MiG-17SN

[blackkite]

Hi! MiG-17SN.
http://ourairports.biz/?p=942
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/311375-mig-17-sn-experimental/

"When the guns were fired, other unpleasant surprises occurred. For example, firing in gusts with the three weapons rotated upward or downward altered the aircraft’s flight path in the opposite direction. It was impossible to fire the cannons at all when the weapons’ slew angle exceeded 10 degrees upward unless special equipment was used to balance the angular momentum of their recoil. The setbacks suffered while experimenting with rotating weaponry on both the MiG-15 and the MiG-17 convinced the OKB once and for all that any such system would be useless if installed too far from the center of gravity in singleseat fighters. All research work in that direction was subsequently abandoned."

 

[dan_inbox]

firing in gusts with the three weapons rotated upward or downward altered the aircraft’s flight path in the opposite direction.

It is interesting that nobody had enough forethought to anticipate that before wasting resources on building it.

 

[Petrus]

Obviously a rotating 'turret' in the nose was nonsense. If my memory serves me well the Americans also tried similar solutions with quite similar results (F-87, F-89, F9F).
I'm curious why the Soviets didn't use the solid nose with side intakes for a photo-reconnaissance or ground attack variants of the MiG-17 (as the Chinese did with the MiG-19/J-6 to make the Q-5). Polish designers of the Lim-5M/Lim-6 (ground attack variants of the licence-built MiG-17F) did consider such an arrangement, but they concluded that it would require a major redesign of the fuselage, which would be more costly and would make a rebuilt of existing fighters into ground attack planes impossible. Therefore the idea was dropped (unfortunately in my opinion).
Piotr

 

[visvirtusvoluntas]

Obviously a rotating 'turret' in the nose was nonsense. If my memory serves me well the Americans also tried similar solutions with quite similar results (F-87, F-89, F9F).
I'm curious why the Soviets didn't use the solid nose with side intakes for a photo-reconnaissance or ground attack variants of the MiG-17 (as the Chinese did with the MiG-19/J-6 to make the Q-5). Polish designers of the Lim-5M/Lim-6 (ground attack variants of the licence-built MiG-17F) did consider such an arrangement, but they concluded that it would require a major redesign of the fuselage, which would be more costly and would make a rebuilt of existing fighters into ground attack planes impossible. Therefore the idea was dropped (unfortunately in my opinion).
Piotr

The two air intakes didn't fit well with the engine layout and caused many flame outs.

 

[kocovgoce]

Тhe problem was the large firing forces оf the gun and and poor precision perhaps reccoilless gun maybe be a better solution ?

​

 

[Justo Miranda]

The angled sideways cannon idea was adopted by Grumman to improve the dogfight performances of their F9F naval fighter.

At the end of 1949 one Emerson Aero X17A rotating turret, with four 0.50-inch machine guns, was mounted in the nose of the F9F-3 Bu No 122562.

The nose rotated 360-degree on the plane’s longitudinal axis and the machine guns pivoted within the nose and could be pointed just about anywhere.

In 1953 one MiG-17 was extensively modified, as MiG-17 SN, with lateral air intakes and a new nose-mounted Makarov weapons turret. The 469 kg device containing three TBK-495 23-mm cannon able to rotate vertically through an arc of +27-degree and -9-degree.

The State test trials conducted in February 1954 revealed serious aiming difficulties when the large recoil forces altered the aircraft’s flight path in the opposite direction.

The setbacks suffered while experimenting and the 60 km/h drag produced by the turret convinced the OKB that such system would be useless and the Project SN was abandoned.

 

[dan_inbox]

serious aiming difficulties when the large recoil forces altered the aircraft’s flight path in the opposite direction.

And just like the US with the F9F, th USSR goverment couldn't possibly anticipate it, and had to spend wads of taxpayer's money before they canned the idea.

 

[iverson]

On the other hand, flexible downward-firing cannon and machine guns have been used successfully in the Soviet Union/Russia from WW2 to the present, both mounted internally (A-20, Pe-2) and in external pods.

 

[klem]

During the 1950s, the United States carried out tests of mobile weapons on fighters, the experiments and this to compensate for certain shortcomings of the fighters of the time but the rapid development in the field of engines and the various on-board missile systems, these experiments had to be stopped around 1954.

 

[Antonio]

moved