Should MiG have used the "Faithless" design rather than the MiG-23?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 2,587

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?

http://randalf.cz/sw/ru/img/mig23pd_04.jpg

http://randalf.cz/sw/ru/img/mig23pd_01.jpg

http://randalf.cz/sw/ru/img/mig23pd_02.jpg

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 1,949

There are advatages when you have wings that can change. Lower landing speed is one.

Member for

19 years 7 months

Posts: 1,317

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?

http://randalf.cz/sw/ru/img/mig23pd_04.jpg

http://randalf.cz/sw/ru/img/mig23pd_01.jpg

http://randalf.cz/sw/ru/img/mig23pd_02.jpg


the Faithless woud have been more complicated to operate due to it`s lift engines.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 7,877

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.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 7,989

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?

I also think the MiG-23 was a sound design. If they had really needed to get rid of the VG wings the Ye-8 would have been their best option, IMHO. With one of the engines that were used on the real MiG-23 that fighter would have been pretty impressive.

Member for

18 years 6 months

Posts: 3,718

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.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,652

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