my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Real Military Discussions   » Air Defense, Weapons, Platforms   » Some MiG-21 prototypes which never made it

   
Author Topic: Some MiG-21 prototypes which never made it
AnArcHISt
Member
Member # 136

posted 10-25-2000 11:25 AM     Profile for AnArcHISt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
E-8 tactical fighter

another view of E-8

E-152 interceptor


Posts: 145 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Akulashaker
Member
Member # 148

posted 10-25-2000 05:28 PM     Profile for Akulashaker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I knew about the E-152 (notice the AA-4 missiles), but the E-8 was new to me.........the basic concept reminds me of the Su-9/11 --> Su-15 evolution: seperate the air inlet system from the radar cone, thus enabling both to grow in parallel. Which causes the question......assuming that the operational benefits of the Su-15 paradigm had been realised by the time this prototype was built, why was it not adopted for service?

(possible answer......the MiG-23 offered the same paradigm, plus the benefits of the new powerplant and swing-wings)

------------------
___________________________________________
The Europe-88 Project: World War III in Germany
www.geocities.com/akulashaker/E88/


Posts: 488 | From: Greece | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-25-2000 07:43 PM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Nice pictures! Is there a web site for these?
Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Timbo
Member
Member # 1789

posted 10-25-2000 08:00 PM     Profile for Timbo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Wow cool! Never knew about any of those prototypes! Thanks for posting it!

-Tim

Tim's USAF Page - Click Here to Visit!

[This message has been edited by Timbo (edited 10-25-2000).]


Posts: 709 | From: Palatine, IL, USA | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
AnArcHISt
Member
Member # 136

posted 10-25-2000 10:11 PM     Profile for AnArcHISt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Akulashaker

"Which causes the question......assuming that the operational benefits of the Su-15 paradigm had been realised by the time this prototype was built, why was it not adopted for service?"

You know, just by looking at the airframe I want to ask a question: does it fly as good as it looks? My guess would be that in any case it would make a much better dogfighter than MiG-23 which was chosen over it. But the Russians did not want a dogfighter, they wanted another interceptor with tactical bombing and attack capability (MiG-23BN, ML later evolving to MiG-27). Look at the whole Soviet design philosophy of that era: faster rate of climb, higher ceiling, higher speed, but whoever said anything about turn performance, cockpit visibility or other things necessary for close engagement. Even the history of the development of MiG-21 shows that it became more of an interceptor in versions after MiG-21F! Look at the Soviet AAM designs of this era - BIG, FAST-MOVING, SLOW-TURNING. Clearly made for strategic interception and not for close engagement. Heck, the Soviets did not even have a dogfight missile until R-73/AA-11! And thats true - R-60 (AA-8) is no dogfight missile actually, it was originally envisioned as a close range defense system for the MiG-23, at ranges where MiG-23s main SARH weapon (AA-7) would be too close to use, but the gun would not be close enough to use. It was more of "fill in the gap" weapon. AA-8 has a +/-20 degrees boresight and other shortcomings which means it is not a dogfight-dedicated missile really, although it could be used in one (and to more effect than any preceding Soviet missile). I think R-60M improved version is better suited to dogfights, but still...


Andy Bush


Yep, there is:

http://airbase.uka.ru/

[This message has been edited by AnArcHISt (edited 10-25-2000).]


Posts: 145 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rick.50cal
Member
Member # 172

posted 10-25-2000 11:01 PM     Profile for Rick.50cal     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/russia/mikoyan/e/8/img/e-8.jpg

Anyone else notice how much this one looks like the Eurofighter EF2000 ? Change the tail... and presto! A bit of a simplification, but does anyone else see it?

------------------
Rick.50cal


Posts: 520 | From: Vancouver, BC, Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Grifo
Member
Member # 5575

posted 10-26-2000 04:51 AM     Profile for Grifo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Very cool site,AnArcHISt!THX for the link.
Posts: 28 | From: Russia,Moscow | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Zed
Member
Member # 64

posted 10-26-2000 11:12 AM     Profile for Zed     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I disagree. The R-60 was designed as a close quarters weapon, and designed to be highly agile. At these ranges there was no option but to dogfight...and if you look at one up close (i got to see this and an AA-2 sectioned) you will see that it was designed for a dogfight. If you are questioning the limitations of the aircraft, then sure, they were not as agile as we had on the West, but for them, these where agile birds compared to others in their inventory. The whole style of fighting was such that they would not make multiple passes but 'shoot & skoot', but if the need arose, they had to be a weapon to fill this gap...this was the R-60, and the R-60M had a DU round and HMS driven off-boresite capability. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Hell, even agressor groups were set-up to aid ACM techniques for the MiG-23.

AK,

You never seen these!! Shame! We should talk bud. The tri-plane has a very long history that was an important part of the future mentality of Soviets aviation design...i'll tell you about it. Find me online.

Z


Posts: 866 | From: Midlands, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-26-2000 01:57 PM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
AK

Thanks much for the link. Got any more like this...I really enjoy historical military aviation.

Rick 50 Cal

It is an interesting design. Makes me wonder when and why. It seems to be a pronounced departure from typical Soviet ideas from the MiG-21 era.

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Zed
Member
Member # 64

posted 10-26-2000 03:15 PM     Profile for Zed     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
...err...not really Andy. What makes you think its different.

Z

[This message has been edited by Zed (edited 10-26-2000).]


Posts: 866 | From: Midlands, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Andy Bush
Member
Member # 12

posted 10-26-2000 04:40 PM     Profile for Andy Bush   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Zed

The picture speaks for itself. One of the web sites above gave a date of 1962 for this prototype.

Given the post-MiG-21 designs (prototype or production), what it is that makes you think otherwise?

Andy


Posts: 595 | From: St Louis, Mo | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Zed
Member
Member # 64

posted 10-27-2000 10:40 AM     Profile for Zed     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Humm, well from an aero point of view, it is essentially the same thing. The configuration is different, but the spirit is identical...

It would function almost the same as the MiG-23. In fact there would be some characteristics in this that would be lacking from the MiG-23.

Err...if you are after the finer points, then that will need some explanation (available on request) but essentially it does look the same, and more importantly they where designed with similar goals.
It is best viewed that this is like what the X-31 is to the EAP...one is arguably better than the other...and one particular thing.

Z


Posts: 866 | From: Midlands, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
AnArcHISt
Member
Member # 136

posted 10-27-2000 07:29 PM     Profile for AnArcHISt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Here's some more pics of E-8 (now in color!)



Also, I heard somewhere that E-152 - 154 contributed to Chinese J-8 "Finback" design along with a few MiG-23s they purchased from Egypt to study. In any case, J-8 looks a lot similar to E-154:

The original J-8 "Finback"

J-8IIM (modernized - has Russian Zhuk-8 II radar and can carry R-27 "Alamo" missiles)


Posts: 145 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
MonsterZero
Member
Member # 5722

posted 10-28-2000 04:06 PM     Profile for MonsterZero   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Being born and raised in communist Poland I know for certain that Polish Air Force pilots switching to the Mig-23 from the Mig-21 spoke very highly of the new plane. They claimed that the Mig-23 was a lot of fun to fly compared to the Mig-21. The latter was known as the "latajace zelazko" (flying iron-like the kind you use for ironing your clothes) I don't know if that was due to its flying characteristics or lack of sophisticated avionics. There is no doubt that the Mig-23 maneuvers like a freight train at speed but it is very fast-a highly important characteristic despite many claims to the contrary. 99% of any combat sortie is entering the target area and runnig for it. Unless the Mig-23 is caught by enemy interceptors "red-handed" it will probably escape after launching its weapons.

Oh, I just recalled an interesting real-life story involving the Mig-23. There was an accident in late 1980s where a Russian pilot from a unit stationed in Poland in the Gdansk Bay area (Baltic Sea) ejected shortly after takeoff because of mechanical problems.
The pilotless Mig-23 flew on for hundreds of miles, left Poland, flew over all of northern Germany and entered the Netherlands where it finally crashed on top of a home killing one person.

[This message has been edited by MonsterZero (edited 10-28-2000).]


Posts: 442 | From: Worth, IL USA | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
MonsterZero
Member
Member # 5722

posted 10-28-2000 04:25 PM     Profile for MonsterZero   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
DOUBLE POST, IGNORE

[This message has been edited by MonsterZero (edited 10-28-2000).]


Posts: 442 | From: Worth, IL USA | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Johnny
Member
Member # 3636

posted 10-28-2000 06:17 PM     Profile for Johnny   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
MonsterZero,
Mig's engine, in that story, stoped so in accordance of the rules pilot eject. But the engine restarted itself, autopilot took control and Mig flew away. There is one part of the story that really interests me, Mig flew across a number of countries (correct me if I am wrong), where there attempts to intercept it? I heard that there were some attempts but when pilots who did the intercept saw no one at the controls they were so shocked that they let the Mig go, personally I really doubt about this part of the story but what really happened?

Posts: 102 | From: | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Johnny
Member
Member # 3636

posted 10-28-2000 06:19 PM     Profile for Johnny   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
BTW doesn't the nose of the E-8 reminds you of EF2000? Especially the canopy.
Posts: 102 | From: | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged
Cookie
Member
Member # 836

posted 10-28-2000 06:48 PM     Profile for Cookie   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yes, it was intercepted by a number of German and US fighters when it crossed the border. The fighters were required to make visual contact though, since it could have been a deflector. Shooting down deflectors is obviously something you wanna avoid.
Anyway, as the fighters approached the MiG-23 they saw that the canopy was missing and the aircraft flew without pilot. At that point of time a bunch of red phones were already ringing in certain places, trust me...

There were even plans to shoot it down before it crashed into populated area, but due to the fact that you basically wonīt find any unpopulated area in Germany and the Netherlands this idea was rejected again.
If I remember correctly one of the German fighter crews (I believe it was an F-4F) even volunteered to try to "tip" the MiG over, read: They wanted to make it bank away towards the North Sea by hitting the MiGīs left wing with their right wing. Due to the risks involved in this maneuver they were not given permission though.

Quite an interesting detail of cold-war history.

------------------
You can run, but... why die tired?

Visit me at the Flightsim Cafe


Posts: 685 | From: Dortmund, Germany | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Cookie
Member
Member # 836

posted 10-29-2000 06:10 PM     Profile for Cookie   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Umm, make that "defector", not deflector, duh! Been watching too much Star Trek lately it seems...

By the way, does anyone know why I canīt edit my messages anymore? Whenever I try to do that it comes up with the dreaded "page not found" error message. Itīs been like that for about a week or so now, whatīs up with that? Does anyone else have that problem or is it something on my side?

------------------
You can run, but... why die tired?

Visit me at the Flightsim Cafe


Posts: 685 | From: Dortmund, Germany | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

Đ COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
Đ 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved