Hi Pibu,

Is this drawing near the real mikoyan “E” project?

No. If I’m not mistaken, that drawing is based on a sketch by this forum’s own Aerospacetech. Perhaps he’ll post his own drawing again.

–Gavin.

Well, with the Internet, if you don’t know where a photo originated, you have to assume it’s a photoshop. But at least this is one of the more creative efforts.

–Gavin.

CNN is reporting that it crashed in the UAE.

–Gavin.

Three losers, although MiG-AT may be according to some sources still in the running. Sukhoi S-54 top (evolved into S-55) Myasischev-200, MiG-AT and winner Yakolev Yak-130D

Myasischev-200? I’ve never heard of it, and I’ve tried to Google it without finding anything.

Any more info or pics? Perhaps there’s another name for that design?

–Gavin.

I think the best bet for MiG would be to make a single engined light fighter with the same engine as the PAK-FA will be using, it would be much better commonality and this would make it alot more attractive to RuAF to buy. I don’t think RuAF will ever in teh future buy something like they did two rather heavy twin engined fighters like they did back during the Cold War with Mig-29 and Su-27.

I have to disagree and say that MiG made the right decision by going with a twin-engine medium-weight design. I’m sure they are hoping the Russian AF will buy the new MiG, but they can’t count on it. This aircraft is being designed primarily for the export market, for countries that are not going to be operating the PAK FA, so commonality will mean nothing to them. The F-35 being a notable exception, most fighters in the medium-weight class have two engines, so it makes sense that MiG will go that way.

Consider what kind of aircraft is likely to be popular with the export market. The PAK FA will be too large and too expensive for most countries to operate. So MiG is right to offer something smaller.

Also, they already have the MiG-AT that could be modified for a lightweight/intro fighter. So they don’t need to design another plane in that category. This is going to be a replacement for the MiG-29 so it needs to be basically the same size and weight (probably somewhat larger to allow more internal fuel and weapon bays).

Just my opinion 🙂

–Gavin.

P.S. — Aerospacetech, do you think that tailess design would perform well? Are the intakes on top of the fuselage?

Why do people have such a hard time understanding what the MiG 1.44 was? It was simply a technology deomonstrator, meant to test the advantages of its canard-delta planform. It has no more value as a fighter jet than America’s X-31.

The 1.44 was NOT a prototype of a stealth fighter. If Russia had continued the MFI program, MiG presumably would have produced a prototype based generally on the 1.44’s layout, but we have to assume that it would have looked significantly different.

That being said, the MFI program apparently was not trying to acheive all-around stealth like the F-22. It was intended to have a lower RCS in the frontal sphere, and you can get an idea of how MiG intended to acheive that goal by looking at the shape of the 1.44’s nose and the way the canards are mounted on the forward fuselage.

–Gavin.

4.Russian equipment, used properly, is quite potent and not junk.

This alone will be a shocking revelation to some people 🙂