martinezThe problem is that most sources claim that the operational birds need what is described as a “datalink pod” to employ the R-40. Maybe there is a capability to use the R-40RD and that is why the pod is needed? Also, the R-40TD1 variant could perhaps have an added datalink feature for use by the MiG-31? Who knows.
Many sources claim cca 30km launch distance for the R-40TD/R-40T, why would it need a “datalink pod”? I thought the R-40TD(R-40T) is a lock on before launch missile as well as the R-23T/R-24T. The R-23T missile seeker is having 34km lockon distance according to manual.
martinezThe Mig-29 main tires have a simple rubber tread pattern, but after 5-10 landings the pattern is lost due to tread wear. Then you have to watch the wear indicator, about 1.5cm deep ball shaped cavity. When you still see it, the tire should be all right. You can also count the number of plies by looking at the direction of the fiber reinforcements. The tire service life can be up to 60 landings, but I have heard about tire kills in two landings. It depends…. The front wheel is flat, has no tread pattern at all and tire wear is prescribed as well. The cavity indicator or number of fiber inserts between plies.
IAF has grounded MKIs due to lack of spare parts (including tires and brakes) from Russia.
Never heard that before that a fleet was grounded due to lack of tires. Never happened here, sounds a bit unbelievable for me. Buying them still from Russia.
When I saw the MiG-29 at Farnborough in 1988 the tires were damn near bald.
Huuh, pretty long time you have not seen 29. 🙂
martinezStripped off paint system (topcoat with chromate primer) around fasteners or rivets due to mainteanance or abrasion (leading edges show signs of abrasion wear at firśt) lead to minor corrosion as well. Would not make a big issue of it.
Even the brand new Raptor is suffering corrosion problems as I heard. The most recent rumours are saying the Raptor fleet is falling apart due to cheap adhesive they used to glue LO panels onto fuselage. Geez, what a maintenance nightmare this aircraft has to be.
martinezI don’t speak Russian (apart from asking for a beer!!), but I remember the tannoy at MAKS airshows.
I wonder what were you thinking when commentator shouted “Bochka” during the Strizhi display???? 😀 😀 😀
The Russian commentator was, as usual, getting very strident and excited talking in Russian as something approached from the east …..
I always found MAKS commentator very entertaining, the crowd laughed at him and screamed together ….,Uráááá, Uráááá,…..as well. There is a very strong national pride in Russia, something my nation is missing.
Anyway, I saw Blue Angels, Thunderbirds or the Viper East demo and found their commentary pompous, comical and insane too. Nevermind, they all have to know how to sell own BS. 😀 😀
martinezThe SFC comparison in MIL power between the R35 and AL31. Finally, it goes in favour of AL31……
martinezCheck the engine thrust gain curves at full AB regime due to ram-air between the R35 and AL31! Flying at Mach 0.9 and altitude 1km the R35 is giving 145KN of thrust, whereas the AL31 just a bit above 120KN.
This Mig-27 engine upgrade is not going to be any performance adder, for sure. Real advantages Garry mentioned already.
P.S. completely forgot about those small SFC graphs below, check them too…
martinezThe designation SM means low-cost upgrades offered by the RAC MIG on refurbished Mig-29 airframes aimed to improve operational eficiency vs cost ratio. Currently offered low-cost variants are the Mig-29SD also known as Mig-29AS equiped with western nav. suite and the Mig-29SM modification with enhanced russian avionics and weapon systems which is almost the same as the Belorusian Mig-29BM. Both Mig-29SD and Mig-29BM exist in numbers and are flown by Belorusian and Slovak airforces.
The Mig-29SM being offered on MAKS2007, check the leaflet below. Then what multirole stands for? Is it defined by $30 mil and more? 🙂
martinezThey moved it to make place for the PTB-800 fuel tanks – read again mm2000’s first post.
That`s correct, I did realize it after. It is a known problem when you put 1150l under-wing fuel tanks, you can`t attach the APU-470 anymore.
I`ve checked drawings of the Mig-29 wing structure, there is no chance of attaching the APU-470 to mid store points 4(wing spar 1, rib 6) and 5(wing spar 2, rib 6) unless you make a substantial modification to the rib 6, behind the spar 3. Would like to see the installation in detail.
The two symetrical fairings are probably put where the pipe coming from the drop fuel tanks trough the wing “bypasses” a structural frame in order to reach into fuel tank no.1.
Mig-29 inner wet pylons are connected to in-wing fuel tanks and not to fuel tank 1. Connecting them to fuel tank 1 is simply illogical, due to order of fuel usage and fuel tranfer in fuel tanks. All line produced Migs-29 in early nineties were modified this way, so those aerodynamic fairings are definitely not what you expect them to be.
The IFR probe was on the side of the cockpit (as he said) and on a single airplane so it has nothing to do with the two fairings.
Are you guessing? Read his post again, I think he is putting the iFR system together with those fairings.
regards
M
martineza Mig-29 spine detail for better imagination…
martinezplease notes carefuly the Iraqi MiG-29,you will find pipe after the dorsal intake louvres:eek: ,my friend told me(he’s military engineer from Iraq)
I hope to get the pics from my friend in Iraq.
see the difference between the Iraqi MiG-29 and the others
hi,
I see an aerodynamic housing behind the dorsal intake, not a pipe. Interesting is that it can be found on the left side too. Did they install the IFR probe on both sides of A/C? Talking Mig-29 fuel system, the left aerodynamic housing is placed near the filling orifice of the fuel tank 1.
see the pic.
The APU-470 attached to mid store points, impossible unless they created new rear attach point(if it wing structure allowes) and wired the front one for the APU-470/R-27R. I doubt the SUV of 9.12 can even handle more than two R-27R, so what is the reason of shifting the R-27R from inner to mid?
martinezToo many trees for Minot. 😉
:snowman:
Matt
Do they have snow in the middle of the year at MinotAFB?? 😀 😀
Picture taken at SliacAFB, may2004
Martinez
martinezHi Martinez
No Approval was require from the MIG design bureau. An engineering company may do modification work on any aircraft, provided it can support it by proper analysis. A military customer is not subject to FAA approval as a commercial customer, and may approve the engineering work by itself.
The system includes a controller in the RH fairing, near the dispenser; control unit in the cockpit; firing switch on the throttle; an indicator to the left of the gunsight (forgot what for); and a lot of wiring from cockpit to tail.
To do the installation we had to remove the tail ( which in the MiIGs comes off with the afterburner liner and nozzle), remove canopy & ejection seat for access to the cockpit; remove the gunsight and throttle for rework; removal of the gun pack for access to electrical fuse boxes; removal of the avionics pack behind the cockpit to enable the addition of a sealed connector on thee aft pressure bulkhead ; installation of new and reworked units, and routing the electrical harness to connect all the elements of the system
.
Thanks Jetman, I agree.
Looking at the pic you`ve posted I suppose the dispenser cassette with fairings has been installed between the 29-31 frame of the tail section. If I remember correctly there should be somewhere an internal fuel tank as well. I`m not sure how big the dispenser cassette is whether it is semirecessed or “attached to aircraft skin” only, but have you been forced to make an extensive design change to a/c frames when installing it?
Would like to see those mods you`ve done on the cockpit. Do you have any pics of Ethiopian mig-23bn cockpits?
regards
Martinez
martinezThe original system would have a display system built in. But the new subsystem did not. The new subsystem isn’t capable of generating its own display. Since the new subsystem is not tightly integrated with the old system it would not be able to access the display circuits for the CRT.
The same subsystem is used on the Su-30MKK, so it is intended to work with MFDs. That means no local graphics subsystem and a serial bus intended to communicate with an MFD, a much more flexible layout that reflects more modern thinking and planning for the future. The main radar no longer has its own graphics system but communicates its data through a standard bus to the MFDs. It should be noted that the R-77 subsystem isn’t just meant to fire R-77s but other radar guided weapons as well, which includes in this category, antiship missiles. The capability to use things like Kh-31A or Kh-35 would be handled in this system, aka Su-30MK2, in another update.
The R-77 adaptation to the MiG-29 did not appear to require a separate subsystem but for the Su-27 I am absolutely sure it did based on the documentation and the same subsystem is also used on the Su-30MKK and MK2. It seems strange but they took different approaches in the way the R-77 is implemented, being done by separate companies (Phazotron vs. NIIP). If you look at the way TV weapons were planned to be integrated on the N019 it seemed tightly integrated too, but on the N001, they used another separate subsystem for the TV guided PGMs.
What’s definitely for sure is that the late batch Su-27UBK and J-11A all have an MFD on the top deck of the dashboard, and the R-77 capability is the most apparent change in these aircraft.
Crobato,
Both the Su-27 and the Mig-29 have the same device(a block) called GS-31-3 “Symbol generator , in russian блок генерации симболов” and the TsBM ORBITA 20-5(or 20-51, 20-6) digital processor providing graphical output for the HUD and the old CRT screen. The Mig-29 has them installed in the spine (behind the cockpit) whereas in the Su-27 they are placed below the cockpit if I remember correctly. This Symbol generator “GS-31-3” is wirred with the NAV and the WCS system meaning the onboard radar and KOLS(OEPS) as well. It takes signals from other systems and show them in form of graphical symbols on the screen. In general, one among many steps in a process of upgrading, for example with a new missile оr weapon system feature, cockpit display indication has to be altered. The trick is to change these block for new ones, the same way as they did it on our Migs. We got modified version of the Symbol generator and the digital computer, thus different symbols displayed and fed into the HUD and MFD from new western NAV systems installed,…etc.
Therefore, whatever reason they(PLAAF) had to install the second display in the J-11 cockpit, for sure it was not caused bcs of the R-77 upgrade only. There has to be a lot of more things than you have said here, but speculation doesn`t help much. A good resolution photos of Chinese J-11 cockpit would reveal more, e.g. to recognize what MFD type has been installed,.. etc. The picture you have sent is too small. The only one thing I can say about the J-11 cockpit upgrade is that PLAAF pilots did not praise it well, especially when landing. What shocked me most about this photo is, are PLAAF pilots still using this 35mm slide??? Unbelievable !!! 😮 😮
M
martinezHi jetman
Did Ethiopian airforce require RSK Mig approval of your design modification?
What other installed system is triggering the new chaff/flare dispenser?
thanks
martinez😮 😮 Got me curious. 😀 Anybody got this article?
I was reading it somewhere. No kidding!!!
But, on a serious note, I heard RCS of metallic objects/partially metallic objects can be reduced only to a certain level. What sorta Low RCS value would be achievable for Eagle/Flanker sized fighter? :confused:
and by what means?
Sign In
