Shortround6
Major General
Only if you googled in 1951 
"Mig-19"
- Thread starter R Pope
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
While they were finalizing the design, they DID build swept-wing MiG's on the MiG-21 fuselage. These were the YE-1, YE-2, and YE-2A.
Here is a line drawing of the YE-2:
They reported flew just fine.
They also made a MiG-21 with a scaled-down Tu-144 wing sort of like the British did for the Concorde.
Here is a line drawing of the YE-2:
They reported flew just fine.
They also made a MiG-21 with a scaled-down Tu-144 wing sort of like the British did for the Concorde.
Last edited:
I'm sure this has been asked and answered before.
Why did Mig only use odd numbers for their accepted designs ?
Mig 1, 3, 9, 15, 17, etc.
There are several research Migs with even numbers, but I can't think of a single series production Mig with a even number.
Why did Mig only use odd numbers for their accepted designs ?
Mig 1, 3, 9, 15, 17, etc.
There are several research Migs with even numbers, but I can't think of a single series production Mig with a even number.
GregP
Major
I believe they tended to use the even numbers for experimentals and stick to the odd numbers for production. Thay would be MiG, not other design bureaus.
Not sure I ever saw a good explanation ... maybe Mikoyan or Gurevich just wanted it that way. Then again, the production type numbers, such as MiG-15, -17, 19, -21, etc. might not have been assigned by the design bureaus. They might have been assigned by the government. Good information was hard to get out of the former Soviet Union at that time.
Not sure I ever saw a good explanation ... maybe Mikoyan or Gurevich just wanted it that way. Then again, the production type numbers, such as MiG-15, -17, 19, -21, etc. might not have been assigned by the design bureaus. They might have been assigned by the government. Good information was hard to get out of the former Soviet Union at that time.
Shortround6
Major General
I think the soviet system was that odd numbers were for fighters and even numbers were for bombers. There are a few exceptions.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_CIS
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_Soviet_Union_and_the_CIS
Does seem to generally be true.
Maybe the Russians won't miss any opportunity to confuse others.
GregP
Major
I'm not even sure all their women athletes in the Olympics ARE women ...
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Weren't the even numbers for fighters export only?
GregP
Major
Hi Nuuuman,
THe first one you show was the MiG I-320. The closest I can come to the second is the Lavochkin La-190 ... but the tail wasn't quite as high as the pic on the box. It was cruciform rather than a Tee.
THe first one you show was the MiG I-320. The closest I can come to the second is the Lavochkin La-190 ... but the tail wasn't quite as high as the pic on the box. It was cruciform rather than a Tee.
Last edited:
SpicyJuan11
Senior Airman
He has a PhD and has written many books on the Horten flying wings (and even interviewed a Horten brother) but idk.
The I-320 was a two-seater with a side by side canopy. The model looks superficially like the I-320, but I suspect that the model makers would not have known about the I-320 at the time the model was designed.
Mikoyan/Gurevich I-320 - fighter
The Lavochkin La-15 'Fantail' looks like it was influenced by the Ta 183. It was designed as competition to the MiG-15.
The MiG-21L Analog, survives at Monino; not the best photo, but it was hard to try and get the wing shape from ground level - the Tu-144 in the background. The British converted the Fairey Delta 2 in which Peter Twiss became the first pilot to fly 'faster than the sun' at over 1,000 mph, with the Concorde's 'ogival' wing shape; it became the BAC.221.
Another interesting MiG survivor is the Ye-152M, which was built to a a heavy fighter requirement, but MiG abandoned its development in favour of the MiG-25.
The 'Ye-166' on its nose is fictional. They do some weird stuff at Monino; the third prototype of the MiG-23 interceptor is painted as the first prototype and wears its designation number '32I', whereas the actual MiG-23 first prototype is painted simply grey with the same number on its nose.
Because of its relatively brief period in Soviet service and the advent of Mach 2 supersonic fighters, we tend to overlook just how advanced the MiG-19 was when it was unveiled. MiG took quite a risk with its design; its highly swept wing at nearly 60 degrees sweep back, powered ailerons at the tip - the F-100's control surfaces were moved further inboard because of fears of wing twisting at high speeds, and its big wing fence straightening out the air flow, a characteristic of MiG's earlier jet fighters. Its small engines were also quite novel; combined, their frontal area was not much bigger than the single centrifugal flow engines the Russians received from the British. It was also fitted with 30 mm cannon and could carry four air-to-air missiles - it was no shrinking violet. The Chinese recognised its virtues and it became a big influence on subsequent fighter designs in that country.
The Poles were handed MiG-19s by the Russians, rather than licence building them as they had done with previous fighters, as security against high flying reconnaissance Canberras, which regularly penetrated Eastern Bloc territory during the 60s, although the MiG-19 was not able to get anywhere near the Canberras' operating altitude, despite being faster than them. The Poles didn't like the '19, preferring the MiG-21, which they received in large numbers. The MiG-19 was overtaken in production and service, of course, by MiG's own '21, which was an elegantly simple machine by comparison, as the attraction of a Mach 2 interceptor was greater.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
I like the La-15 and always have. It might have had more potential than the MiG-15, but turned out to be close to Lavochkin's last hurrah. I see a of of potential in the La-15 but, if you lost favor, the potential was discarded in Stalin's USSR.
I absolutely didn't even notice whether or not the plane was a single seater or two seater when I identified the I-320. I was looking at the radar configuration alone. These pesky Soviet protoypes! They sure made a lot of them.
Of course, we did, too.
The late 1940s - 1950s were a booming time for aeronautical experiments. That's for sure. One of the true curiosities, for me anyway, was the Yak-100.
Now THERE's a small wing!
I absolutely didn't even notice whether or not the plane was a single seater or two seater when I identified the I-320. I was looking at the radar configuration alone. These pesky Soviet protoypes! They sure made a lot of them.
Of course, we did, too.
The late 1940s - 1950s were a booming time for aeronautical experiments. That's for sure. One of the true curiosities, for me anyway, was the Yak-100.
Now THERE's a small wing!
That was the La-250, nicknamed the Anakonda - a large two seat radar equipped interceptor. The fourth prototype at Monino.
They had some pretty novel designs and far be it for the West to accuse the Russians of being technically behind; their scientists and engineers were easily a match for any that we had in the West.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Looks like they were thinking along the same lines as the F-104 engineers, doesn't it?
GregP
Major
It does look similar to an F-104 ... except I believe the Yak-1000 never flew. I believe they got it up to a high-speed taxi, realized it wasn't going to be controllable, and abandoned it. After a test run or two, I don't believe it was ever heard from again. We are lucky to see the picture at all.
The Soviet designers WERE way behind and needed Western jet engines to catch up. They weren't necessarily behind in aerodynamics, but lagged in jet engine technology. Once they caught up, they weren't behind except in electronics miniaturization and solid state devices. These days thay have great airframes as always, good engines if not quite so long-lasting, not quite as good fuel specifics, and their electronics aren't exactly bleeding edge ... but also aren't bad.
They WERE behind in stealth, but we may find stealth to be a fleeting technology as new ways to punch through and see a "stealth plane" come along , I certainly can't say. I'll be one unhappy puppy if all the billions of dollars we put into stealth acquisitions are thrown away for nothing in a few years just by changing radar frequencies.
Then the maintainers will be happy again because all that pesky RAM will go away. You can probably see a stealth plane with WWII radar ... but nobody is using a WWII radar these days.
The Soviet designers WERE way behind and needed Western jet engines to catch up. They weren't necessarily behind in aerodynamics, but lagged in jet engine technology. Once they caught up, they weren't behind except in electronics miniaturization and solid state devices. These days thay have great airframes as always, good engines if not quite so long-lasting, not quite as good fuel specifics, and their electronics aren't exactly bleeding edge ... but also aren't bad.
They WERE behind in stealth, but we may find stealth to be a fleeting technology as new ways to punch through and see a "stealth plane" come along , I certainly can't say. I'll be one unhappy puppy if all the billions of dollars we put into stealth acquisitions are thrown away for nothing in a few years just by changing radar frequencies.
Then the maintainers will be happy again because all that pesky RAM will go away. You can probably see a stealth plane with WWII radar ... but nobody is using a WWII radar these days.
That much is true Greg; they were certainly behind in industrialisation in many ways, but the concepts their engineers were toying with rivaled those in the West for ingenuity. The fact that the nation was behind in industry was not necessarily an indication of the cleverness or lack thereof of its engineers, however. Take a look at advanced projects like the Sukhoi T-4, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-4
Air Force Museum - Monino, Russia
The B-29 Superfortress can be pointed to as perhaps the turning point in modernising Russian aviation in terms of sophisticated long range aircraft. Its DNA went into all the subsequent large Tupolev aircraft; it lent the following to the Russian aviation industry, modern pressurisation systems, sophisticated and large scale hydraulic systems, automated turrets, forging and forming of large structural items in aircraft construction and so on. Jet technology was certainly helped by the British and Germans, but it can be argued that every other country researching jet engines benefitted from British and German research, including the United States. Russian engine copies evolved into excellent products, for example the Klimov VK-1 was derived from the RD-45, a copy of the Nene, but the VK-1 had improvements over the Nene, which offered greater power output and usage; the VK-1F was fitted with afterburner, for example.
GregP
Major
If you go look in the record books, you will find a LOT of Soviet "firsts," many more than should be there if they were well and truly "behind" the west. They have records in virtually category, many times first, second, and even more.
So I'd hesitate to say they weren't "up to speed," at least performance-wise. Their records say different. Speed is not everything, but it's way up there in importance after jets showed up. The MiG-17 might outmaneuver an F-4, but the F-4 can always lower his nose, hit afterburner and extend away from the MiG-17 ... if he can evade the inevitable missile that follows separation.
10 - 25 mph might not have been much in WWII relative to the speed of bullets, but a 700 mph plane against a 1,200 mph plane is a different story in the jet age. Speed, transonic and supersonic acceleration are right up there in priority, with turning circles at or around Mach 1 being very important, too.
Did I mention fuel fraction?
An English Electric Lightning was a WONDERFUL ride for a very short time. Any dogfight would run it completely out of fuel ... I've heard that one from former Lightning drivers at the museum for YEARS.
My favorite answer about the Lightning was from a British visitor who used to fly the EE Lightning. I asked him if it was really a a Mach 2.5 aircraft. His response was classic. He said, "Toward the fuel you vould get to Mach 2.5 if you really wanted to. If you ever got to Mach 2.5 going AWAY from the fuel, you would never get back to the fuel!"
So I'd hesitate to say they weren't "up to speed," at least performance-wise. Their records say different. Speed is not everything, but it's way up there in importance after jets showed up. The MiG-17 might outmaneuver an F-4, but the F-4 can always lower his nose, hit afterburner and extend away from the MiG-17 ... if he can evade the inevitable missile that follows separation.
10 - 25 mph might not have been much in WWII relative to the speed of bullets, but a 700 mph plane against a 1,200 mph plane is a different story in the jet age. Speed, transonic and supersonic acceleration are right up there in priority, with turning circles at or around Mach 1 being very important, too.
Did I mention fuel fraction?
An English Electric Lightning was a WONDERFUL ride for a very short time. Any dogfight would run it completely out of fuel ... I've heard that one from former Lightning drivers at the museum for YEARS.
My favorite answer about the Lightning was from a British visitor who used to fly the EE Lightning. I asked him if it was really a a Mach 2.5 aircraft. His response was classic. He said, "Toward the fuel you vould get to Mach 2.5 if you really wanted to. If you ever got to Mach 2.5 going AWAY from the fuel, you would never get back to the fuel!"
