MiG-23 and MiG-27 Flogger

[Sauragnmon]

I had a thought, again, after reading through Wikipedia (also known as my second worst place for finding new ideas  to fill up my head) of building the MiG-23-98 project.  I will cite here the article on the 23-98 for your reading and reviewing pleasure:

In the late '90s, Mikoyan, following their successful MiG-21 upgrade projects, offered a MiG-23-98 upgrade which featured new radar, new self-defense suite, new avionics, improved cockpit ergonomy, helmet-mounted sight, and the capability to fire Vympel R-27 (NATO: AA-10 'Alamo') and Vympel R-77 (NATO: AA-12 'Adder') missiles. The projected cost was around US$1 million per aircraft. Smaller upgrades were also offered, which consisted of only improving the existing Sapfir-23 with newer missiles and upgrades of other avionics. Airframe life extension was offered as well.

So far these upgrades have been met with little interest. However, in 2005, Angola had the upgrade of the Saphir radar fitted to their MiG-23MLs; this radar upgrade allows the Angolan MiG-23s to fire new types of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons. This radar upgrade seems to be the same offered as part of the MiG-23-98-2 radar upgrade.


So, my thoughts come to the following - I looked high and low last night, couldn't find information on the R-100, R-69F or R-33 engines - R-33 designation only turns up the R-33 Missile, also known as the AA-9 Amos, seen on the MiG-31.  These engines are mentioned Earlier in the article, on the MiG-23MLK, as seen here:

There were other MiG-23 variants such as the MiG-23MLK that was planned to be powered by either two new R-33 engines or one R-100, and the MiG-23MD was basically a MiG-23M fitted with a Saphir-23MLA-2. The MiG-23ML-1 was a variant with several possible powerplant and engine choices; its single-engine options were either one R-100 or one R-69F engine, while its twin-engine arrangement was two R-33 engines. It was planned to be armed with a new air-to-air missile, the R-146


So, my questions are as follows - where do the R-100 or R-69F engines stand, as single pipes go, vs the AL-31F?  Alternately, is the concept of the twin engine design actually RD-33's as used on MiG-29.  I  Found myself wondering, as I looked at the AL-31 Flogger, if a D-30F6 would fit in the engine mounting, assuming I could get one spare Somewhere *innocent look* to mount into place.

Also, I would consider building the ECM pods on the wing mounts, similar to the 21-93, a RWR in the tail, Glass Pit, and I don't know if the nose would have to be expanded, to mount the Kopyo radar from the Fulcrum and 21-93 Bison?  I know the AL-31 Engine fit would also support the AL-41 engine, which would be rather beefy in power output as well.

So, next question - good 1/72 scale Floggers?  Who makes them?

[Fulcrum]

The Zvenda model company in Russia builds 1/72 scale Flogger kits (Found in my local hobby store). Another idea is to convert the Flogger model to be a UCAV, I modifyed my Mig-23 after I was inspired from the Mig-Canadian Success Story.

[Weaver]

It's trickier than it looks to bash up a MiG-23 and a MiG-21 to make a Faithless.  The wing was about 30% bigger than a MiG-21's, and the fuselage was a completely different shape to the MiG-23's: more like a Mirage III than anything. However, it wouldn't be that easy to use  a Mirage either, since the Faithless's intake trunks taper equally top and bottom whilst the Mirage's taper more at the top, and the's before you even get onto the mid-mounted wing vs. low-mounted wing.

You'd almost be better off splicing a shortened early MiG-21 fuselage apart at the front end and grafting the MiG-23 front in, although that still doesn't get around the wing-size problem.

Actually, having had a play around with various kits, I've revised that opinion. The MiG-23's rear fuselage is rounded like the Faithless, so what you could do is use the the two halves of an early MiG-21's nose to replace the square intakes of the -23, and then start cutting and carving the centre-fuse to match. As overkiller suggests, a 1/48th -21 might supply the wings.

[McGreig]

It's trickier than it looks to bash up a MiG-23 and a MiG-21 to make a Faithless.  The wing was about 30% bigger than a MiG-21's, and the fuselage was a completely different shape to the MiG-23's

The wing isn't that different. According Gunston & Gordon's "MiG Aircraft", the wings of the 23-01 "Faithless" and the MiG-21 are geometrically identical. The 23-01 has a span of 7.72 metres (10.72cm in 1/72) and the MiG-21 has a span of 7.15 metres (9.93cm in 1/72). If you used the wing of the overscale Hasegawa or Academy MiG-21 it would be almost exactly right.

I'm not sure where you'd get the mid fuselage and intakes from, but the rear fuselage, cockpit, nose, fin and tailplanes are almost identical to the early MiG-23.

Also, you could consider the MiG-23M project which was designed at the same time as the 23-01, but never built. This was essentially a 23-01 fitted with the two dimensional intakes eventually used on the production MiG-23, although the intake trunks were much longer than on the MiG-23 - on the MiG-23 the front of the intake splitter plate is in line with the rear of the canopy transparency, whereas on the MiG-23M the intakes are extended forward so that the leading edge of the splitter plate is slightly forward of the windscreen frame line.

[Weaver]

It's trickier than it looks to bash up a MiG-23 and a MiG-21 to make a Faithless.  The wing was about 30% bigger than a MiG-21's, and the fuselage was a completely different shape to the MiG-23's

The wing isn't that different. According Gunston & Gordon's "MiG Aircraft", the wings of the 23-01 "Faithless" and the MiG-21 are geometrically identical. The 23-01 has a span of 7.72 metres (10.72cm in 1/72) and the MiG-21 has a span of 7.15 metres (9.93cm in 1/72). If you used the wing of the overscale Hasegawa or Academy MiG-21 it would be almost exactly right.

I'm not sure where you'd get the mid fuselage and intakes from, but the rear fuselage, cockpit, nose, fin and tailplanes are almost identical to the early MiG-23.

Also, you could consider the MiG-23M project which was designed at the same time as the 23-01, but never built. This was essentially a 23-01 fitted with the two dimensional intakes eventually used on the production MiG-23, although the intake trunks were much longer than on the MiG-23 - on the MiG-23 the front of the intake splitter plate is in line with the rear of the canopy transparency, whereas on the MiG-23M the intakes are extended forward so that the leading edge of the splitter plate is slightly forward of the windscreen frame line.

You would appear to have a point. 

That 30% figure came out of my head, so I went to check sources. I presume that I got it from Green and Swanborough's Complete Book of Fighters, however what this actually says is that the the 23-01's wing was similar to the MiG-21 but "scaled up 73.6%" which is clearly nonsense: I may have, at some point in the past, interpreted this to mean that the -21's wing had 73.6% of the 23-01's area.  In the relevent specs, they quote 430.57 sq.ft. for the 23-01's wing area, which tallies roughly with the 70-odd % increase which they claim (MiG-21 = 247.58 sq.ft.). However, Buttler and Gordon's Soviet Secret Projects gives the 23-01's wing area as 284.9 sq.ft. whilst quoting the same span figure as your source, all of which seems much more credible.

So my apologies for posting tosh and my congratulations for spotting it.....

The really annoying thing is that I actually have that Academy MiG-21, I knew it was overscale, and I offered it's wing up against an Airfix one and muttered "not big enough"........ I suppose I should build a 23-01 as a pennance now, huh?

[PR19_Kit]

I suppose I should build a 23-01 as a pennance now, huh?

Yes..................

[Sauragnmon]

Yes, you must abandon all hope and drain all faith from your flogger, you must now render it Faithless!  Build!

Going to have to get my hands on an Italeri 23 I think... this Flogger talk has my mind sparked.  Looking forward to seeing your Faithless though Weaver.  It'll look nice sitting beside my Super Flogger in the projects board.

[Weaver]

Don't hold your breath.....


No actually, come to think of it, do.......

[Daryl J.]

In order to avoid conflict over the Russian penetration into the CF-105 program, the USSR was forced into providing a squadron of MiG-23s to the Canadian Government who then completely rebuilt the aircraft much like the Finns did to their MiG-21F-12's and modified them to better suit the Canadian working environment.   (Hey...gotta have a back story somehow to allow for the detail 'errors and omissions' of the Hobbycraft kit.)      Western armaments were attached, appropriate colourations applied, and years of service were rendered alongside CF-104's and CF-5's.   However, they were never allowed to be used in joint US/Canadian exercises as part of the deal.

Now where is my HC MiG-23?   


Daryl J.

[GTX]

No real point - just a cool photo I came across:



Regards,

Greg

[McGreig]

So my apologies for posting tosh and my congratulations for spotting it.....

Everybody makes mistakes - and at least you knew that the wing was bigger  , which is more than can be said for the producer of JV Jet Kits!

Pictured below is the (now unavailable) 1/72 JV Jet Kits resin kit of the 23-01, obtained several years ago, at vast expense  , from Hannants.

I'd previously built other JV resins, including the MiG-152 and the "Flipper" and they weren't too bad, but this was a big disappointment.

The wing is a direct copy of the Fujimi MiG-21, while most of the fuselage appears to be cloned from the Hasegawa MiG-23. This means that, not only is the wing too small but also that the wheel wells in the fuselage are too large and  completely the wrong shape  . As you can see from Greg's picture above, the undercarriage arrangement on the 23-01 is much closer to the MiG-21 than the MiG-23. Also, the intake door for the lift engines is moulded in the closed position and the under-fuselage outlet is missing altogether, thus preventing you from displaying the most interesting characteristic of the 23-01 without a great deal of work.

I will be having a go at this kit, but I suspect that it's not going to be any less effort than a scratch built version!
Gordon

[royabulgaf]

Hmm, assuming you are doing 1/72.  How about a MiG 23 fuselage, maybe grab a Yak 38 for the upper intake?  The side intakes, would a 1/72 Mirage 3 work or would they be too small.  The Mirage wings would then give you templates to make the wings from.

Kim M

[Sauragnmon]

Or you skip the use of the Mirage, take a MiG-21's nose, slice it in half, for your intakes, cut into the wing's midsection just behind the gear mounts paralell to the trailing edge, splice in additional styrene into the wing to give it the rearward extension, follow the wing's original angle, extend the wing trailing edge outward to match up with additional styrene to get proper span.  Translate the engraving of the wing panel lines into your styrene stock, potentially fill your flap and aileron lines and rescribe them on the new wider wingform.

That's just my two pennies.  You could also use sheet to do the dorsal intake mounting, as it isn't more than a simple grid you punch holes to match.

[dy031101]

Look at this screen grab of HAWX...... MiG-23/27 on steroid anybody?

[Shasper]

Looks like the rear fuselage is bigger . . . Twin engine perhaps?

Shas