Mikoyan ATL designs Ye-152, MiG-23, MiG-25

[Pioneer]

I know I've read somewhere as to why MiG chose the two-engine arrangement for the MiG-29, but I can't remember it......
I have to admit that I I've alway thought a single-engine derivative of the MiG-29, along the lines of the Project 33 would have been more cost effective and hence more successfully taken up by air forces wanting to replace the their MiG-21 and MiG-23.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I believe two engines were preferred by the customer for safety reasons.

As for what MiG should have built, something along these lines as the MiG-23 with same radar and engines would be good...

Mostly, MiG "33" (early design)

But the cockpit from the MiG-23K

And maybe a dash of this early F-15..

 

[tomo pauk]

I have to admit that I I've alway thought a single-engine derivative of the MiG-29, along the lines of the Project 33 would have been more cost effective and hence more successfully taken up by air forces wanting to replace the their MiG-21 and MiG-23.

Agreed 100%.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I have to admit that I I've alway thought a single-engine derivative of the MiG-29, along the lines of the Project 33 would have been more cost effective and hence more successfully taken up by air forces wanting to replace the their MiG-21 and MiG-23.

Agreed 100%.

Perhaps, but a single RD-33 would mean an F-20 / Gripen class aircraft which would be hard to equip with Soviet 1980s avionics due to size.

A single AL-31F MiG-29 would be a bit more possible.

 

[Archibald]

The MiG-23 certainly had a lot of potential, see the later variants even with the VG wing. Drop that one and it can only save weight and gets better.
If you want to get a glimpse of what it takes (for an alternate Mig-23) to go from VG to non-VG (or reverse) see the Mirage F2 and Mirage G.
The closest the West ever came from a Mig-23, since the Tomcat, Tornado and F-111 were larger, while Vickers 580 series remained paper bound. And Viggen was delta canard.
The airframes were mostly identical, minus the wings. Both flew very well and alongside each other - between November 1967 (when the -G flew) and May 1969 (when the F2 was retired).
Can't think of another example, that's the LEGO side of Dassault. Rockets are not LEGOs, but Dassault combat jets truly are.
A swept fixed wing MiG-23 would looks like a scaled-up F1 except with a far more powerful engine than the Atar. You know, a modern turbofan with 10 tons of thrust.
Wait, Dassault had plans for exactly that: that was called the F3, with a SNECMA TF306E. Ironically, in April 1967 it was dropped for a 0.80 subscale clone small enough for an Atar 9K50, called: the Mirage F1. Which had flown as a private venture in December 1966.
And of course, third time was not the charm, later was a F1 with a M53.

[One could draw a family tree all the way from Ouragan to Rafale, encompassing the Mirages, Etendards and even the Mystère 20 bizjet along the way - since its very name, and wing was derived from the Mystere IV. Which is truly the nexus of the whole thing: Mystère before, Etendard and Mirage and bizjets afterwards. Unbelievable, but I digress.]

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps, but a single RD-33 would mean an F-20 / Gripen class aircraft which would be hard to equip with Soviet 1980s avionics due to size.

A single AL-31F MiG-29 would be a bit more possible.

I'm okay with whatever of the two it is.
There is also the in-between option with something size of Mirage F1, that sported the support for the BVR missiles already on the Western electronics of early 1970s.

But at any rate, don't go with two engines for the 'not MiG-29'.

 

[MadRat]

The MiG-23 couldn't realistically be a little MiG-25 due to the extreme manufacturing cost of the latter. MiG-23 was built to be affordable.

I wouldn't say MLD was a failure. MiG just didn't offer any support to users literally once the Iron Curtain came down.

 

[Archibald]

Perhaps, but a single RD-33 would mean an F-20 / Gripen class aircraft which would be hard to equip with Soviet 1980s avionics due to size.

A single AL-31F MiG-29 would be a bit more possible.

I'm okay with whatever of the two it is.
There is also the in-between option with something size of Mirage F1, that sported the support for the BVR missiles already on the Western electronics of early 1970s.

But at any rate, don't go with two engines for the 'not MiG-29'.

And the Mirage 2000 soon thereafters. Oh, and the SAAB Viggen too.

 

[tomo pauk]

The MiG-23 couldn't realistically be a little MiG-25 due to the extreme manufacturing cost of the latter. MiG-23 was built to be affordable.

"Little MiG-25" as in "having the similar shape".

 

[tomo pauk]

And the Mirage 2000 soon thereafters. Oh, and the SAAB Viggen too.

Mirage 2000 is in the ballpark.
Viggen's empty weight was between the F-16 and MiG 29.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I think ditching the STOL would be worth it to make a better MiG. I would also say that a bubble canopy would be nice too, that problem plagued the MiG-23/27 family.

The whole idea behind the Mig 23 was take off from a rough, probably unprepared airfield - zoom in at great speed and numbers to the enemy, firing its missiles etc and then returning to a rough airfield that might not have that "extra 300m so be it space" to re-arm and refuel. Great visibility, and turning werent too high a requirement of those early supersonic fighters - especially to the Soviets - so expecting F-16 performance from something not designed for it isn't exactly fair. All that required good STOL performance and a high top speed from Mig 23 - two things that with technology at the time weren't too mutually inclusive. That results in a VG wing and a pretty streamlined airframe with not too much visibility for the pilot.

"Fixing" the Mig 23 requires fundamental changes to the very requirements and design ideologies that drove it. It is impossible to look at one fighter and say all the others should have done it this way. What if the others had different needs and priorities? The Mig-29 implemented fixes to pretty much all the "flaws" in the Mig 23...

 

[CV12Hornet]

And as I've pointed out before, only a small number of the Flogger's myriad teething issues were due to the variable-geometry wing. The weak wing box did it no favors, but every other problem was independent of V-G mechanism.

I know I've read somewhere as to why MiG chose the two-engine arrangement for the MiG-29, but I can't remember it......
I have to admit that I I've alway thought a single-engine derivative of the MiG-29, along the lines of the Project 33 would have been more cost effective and hence more successfully taken up by air forces wanting to replace the their MiG-21 and MiG-23.

Regards
Pioneer

I don't think a single-engine MiG-29 would have been all that much cheaper than the actual plane. If it has the same avionics it's going to cost almost the same amount.

 

[MadRat]

The MiG-23 couldn't realistically be a little MiG-25 due to the extreme manufacturing cost of the latter. MiG-23 was built to be affordable.

"Little MiG-25" as in "having the similar shape".

Maybe instead of being caught up in the limitations of the single-seat MiG-23 they could have opted for a two seat fighter more akin to a baby F-4 than a baby MiG-25. Two seats weren't really considered by the Soviets, but with their radar limitations and terrible MMI, they sure could have used a RIO in the backseat. Not to mention they could have used Y-pylons like on the F-14 to carry one big semi-active missile underneath, and one shorter ranged Atoll to the side, on each pylon.

 

[tomo pauk]

I don't think a single-engine MiG-29 would have been all that much cheaper than the actual plane. If it has the same avionics it's going to cost almost the same amount.

FWIW: on the F-5E, the two engines - small and cheap as they were - were priced at 218 K US$, while the electronics & ordnance (not armament) were at 22+6= 28 K US$. Yes, I know that we can't directly compare the prices of Soviet and US hardware, but the ratio of almost 8:1 in the respective prices it too big to ignore.

Purchasing of a fleet of fighters is just the 1st part of the total expenses. An airforce that is to buy, say, 150 fighters, will have much easier time to maintain 150 engines than 300 engines if the fighters have two engines. Easier to fuel, too. Pilots can have more flying hours, so they can be more proficient.
Buyers of Soviet hardware were mostly cash-strapped, so all of this mattered.

Maybe instead of being caught up in the limitations of the single-seat MiG-23 they could have opted for a two seat fighter more akin to a baby F-4 than a baby MiG-25. Two seats weren't really considered by the Soviets, but with their radar limitations and terrible MMI, they sure could have used a RIO in the backseat. Not to mention they could have used Y-pylons like on the F-14 to carry one big semi-active missile underneath, and one shorter ranged Atoll to the side, on each pylon.

Resulting fighter is in class of J-8-II wrt. size & weight? Look at it from Czech, Bulgarian, Algerian, Angolian, Indian respective budgets' perspective. Even from Soviet budget's perspective.

 

[MadRat]

...

Maybe instead of being caught up in the limitations of the single-seat MiG-23 they could have opted for a two seat fighter more akin to a baby F-4 than a baby MiG-25. Two seats weren't really considered by the Soviets, but with their radar limitations and terrible MMI, they sure could have used a RIO in the backseat. Not to mention they could have used Y-pylons like on the F-14 to carry one big semi-active missile underneath, and one shorter ranged Atoll to the side, on each pylon.

Resulting fighter is in class of J-8-II wrt. size & weight? Look at it from Czech, Bulgarian, Algerian, Angolian, Indian respective budgets' perspective. Even from Soviet budget's perspective.

How do you make this leap? MiG-23U is not remotely similar in size to J-8II.

Please stop gas lighting in every response.

 

[tomo pauk]

How do you make this leap? MiG-23U is not remotely similar in size to J-8II.

Please stop gas lighting in every response.

I've misunderstood your post.

 

[Archibald]

Talking about fighters, I thought that "gas" and "Lightning" were mutually exclusive terms ?

 

[kaiserd]

A few brief points.

You can’t just create a magical superior-all-round fixed wing MIG-23. All designs (overall and specific choices within that overall design) come with trade-offs (pros & cons) and the MIG-23 with it’s swing wing was considered the best overall package to meet the relevant requirements when the decisions were being made at the time.
A fixed wing MIG-23 is not going to be an earlier Soviet proto-F-16.
Given the heavier Soviet equipment and more demanding requirements (for both fighter and attack variants) it’s not even likely to be a Soviet Mirage F1.
Given the underlying requirements and context it’s likely to have much the same downsides as the VG MIG-23 but probably have worse field performance and be slower/ reduced acceleration and shorter range.
There is no free lunch available here.

And on the MIG-29 it is important to note that it’s high AoA, instantaneous turn-rate capable (but still relatively low drag) configuration is shared with the Flanker family and is very much tied to having 2 engines; it wasn’t just reliability concerns that drove the decision to go with twin engines.

 

[Archibald]

I have long thought that one of the key factor in the F-5 dirt-cheapness was its very unexpensive J85s. Those engines were created, first for cruise missiles, then for drones, next, for a whole bunch of subsonic trainers; and finally, adopted for bizjets and small transports.

GE build a whopping 12 000 J85s ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_J85
Plus all the civiliant derivatives, +2059 and I can't even find a number for the CF700.

General Electric CJ610 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

General Electric CJ610-6 Turbojet Engine

Type: TurbojetThrust: 13,100 N (2,950 lb) at 16,500 rpmCompressor: 8-stage axialCombustor: AnnularTurbine: 2-stage axialWeight: 178 kg (392 lb)The CJ610, derived from General Electric's J85 military turbojet engine, powered the majority of the first generation of business jet air

airandspace.si.edu

 

[CV12Hornet]

FWIW: on the F-5E, the two engines - small and cheap as they were - were priced at 218 K US$, while the electronics & ordnance (not armament) were at 22+6= 28 K US$. Yes, I know that we can't directly compare the prices of Soviet and US hardware, but the ratio of almost 8:1 in the respective prices it too big to ignore.

Purchasing of a fleet of fighters is just the 1st part of the total expenses. An airforce that is to buy, say, 150 fighters, will have much easier time to maintain 150 engines than 300 engines if the fighters have two engines. Easier to fuel, too. Pilots can have more flying hours, so they can be more proficient.
Buyers of Soviet hardware were mostly cash-strapped, so all of this mattered.

The F-5E has one of the most austere avionics suites of any post-1960 fighter; the MiG-29 has a vastly more sophisticated avionics suite and that avionics suite is one of the selling points of the design. I'd submit that the F-5E is exactly the wrong comparison to make in terms of cost of engines versus cost of avionics, and that the MiG-29 has a very different ratio.

And while your point about maintenance costs is valid, the Soviets aren't designing the MiG-29 for export, they're designing it for their own needs, and while the maintenance costs for the Soviets aren't nothing they do have enough dosh to simply eat the cost.

 

[Pioneer]

And as I've pointed out before, only a small number of the Flogger's myriad teething issues were due to the variable-geometry wing. The weak wing box did it no favors, but every other problem was independent of V-G mechanism.

I know I've read somewhere as to why MiG chose the two-engine arrangement for the MiG-29, but I can't remember it......
I have to admit that I I've alway thought a single-engine derivative of the MiG-29, along the lines of the Project 33 would have been more cost effective and hence more successfully taken up by air forces wanting to replace the their MiG-21 and MiG-23.

Regards
Pioneer

I don't think a single-engine MiG-29 would have been all that much cheaper than the actual plane. If it has the same avionics it's going to cost almost the same amount.

Yeah, we'd probably have to agree to disagree there mate.

Going by the perspective of the designer of the F-16 and the matrix of that 1kg of weight = $$$$ alone....
The cost of the additional engine and its associated ancillary equipment, pluming, etc.....

I have to admit that I I've alway thought a single-engine derivative of the MiG-29, along the lines of the Project 33 would have been more cost effective and hence more successfully taken up by air forces wanting to replace the their MiG-21 and MiG-23.

Agreed 100%.

Perhaps, but a single RD-33 would mean an F-20 / Gripen class aircraft which would be hard to equip with Soviet 1980s avionics due to size.

A single AL-31F MiG-29 would be a bit more possible.

I agree with your analogy of a single single AL-31F overscan .

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

I know I've read somewhere as to why MiG chose the two-engine arrangement for the MiG-29, but I can't remember it......
I have to admit that I I've alway thought a single-engine derivative of the MiG-29, along the lines of the Project 33 would have been more cost effective and hence more successfully taken up by air forces wanting to replace the their MiG-21 and MiG-23.

Regards
Pioneer

I don't think a single-engine MiG-29 would have been all that much cheaper than the actual plane. If it has the same avionics it's going to cost almost the same amount.

Thanks for your reply CV12Hornet , I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Again I have to apologies for not being able to quote the exact reference, but I recall (I think it was Harry Hillaker) articulating his decision to go with a single-engine design for the Model 401/YF-16 vs two-engine arrangement on the grounds of weight, volume and drag. On top of this is the duplication of support/sub systems associated with a two-engine design, equating to that known matrix of 'for every kilogram of weight = $$$$.

On top of that is the cost of maintenance for two engines vs single engine.

As rightly states by overscan, such a single-engine MiG-29 derivative would be powered by a AL-31F, as opposed to a single RD-33.

Saying all this I can't help think of the comparison of the Northrop two-engine P-600 vs single-engine P-610.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[tomo pauk]

The F-5E has one of the most austere avionics suites of any post-1960 fighter; the MiG-29 has a vastly more sophisticated avionics suite and that avionics suite is one of the selling points of the design. I'd submit that the F-5E is exactly the wrong comparison to make in terms of cost of engines versus cost of avionics, and that the MiG-29 has a very different ratio.

IMO, the F-5E is a very good basis of comparison, since it's engines were the smallest, lightest and cheapest on any supersonic fighter - a good match vs. the cheap electronics suite.

And while your point about maintenance costs is valid, the Soviets aren't designing the MiG-29 for export, they're designing it for their own needs, and while the maintenance costs for the Soviets aren't nothing they do have enough dosh to simply eat the cost.

Cost is one factor. Another factors are availability of spares, availability of qualified mechanics and their helping hands, time required for regular maintenance vs. flying time (important in peacetime, very important if combat is just happening, let alone in the time of a 'proper' war). Soviets were supposed to make MiG-29s in thousands in order to replace the MiG-21s and the like, multiplying these issues in process.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Possibly a silly/daft question but I'm not an airframe specialist. Could the Mig 23 have been buyilt with an F-8 type incidence adjuster? They seemd to work OK and it waqs supposed to be the last of the gunfighters.

 

[flateric]

Could it be built rainbow-colored, covered with feathers? It worked OK with Divine.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Feathers fine, Ostrich, perhaps not.

 

[MadRat]

Can't leave the ground but boy can she run.

Btw - Sukhoi played with single engines and found advantages in their Fitter line built for export. Unfortunately they didn't extend Fishpot into a modernized look. They jumped to twins in Flagon when a big single was lower lifetime cost. The engine used in Backfire were perhaps too big. Su-24 probably could have gone a single NK-21 or NK-32 to improve lifetime costs, while also making Backfire and Blackjack more affordable. But surely they couldn't have looked at Al-31 or D30s for a new single-engined fighter that was more affordable than twin RD-33's, too. As savvy as the Soviets were with numbers, their politics made practical budgets impossible to keep.

 

[Hood]

It's interesting that we often speculate about the Vickers/BAC Type 583 as a VG-wing 'Flogger' analogue and yet also often speculate about a fixed-wing 'Flogger' F1 analogue.
Single versus twin? Well you could say the same about the Jaguar, why have two Adour when you could have one Spey? It's all horses for courses, pros and cons either way.

The MiG-23-01 wing looks a little small to me, I would think you'd want more area in a non-VTOL type.

 

[Archibald]

Can't leave the ground but boy can she run.

Btw - Sukhoi played with single engines and found advantages in their Fitter line built for export. Unfortunately they didn't extend Fishpot into a modernized look. They jumped to twins in Flagon when a big single was lower lifetime cost. The engine used in Backfire were perhaps too big. Su-24 probably could have gone a single NK-21 or NK-32 to improve lifetime costs, while also making Backfire and Blackjack more affordable. But surely they couldn't have looked at Al-31 or D30s for a new single-engined fighter that was more affordable than twin RD-33's, too. As savvy as the Soviets were with numbers, their politics made practical budgets impossible to keep.

Now THAT'S one hell of an idea. A fighter designed around a Tu-22M, a Tu-160 or (earlier) a Tu-144 Kuznetsov engine. Those things certainly didn't lacked thrust, for a start. Would be one hell of a hot rod !

 

[Hood]

Now THAT'S one hell of an idea. A fighter designed around a Tu-22M, a Tu-160 or (earlier) a Tu-144 Kuznetsov engine. Those things certainly didn't lacked thrust, for a start. Would be one hell of a hot rod !

Some of the aborted developments of the Tu-128 and the Tu-138/148 were pretty impressive beasts. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/tupolev-tu-128-138-148-heavy-interceptors.266/#post-560153

 

[tomo pauk]

Single versus twin? Well you could say the same about the Jaguar, why have two Adour when you could have one Spey? It's all horses for courses, pros and cons either way.

Jaguar designed around the Spey would've been amazing.
French would've demanded a share in production of the engine, though, and Dassault would've giving the funny looks to such Jag for stealing the sales.

The MiG-23-01 wing looks a little small to me, I would think you'd want more area in a non-VTOL type.

Both too small and too much tailored for high speed.

 

[red admiral]

Jaguar designed around the Spey would've been amazing.

Spey is just too big and heavy. The Jaguar versions with single RB.199s had substantially better performance than the twin Adours - especially low altitude strike radius

 

[tomo pauk]

Spey is just too big and heavy.

It fits very well on the "Jaguar designed around the Spey", as noted above.

The Jaguar versions with single RB.199s had substantially better performance than the twin Adours - especially low altitude strike radius

Oh, if there was such an aircraft ever.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Spey is just too big and heavy.

It fits very well on the "Jaguar designed around the Spey", as noted above.

Which brings us back to the same argument we are having in this thread. The Jaguar has the engines its does due to its original requirement spec. Now admittedly it underwent quite a change in role from initial inception but that is beside the point. Jaguar "but designed around a Spey" would require a totally new genesis requirement spec for the aircraft from inception. Same as to why arguing the Mig 23 should have been different is a useless argument - it requires fundamental changes to the requirements that gave birth to the design in the first place.

 

[tomo pauk]

Jaguar "but designed around a Spey" would require a totally new genesis requirement spec for the aircraft from inception.

Very true.
Jaguar morphed from a high-speed trainer into an actual combat aircraft. The Jaguar designed around the Spey would've probably featured a non-afterburning Spey.

 

[Pioneer]

It's interesting that we often speculate about the Vickers/BAC Type 583 as a VG-wing 'Flogger' analogue and yet also often speculate about a fixed-wing 'Flogger' F1 analogue.
Single versus twin? Well you could say the same about the Jaguar, why have two Adour when you could have one Spey? It's all horses for courses, pros and cons either way.

The MiG-23-01 wing looks a little small to me, I would think you'd want more area in a non-VTOL type.

I'm thinking, given that the Jaguar as a strike aircraft itself being an outgrowth of a supersonic trainer always dictated fuel efficient two-engine reliability.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

What about a MiG-23 using the the mid-verable-geometry wing arrangement developed by TsAGI and employed in the Su-17/-20/-22 and Tu-22M designs?

I appreciate this 50/50 VG wing arrangement might not me the optimum wing design, but by mounting the such a wing arrangement at the lower/mid fuselage will not just give a wider and more stable wheel track; such a landing gear arrangement will negate the complicated folding design and weight of the actual MiG-23's landing gear design.......


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Phantom Fanatic]

What about a MiG-23 using the the mid-verable-geometry wing arrangement developed by TsAGI and employed in the Su-17/-20/-22 and Tu-22M designs?

I appreciate this 50/50 VG wing arrangement might not me the optimum wing design, but by mounting the such a wing arrangement at the lower/mid fuselage will not just give a wider and more stable wheel track; such a landing gear arrangement will negate the complicated folding design and weight of the actual MiG-23's landing gear design.......


Regards
Pioneer

One advantage it would provide, as shown by the Su-17/20/22, would be added hardpoints on the non moving wing roots. Although with the different fuselage design of the MiG-23 there might not be room. The lower mounted wing would probably facilitate a different landing gear system. It also might degrade some of the aircraft performance.

Any thought or critiques are greatly welcome

 

[CV12Hornet]

It's interesting that we often speculate about the Vickers/BAC Type 583 as a VG-wing 'Flogger' analogue and yet also often speculate about a fixed-wing 'Flogger' F1 analogue.
Single versus twin? Well you could say the same about the Jaguar, why have two Adour when you could have one Spey? It's all horses for courses, pros and cons either way.

The MiG-23-01 wing looks a little small to me, I would think you'd want more area in a non-VTOL type.

The MiG-23's original wing was, in fact, too small and it needed to be fitted with a bigger one, among the type's many other flaws.

 

[Pioneer]

It's interesting that we often speculate about the Vickers/BAC Type 583 as a VG-wing 'Flogger' analogue and yet also often speculate about a fixed-wing 'Flogger' F1 analogue.
Single versus twin? Well you could say the same about the Jaguar, why have two Adour when you could have one Spey? It's all horses for courses, pros and cons either way.

The MiG-23-01 wing looks a little small to me, I would think you'd want more area in a non-VTOL type.

The MiG-23's original wing was, in fact, too small and it needed to be fitted with a bigger one, among the type's many other flaws.

That's interesting CV12Hornet, I never knew that. Is there drawings and dimensions of the MiG-23's original wing?

Regards
Pioneer