"MiG-33" and Yak-43

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

20 years 3 months

Posts: 104

That's an interesting photo, and that wind tunnel model might very well have been part of the MFI project. But there are so many significant differences between it and the 1.44 that I would hesitate to draw any conclusions. The forward fuselage has a pronounced "duckbill" shape that reminds me of the MiG-27, while the 1.44 had a conical shape. And Meteorite is correct, the LERX does not seem to allow for canards. This might be a photo of an early configuration that was tested but then discarded.

I can, however, see the influence of this model on Aerospacetech's concept drawing ... If he ever makes a 3-view, I hope he will post and share.

--Gavin.

"But as the 1.44 prototype never was intended to be fitted with operational equipment, why was it then (apparently) built with conformal AAM carriages in the first place?"

If they didn't allow for it in the design and it was fully and successfully tested but later they found they couldn't fit a weapon bay they'd look a little silly. It is intended to be stealthy and to use an internal bay... why leave it out? It would be a handy place to put test equipment during testing anyway.

BTW thanks for the interesting photos guys.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 12,009

Originally posted by Meteorit
Is the picture representative of the front fuselage configuration as a whole? I can't see anything where the canards could be attached, for example.
Do you have any sources for your information about the 1.42? I remember reading somewhere it might have had MiG-31 type tandem mainwheels. This somewhat makes sense, as the undercarriage bays of the prototype seem excessively large. Also there have been some statements that the 1.42 would have had internal weapon bays. But as the 1.44 prototype never was intended to be fitted with operational equipment, why was it then (apparently) built with conformal AAM carriages in the first place?

No, that's not representative of the entire forward fuselage, but the intake profile is similar to the 1.42 design. As for the 1.44's conformal AAM carriage, I have no idea. It also has two underwing pylons, decidedly unstealthy features. This could be explained away by the Keldysh plasma stealth device, but still.

Member for

20 years 3 months

Posts: 104

"But as the 1.44 prototype never was intended to be fitted with operational equipment, why was it then (apparently) built with conformal AAM carriages in the first place?"

Here's a theory that I've seen at other aviation forums, although I don't know how legitimate the idea is: The production MFI would have carried AAMs inside conformal pods that would have completely encassed the weapons. The pod presumably would be jettisoned after the AAM is launched.

According to this theory, the conformal pods would have been a stealthy way to carry the weapons, without resorting to an internal weapons bay.

I've never quite known what to think of that theory .... but who knows?

--Gavin.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 12,009

Here's a very quickly done and VERY provisional drawing of the 1.42, produced by altering a 1.44 three-view.

Attachments

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 12,009

Here's another interesting concept, the Tu-344. The idea was to convert BACKFIREs for use as SSTs :rolleyes:

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,131

that won't work...no window seats...

"Here's a theory that I've seen at other aviation forums, although I don't know how legitimate the idea is: The production MFI would have carried AAMs inside conformal pods that would have completely encassed the weapons. The pod presumably would be jettisoned after the AAM is launched."

You mean like the (non stealthy but low drag) pog on the Hustler bomber?
I think an internal weapon bay makes more sense... the air intakes have to be curved anyway so that is going to make a space anyway.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 12,009

Yup, the intake ducting curves upwards over the main gear bays, providing a nice convenient spot for an internal weapon bay. Since the primary weapon considered was a folding-finned R-77, the bay didn't need to be huge or anything either. And of course, the serpentine intake duct also helped to lower RCS.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

Thank You guys for that just fabulous tread .... are there some more concepts, studies out there which are new for me !!!

Thanks again and keep up that excellent work !

Deino :)