Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: MiG-21 Article
earlm    7/19/2010 4:12:28 PM
Very interesting. Try to point at and shoot well flown MiG-21! Predrag Pavlovic, dipl.ing. and Nenad Pavlovic, dipl.ing, JAT Airways Maneuverability of modern fighter is measured by how slow it can fly and how high angle of attack it can sustain and still turn. During some war situations, US evaluation and Aggressor use, MiG-21 has shown it can keep pace with modern planes in this area. Aircraft manufacturer at one time considered this irrelevant and imposed restrictions on angle of attack. Flying above allowed 28-33 degrees local angle of attack at low speeds makes possible to relatively safely achieve a maneuverability once considered privilege of modern fighters. Couple years ago reports and testimonies appeared in the media about a dogfight during the Israeli-Arab War '73. when the Egyptian MiG-21 pilot managed to do a Split-S maneuver at the start altitude of 3000 feet, less than half minimum airspace the manual says (about 6750 ft). Appropriate simulation can be found on the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQMzK2WfYYM&feature=player_embedded Figure 1. Initiated by this event, some American and Israeli enthusiasts (once pilots of their AF fighters), one of which has a private squadron of various Russian fighters, attempted to replicate that minimum altitude needed to complete Split-S figure in the two-seater MiG-21. Previous consultation with Israeli ace, who participated in that dogfight in '73. war, did not help test to be successful. Attempts were carried out at the higher altitude (5 km) and the height loss during the figure was in accordance with flight manual. It remained unclear whether ’73 event was result of "special skills or superhuman strength of the Egyptian pilot needed to withstand the required g-loads”. Recently disclosed files of the official MiG-21 evaluation in the U.S. revealed some unexpected capabilities that can be correlated with the "inexplicable" ’73. maneuver. MiGs were brought to America via Israel, in the late '60s as a result of pilot error or fled from Iraq and Algeria. Later they were bought from Indonesia. The MiG-21 in the U.S. Air Force is designated YF-110. The report of a MiG-21F shows nothing particularly unusual, except for maneuvering capabilities and behavior/handling at low speeds described as "class above competition”. Besides that, if competitors tried to follow MiG-21F at high alpha, their engine experienced shutdown or compressor stall. MiG could perform "hammerhead" turn (wing over/stall turn/renversement) at 100 knots (knot = 1.853 km/h), figure where at the end of the vertical climb pilot add rudder (with the opposite aileron and forward stick) to push the plane in the dive. Rudder is effective from 30 knots. With the stick fully backward, the plane flies at 210 km/h, the rolling oscillations are present, but there is no lift breakdown or the tendency towards spin. If during the evaluation, loss of control due to uncoordinated controls occurred, it was in the form of roll-off (usually for 180°) instead of much more dangerous yaw-off. To put the plane back under control it was necessary only to release controls. MiG-21 proved to be docile, safer to fly than MIG-17. During the hundred flight tests engine compressor stall was never experienced. U.S. of course, used MiGs in dogfight evaluation against their aircraft. Latter, they formed "Aggressor" squadron of MiGs and other fighters for the dogfight simulation with regular American aircraft. Figure 2, 3. MiG-21 on testing in the U.S. During MiG testing, it was clear that U.S. pilots have not relied on Soviet pilot’s manuals or they did not have one at the beginning. That is why the aircraft ability was fully exploited. Test pilots had thousands of flight hours experience on dozens of types of aircraft. Those who have survived the testing of U.S. supersonic fighters F-100/101/104/4 (many of planes were called "widow makers"), learned to recognize the pre-stall/spin signs and use rudder for rolling the aircraft at higher angles of attack. Figure 4. Some of the results of MiG-21 testing in the United States Reportedly, if Vietnamese pilots had adequate training, the U.S. fighter shot-down ratio figures would be much worse in that war. In the hands of the well trained pilots, MiG would always outmaneuvered Phantom. US unveils graphs depicting not only far better instantaneous turn performance of Fishbed C compared to F-4D but also better sustained maneuverability. MiG-21 Aggressor pilots respected only the most modern fighters because they do not lose so much speed in turn even at low speeds. However, appearance of all-aspect infrared missiles reduced the importance of sustained turns (M2000, F-18E, Gripen …are not brilliant in the maintaining speed in turn). If MiG-21 had R-73 missile, it could easily take advantage of first shoot opportunity at close range against any new fighter. The F-5E, fighter which does not fly above Mach 1.5, MiG-21 simu
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
YelliChink       7/19/2010 4:37:05 PM
Great article. Thanks for posting it here. Can you provide the original link as well?
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       7/19/2010 5:54:03 PM
It's all over F-16.net and every other forum.  Google Making the best of MiG-21
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Whaddya make of this?    7/26/2010 7:25:21 AM

Have Doughnut 

In 1966, Israel got its hands on a MiG-21, with major benefits for itself and the US Air Force.

On Aug. 16, 1966, Iraqi Air Force Capt. Munir Radfa defected to Israel in a MiG-21 jet fighter. The MiG-21 was, at the time, a state-of-the-art Soviet aircraft and the pride of Russia?s aircraft industry. The defection, orchestrated by the Israeli government, soon gave both Israel and the United States access to intelligence from a front-line Soviet fighter that the two nations would face in battle in the coming years.

Code-named ?Fishbed-E? by NATO, the Mach 2 fighter posed a serious threat to Israel?s ability to maintain air superiority in that nation?s dangerous and tense neighborhood. In the air order of battle, the Israelis faced down enemy air forces that included 18 Fishbeds in Syria, 10 in Iraq, and 34 in Egypt.

At the time, the Israeli Air Force had nothing comparable to the MiG-21—the IAF was equipped with slower French-made Vautours and Mirage IIIC fighters. A 20-year arms embargo imposed by the US Congress had denied Israel modern aircraft such as the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter and the newer McDonnell Aircraft F-4 Phantom.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCollectionImages/Magazine%20Article%20Images/2010/June%202010/doughnut01.jpg" align="bottom" border="1" alt="" />  

 

 

 

 

 

The MiG-21 demonstrates slow flight over the Nevada desert.

Following orders from then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, Israel?s ultrasecret Mossad intelligence agency had orchestrated the Iraqi pilot?s defection. Mossad officers reportedly cultivated Radfa?s frustration on being passed over for promotion due to his Christian origins.

In addition, Mossad officers learned that—following completion of a US military training course—Radfa had become excited about life in the West.

On the morning of his fateful training-flight-turned-defection, Radfa?s MiG was fitted with a 108-gallon auxiliary fuel tank. This ensured he would have adequate fuel for the 560-mile flight to Israel.

After climbing to 30,000 feet, Radfa departed Iraqi airspace with no problem, but over J

 
Quote    Reply

earlm       7/26/2010 12:36:11 PM
No, because the poor pitch control is at higher speed.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    Who wrote this thing, Soviet Stratege?   7/26/2010 2:35:00 PM
This Pavlovic article is typical chest-beating nonsense, extrapolating a single favorable characteristic to imply all-around superiority. Yes, the MiG-21 could bleed off speed faster and then sustain slow-speed turns at higher G than the F-4.  In every other way it was and is a very limited fighter.  Most of the things they attribute to the MiG-21 in USAF testing and aggressor experience is really creditable to the F-5, which did not suffer the engine, buffeting, cockpit visibility, limited gunsight, etc, defects of the MiG-21.  But despite that they write "Against 'stealth' fighters F-22/35 and corresponding new Russian (whose all planform contour lines are parallel to a few main sweep angles - cm wavelength radar return angles, in addition to other 'stealth' measures and cost of 50 MiG-21), none of the listed has significant chances at medium range." LOL.
 
Lowery's article sums it up nicely: "In instantaneous hard (high-G) turns that the MiG-21?s delta wing allowed a tight turning radius superior to all the major US fighters in Vietnam. Have Doughnut?s DIA analysts therefore warned against participating in ?prolonged maneuvering engagements,? aka dogfighting. Analysts recommended that pilots press an attack only if they had an initial rear-hemisphere advantage. In particular, F-105 Thunderchief pilots were advised to emulate the MiG-21?s hit-and-run tactics."  In other words, yes, there are flight regimes in which the MiG-21 is clearly superior to 1960s era American fighters, and pilots in those American fighters should avoid playing to the MiG's strengths.
 
Quote    Reply

maruben    WHY?   7/26/2010 4:17:47 PM
Seriously complicating air superiority efforts was the fact that North Vietnamese airfields, parked aircraft, command centers, and main radar installations were forbidden targets.
 
WHY?
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       7/26/2010 4:34:08 PM

Seriously complicating air superiority efforts was the fact that North Vietnamese airfields, parked aircraft, command centers, and main radar installations were forbidden targets.


 

WHY?


Robert (may he burn for it) Strange McNamara.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       7/27/2010 12:06:08 AM

Seriously complicating air superiority efforts was the fact that North Vietnamese airfields, parked aircraft, command centers, and main radar installations were forbidden targets.


 

WHY?


McNamara and Johnson believed that hitting such targets would lead to "escalation".  On a tactical level, hitting those targets would kill plenty of Chinese and Russians.  On a strategic level, they wanted at all costs to avoid a repeat of October 1950, and were afraid that China would enter the war openly if the United States destroyed "too much" of Vietnam's military power.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       7/27/2010 9:05:23 AM

No, because the poor pitch control is at higher speed.

Fair point, I missed that.
 
Quote    Reply

maruben       7/27/2010 10:04:32 AM
Hamilcar and Phaid, THANKS.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics