogo sloja) system with the Mig-21 uses the same principle of course, probably with some more or less technical differences. You can judge by your self when looking at pictures below. The SPS system was engaged after fulfilling following conditions.
1. The flap switch to “Landing” position, max. 45° flaps deflection, The SPS system starts acting when flaps reach 30° deflection, that`s about 390-400km/h IAS.
2. Engine throttle settings between SPS and MILITARY POWER, AB is disengaged when SPS is ON.
3. The circuit breaker “SPS Upravlenie” and “SPS VKL” switches are ON.
I do not remember to hear that deploying flaps(0-25° range flap deflection, flap switch to take-off position) was ever thought during an A2A combat, but perhaps there was a “little room” in the Mig-21 envelope where flaps could be utilized. It is rumoured by some soviet airforce official in various aviation sources, a special fighter pilot excercises called “500s” underwent on some training bases in order to master maneuvers when flying the Mig-21 on the edge. However, how much advantage they might gain from those slow-speed maneuvers is unknown, but the Mig-21 never liked slow speeds in general.
As already pointed out, the Mig aircrafts are using the “floating type” of flaps on almost all types Mig-21,23,25,29. The flap slowly deploys to max. deflection with decreasing dynamic pressure and vice versa. Look at the diagram below, though it is from a similar Mig flap system.
The question I`d like to have is whether the F-104 had the same flap system or not. Thanks
anyway we should stick to facts.
Here is MiG-21F-13 sustained turn ‘g’ as a function of IAS and altitude 0.2/3/(5) km w/w.o. afterburner A1
Adriann,
Do you have any chance to double check those book diagrams with real operational manuals? I doubt the first diagram shows the Mig-21F-13 STR performance as it pretty well fits to the MF version as you can see below. I do have more than fifty airforce manuals related to Mig-21 all versions starting from F-13, PF, PFM, R, M, MF and ending with the BIS. When comparing turn performance only, the Mig-21Bis STR was inferior to the F-13 almost the whole envelope, but especially at low altitudes cca. below 1500m the BIS sustained turn performance should prevail due to the R-25-300 emergency afterburner thrust and also due to the fact that later built Mig-21 airframes could be stressed to 8,5g instead of 7g on the Mig-21f-13.
For comparison the Mig-21F-13 with missiles was able to maintain 5,5g during sustained 360deg turn at 5000m altitude(35-36seconds), what was almost 1g more than later and fatter MF, BIS versions! Тhe instantaneous turn performance always in favour of the Mig21F-13 with the lowest wing loading.
Btw. When talking the best all around turn performer among exported Mig-21versions, definitely the Mig-21PFM (Fishbed-F)according to manual data and memoirs of my colleagues, former fighter pilots of CSLA. The weight gain was negligible, the airframe since PF could be stressed to 8,5g in maneuvers and engine thrust uprated from 5750kp to 6200kp.
Do not know whether this is a reliable comparison at all, but from the Have Doughnut tactical eval of Mig-21F13, there is an EM diagram comparing both. Seems that the earliest Mig-21 version had advantage in better instantaneous and sustained manoeuvrability over the Phantom…..while I agree that the latest Fishbed version icluding the Mig-21 BIS izd.75 had worser agility compared even to the Mig-21F13.