Read the forum code of contact
By: 18th February 2005 at 23:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-There are advatages when you have wings that can change. Lower landing speed is one.
By: 19th February 2005 at 01:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-We all know the MiG-23 was developed to be mass produced and cheaply at it too, and to replace the MiG-21. However as it turns out, even though it was cheap to make and produce, maintaining it was expensive (swing wing) to the point that future upgrades were not too viable due to maintenance costs and other issues.. Which is why the MiG-21 continues to out live the 23 in many airforces.But how about if they had used the MiG-23-01 "Faithless" design instead. It's simpler wing would've over come some of the complexity and cost issues although I'm not quite sure what other issues it's lift "fans?" could generate, but perhaps that could've been replaced with room for more fuel. Would the Faithless have been the better design?
the Faithless woud have been more complicated to operate due to it`s lift engines.
By: 19th February 2005 at 11:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think they went the right way with the Flogger. Lift engines are nice for takeoff, but they take up a lot of space and volume which you could put to better far better use. While the VG wing definately adds complexity to the airframe, i believe the reason the Flogger became as versatile as it was (in both fighter and dedicated strike versions), is definately due to the VG wing. I don't think anything like the MiG-23B/MiG-27 could have evolved from the E-23.
Besides, i think the Soviets were a little obsessed with STOL aircraft during the 1960s. Probably because they failed miserably in combining a decent take-off rate with a decent payload in the otherwise pretty impressive Su-7. But by the time their STOL projects began entering trials, the advance in engines and the number of available airstrips had made these STOL projects a bit redundant if you ask me. Good thing they chose the path of VG wings, since those did provide attack aircraft with a decent payload and take-off run (i know, i'm a little contradictory here :rolleyes: ) with a comfy ride at low level. I don't think lift engines would have helped anything in that respect.
It's interesting to see how close the E-23 (or MiG-23PD) looks like the T-58VD, or that liftfan-Flagon.
By: 19th February 2005 at 17:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Art, that's exactly what I was thinking regarding the lift-fan Flagon.
Just out of curiosity, what do pilots say about the MiG-23 as compared to the Su-15? How did they fly compared to one another?
By: 23rd February 2007 at 15:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-When looking at that picture the careful evolution becames apparent. From this picture the aircraft looks like a MiG-21 with side inlets. Kind of lets assume where MiG has started and which was the objective.
I agree that lift engines would have been an inferior solution.
By: 23rd February 2007 at 20:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think they went the right way with the Flogger. Lift engines are nice for takeoff, but they take up a lot of space and volume which you could put to better far better use. While the VG wing definately adds complexity to the airframe, i believe the reason the Flogger became as versatile as it was (in both fighter and dedicated strike versions), is definately due to the VG wing. I don't think anything like the MiG-23B/MiG-27 could have evolved from the E-23.Besides, i think the Soviets were a little obsessed with STOL aircraft during the 1960s. Probably because they failed miserably in combining a decent take-off rate with a decent payload in the otherwise pretty impressive Su-7. But by the time their STOL projects began entering trials, the advance in engines and the number of available airstrips had made these STOL projects a bit redundant if you ask me. Good thing they chose the path of VG wings, since those did provide attack aircraft with a decent payload and take-off run (i know, i'm a little contradictory here :rolleyes: ) with a comfy ride at low level. I don't think lift engines would have helped anything in that respect.
It's interesting to see how close the E-23 (or MiG-23PD) looks like the T-58VD, or that liftfan-Flagon.
Don't forget that Sukhoi had another lift-fan design to achieve shorter field lengths - the T6 precursor of the Su-24.
The original design had a fixed wing and four lift engines - but sense prevailed and it was redesigned with a swing wing.
Ken
Posts: 2,587
By: F-18 Hamburger - 18th February 2005 at 23:37
We all know the MiG-23 was developed to be mass produced and cheaply at it too, and to replace the MiG-21. However as it turns out, even though it was cheap to make and produce, maintaining it was expensive (swing wing) to the point that future upgrades were not too viable due to maintenance costs and other issues.. Which is why the MiG-21 continues to out live the 23 in many airforces.
But how about if they had used the MiG-23-01 "Faithless" design instead. It's simpler wing would've over come some of the complexity and cost issues although I'm not quite sure what other issues it's lift "fans?" could generate, but perhaps that could've been replaced with room for more fuel. Would the Faithless have been the better design?