MiG-19/J-6/Q-5, and I-370 (parallel develpment)

[dy031101]

Although my current topics have more to do with projects in parallel with the MiG-19, I might as well make it a place where everyone interested in MiG-19/J-6 can express themselves.

BSP: Jet Fighters Since 1950 keeps giving me the impression that RB.44 Tay is the best a centrifugal-flow turbojet ever would get...... it powered F9F Panther, F-94 Starfire, and Mystère IV, all subsonic aircraft.

That was until I read about some parallel developments of MiG-19- apparently a single-engined, supersonic aircraft powered by a centrifugal-flow turbojet did exist.  Some says its performance is actually very good; others say it's a disappointment......

I'd sometimes take a liking of transitional items...... between subsonic planes with centrifugal-flow turbojets and supersonic planes with axial-flow turbojets, a supersonic plane with a centrifugal-flow turbojet sounds neat to me.

So first, something to clarify- which one is simpler to build and easier to maintain, centrifugal-flow turbojets or axial-flow turbojets?

I heard that the last of the parallel (to MiG-19) projects that actually flew is the I-370 with a Klimov VK-7 turbojet.  Which of the opinions is correct?  "Very good" or "a disappointment"?

Is there any British project (or any Western project for that matter) that could have benefited from have a centrifugal-flow turbojet like the VK-7?

Response is very much appreciated.







And after reading about the MiG I-370, I started imagining...... what if the Soviets gave the PRC I-370 instead of MiG-19 as the basis for J-6?  What if the centrifugal-flow-turbojet-powered J-6 became the basis of Q-5......?

[Daryl J.]

The MiG-19 is the aircraft I've alway had in mind that would fly as Batman's enemy if Bruce Wayne had provided him with an F4D-1(bat) Skyray replete with necessary bat scallops.   The MiG would of course be in natural metal and could either be the cannon armed or radar nosed, missile equipped interceptor.  The wing fences would be enlarged as would auxiliary intakes and various lumps and barbs.

Quite frankly, the MiG-19 simply looks tough to my eyes.



Daryl J., who has a pair of big Trumpy MiG-19's

[Weaver]

I've always rather liked the SM-12, which was essentially a MiG-19 with much more powerful (axial) engines (can't remember the name - they wern't just uprated RM-9s though) and a sharp-edged, centre-bodied intake which looks remarkably like an early MiG-21 item.....

There is a school of thought that says centrifugal turbojets were discarded too soon and could have been profitably developed further, given the severe problems some early axials had. Quite apart from being easier to make with an earlier level of metallurgy, they were also much more tolerant of FOD and turbulent intake flow: look at the path followed by air destined for a Nene and you rapidly stop fretting about any slight kink in the intake ducts..... On the other hand, Sir Stanley Hooker is on the record as saying that the Nene's compressor was as large as such things could go...

[jcf]

Centrifugal compressors are still used, most often in turbo-prop and turbo-shaft engines and in combination with upstream axial compressors, but a few engines have tandem centrifugal compressors.

Jon

[Jeffry Fontaine]

I have seen some images of Pakistan Air Force MiG-19 clones that were fitted with wing tip mounted missile launch rails for Sidewinder (or is it the Russian and Chinese copy).  Has any other air force performed a similar modification their own aircraft?  Or is it just Pakistan?

[dy031101]

I have seen some images of Pakistan Air Force MiG-19 clones that were fitted with wing tip mounted missile launch rails for Sidewinder (or is it the Russian and Chinese copy).

I did see an image of Q-5 armed with wingtip PL-7......





Quick question: the underwing external fuel tanks used by MiG-19 and Q-5...... they are jettisonable, right?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Quick question: the underwing external fuel tanks used by MiG-19 and Q-5...... they are jettisonable, right?

Yes, I beleive they are but not sure if they jettison with the pylon integral with the tank or just the tank when that action is taken. 

[comrade harps]

I've never seen a 1:72 plastic Q-5, but if I did I'd snap it up and make it Soviet, late 50s and early 60s, because there'sn nothing there really that couldn't have been made by the Ruskies back then. It just took the Chinese a few more deacades.

[r16]

fantan with a radar and raised cockpit ; a serious what if by western intelligence that was believed to be in service in naval units . I have never seen an image of it .Does anyone here have one ?

[Geoff]

There was a development aircraft with a radar nose built in conjunction with an Italian company.

[Radish]

The only A-5 Fantan kit I know of is the AA kit in 1/48th. It's quite basic but relatively cheap, and the decals are a total joke.
However, I've got one and it'll be a real Gloss White one of the Chinese Navy, appearing at Telford this year on IPMS Stafford's table.
If I could get hold of another, I'd really fancy a Pakistani one.
I believe Trumpeter have plans for one in 1/72nd and I'll buy several if that's the case.
I've a couple of Bilek MiG-19s, but haven't built them yet, so can't comment on them at all.

[Weaver]

fantan with a radar and raised cockpit ; a serious what if by western intelligence that was believed to be in service in naval units . I have never seen an image of it .Does anyone here have one ?

Think I've got a line drawing of it somewhere at home in an old reference book - it's a big, drooped radome, a bit like a gunless Phantom, IIRC.

[Weaver]

There was a development aircraft with a radar nose built in conjunction with an Italian company.

I recall an "A-5 demystified" type article that said this wasn't so, at least in the form implied. There were prototype attack aircraft built with Italian and British (?) avionics fits, but the nose profile was pretty standard and the only radars involved were small ranging sets - possibly the FIAR Pointer?

In the end, they didn't mass-produce either because they were concerned about cost and independence, but they remained (unbought) export options.

[dy031101]

So the wing tanks are jettisonable...... oh well, because I was thinking if something like Sargeant Fletcher's LITE could be created so that the fuselage hardpoints could be freed up, but targetting sensors probably aren't as replacible as mere fuel tanks......

Think I've got a line drawing of it somewhere at home in an old reference book - it's a big, drooped radome, a bit like a gunless Phantom, IIRC.

This description most likely fits a torpedo bomber version of Q-5 developed for the PLAN.

[r16]

a Turkish magazine article in 1978 said about 700 hundred F-9 aircraft was in service in addition to an unknown number in Air Force units .I bought the magazine in about 1986 and it feeds my curosity about this aircraft ever since then .