Kiev Is Burning

[crazyinsane105]

13 hours ago, futon said:

Poland can train them up with Polish and South Korean trainers.

The NATO training that has been given thus far to Ukrainians hasn’t necessarily helped them achieve significant breakthroughs though (at least when taking into consideration the previous failed offensive operations).

At this point, Ukraine should simply counter Russian gains and ensure more territory isn’t taken. That may be an easier task than trying another offensive, for which Russia can prepare for and grind down Ukrainian units 

[Roman Alymov]

7 hours ago, ink said:

This is a great point.

In some of Soviet sci-fi books, people of future society were having next to no "property" of their own at all - just a box of memorabilities etc. while using housing etc. for free on temporary basis (as long as they needed it).

Other authors were showing more traditional society with family homes that house multi-generation family......

 

[Roman Alymov]

On 6/20/2024 at 10:51 AM, seahawk said:

Actually the F.3 could automatically control the wing sweep, but only the Saudis used the option.

What is the point of having MiG-23 wing sweep controlled automatically if it was only three (later four) positions available, switched by a turn of small control arm under trottle control?

[Roman Alymov]

On 6/20/2024 at 4:55 PM, glenn239 said:

Roman's constantly infuses his version of Russian and European history and culture into discussions, but I think his true passion is trying to convince the forum that the Russian government are lackeys to the West and somehow looking for a means to surrender to the West, even while every move Putin actually makes is deepening the confrontation.  He never seems to get that the quasi-revolutionary attitudes he expresses towards his own government are taken here as hope that Prigozhen's rebellion can be repeated and Ukraine can win the war quickly after that.

I'm affraid you do not understand what was "Prigozhen's rebellion" and its relations with both West and Russian "ruling elite". Can't blame you for that since information on that is hardly available outside Russia.

   My opinion is based on knowlege (sometimes, even first-hand knowlege) of situation here on the ground. If you choose to complain it is wrong - well, it is up to you.

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

What is the point of having MiG-23 wing sweep controlled automatically if it was only three (later four) positions available, switched by a turn of small control arm under trottle control?

Pilot workload.

[Roman Alymov]

4 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Pilot workload.

I'm not a fighter pilot, but my knowlege of how airplanes manuver is making me think having unpredictable wing sweep is increasing, not decreasing, pressure on pilot. It is not like automated control of cooling airflow door position that was real reduction of pilot's workload.

[RETAC21]

30 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

I'm not a fighter pilot, but my knowlege of how airplanes manuver is making me think having unpredictable wing sweep is increasing, not decreasing, pressure on pilot. It is not like automated control of cooling airflow door position that was real reduction of pilot's workload.

Is not unpredictable, the wing moves as needed to achieve the desired performance, which is known to the pilot. However, having to do it manually means that when it is needed, it's not there.

That said, the way the wing sweep was designed to be used in the MiG-23 had nothing to do with air combat, so the pilot workload wasn't impacted.

[seahawk]

Tomcat drivers liked it. (also liked the manual override)

https://theaviationist.com/2014/05/13/two-new-stories-baranek/

[Stuart Galbraith]

Manually controlling wing sweep is one more thing to occupy a pilot whom already as plenty of things to do. It's not quite as critical in a bomber, whom usually works at set altitudes and speeds. It is a major shortcoming in a fighter however.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, seahawk said:

Tomcat drivers liked it. (also liked the manual override)

https://theaviationist.com/2014/05/13/two-new-stories-baranek/

The manual override is useful when losing speed around the boat. Put it in maximum sweep for flyby the boat, neat 180 whilst putting the wings in auto to burn off speed. They also had it in manual behind a tanker for obvious reasons. But yes, any other time they had it in auto. It was just a damn good system.

[Roman Alymov]

8 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Is not unpredictable, the wing moves as needed to achieve the desired performance, which is known to the pilot. However, having to do it manually means that when it is needed, it's not there.

Iw wing sweep is controlled by some alghorythm, it means that pilot is not aware (or is not always aware) what will be its position during this or that manuver he is planning to take. And, more over, it is quite likely wing sweep will be in process of change while the manuver, adding to complexity.....

11 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

That said, the way the wing sweep was designed to be used in the MiG-23 had nothing to do with air combat, so the pilot workload wasn't impacted.

That is not ecactly correct: more correct form is "it was not supposed to be changed during the manuver in air coimbat"

"The MiG-23 was one of the first Soviet aircraft equipped with variable geometry wings. They were controlled hydraulically using a small lever located under the throttle control lever in the cockpit. There were three main angles of rotation of the wings, which were set by the pilot for various flight modes. The first, in which the wings were fully opened at 16°, was used during cruising flight at a speed not exceeding Mach 0.7, or during takeoff and landing. The wings, opened at an angle of 45°, were used for basic fighter maneuvers, as well as for cruising at high speed or for interception at low altitude. The wings, opened at an angle of 72°, were used for interception at high altitude or for high-speed throws at low altitude.

-----

Starting with the model released in 1971, the wing surface of the MiG-23 (known as the Model 2) was increased by 20%, which required a position change of 18°, 47° 40' and 74° 40' (although for convenience, the original markings were retained on the cockpit indicators and in the operating manuals). An extension of the leading edge was added, but the slats on the leading edge were removed to simplify production. However, this aggravated the MiG-23's stability problems at high angles of attack and made takeoff and landing difficult.[10] The final wing design of the Model 3, presented on the MiG-23M, retained the dimensions of the Model 2, but slats on the leading edge were added.[11]

The improvement of the wing rotation mechanism on the MiG-23MLD made it possible to add a fourth wing rotation position by 33°, which was intended to reduce the turning radius and rapid braking during air combat. However, with the wing position at 33 °, it was much more difficult to control the MiG-23MLD, and it suffered from insufficient acceleration. Only experienced MiG-23 pilots could move the wing to this position, while the combat manuals still recommended a 45° position." 

(МиГ -23 Микояна-Гуревича - Википедия (turbopages.org)

More from Rus Wiki

"The sweep angle of the consoles is changed within 16°-72° (there are three preset positions: 16°, 45° and 72°, but in reality they are 2° 40" larger).

 The consoles are rotated by a two-channel hydraulic motor of the SPK-1 system, which has IP—23 screw ball converters that convert rotational motion into translational motion (control of the console shift is done using a lever installed in the cabin on the left side, next to the ore). Although there are three fixed wing positions — 16, 45 and 72 degrees, in fact, the wing can be moved to any working angle from 16 to 72 degrees, including intermediate positions. So, for example, when distilling an aircraft, the optimal wing sweep was considered to be a position of about 30 °. Later (on the MLD modification), the wing position sensor mechanism received another fixed position at 32° — for combat maneuvering." (МиГ-23 — Википедия (wikipedia.org)_

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, it can be unpredictable when making minor speed changes such as taking from a tanker, so the pilots locked it out. You are going to be over 350 knots before it transitions, so the window this matters is really small.

If anything, it's the reverse of what you suggest. The pilot is familiar with how his aircraft performs. And tomcat pilots got really good at predicting the transitions, and could even make use of an expected transition to turn tightly. Fun tactic was to throw the aircraft on its back and feed in God's g as the aircraft transitions. If that's a handful for the pilot, imagine what it was like for the guy on his tail.

[Roman Alymov]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, it can be unpredictable when making minor speed changes such as taking from a tanker, so the pilots locked it out. You are going to be over 350 knots before it transitions, so the window this matters is really small.

If anything, it's the reverse of what you suggest. The pilot is familiar with how his aircraft performs. And tomcat pilots got really good at predicting the transitions, and could even make use of an expected transition to turn tightly. Fun tactic was to throw the aircraft on its back and feed in God's g as the aircraft transitions. If that's a handful for the pilot, imagine what it was like for the guy on his tail.

I'm not a pilot, so not going to debate about something i do not know. My idea is that from engeneer point of view controlling the plane while its aerodynamics is in transition might be challenging (may be, it could be compensated by electronic assistant as it is dome at modern planes, but for 1970th it was still not possible as far as i understand).

[RETAC21]

25 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Iw wing sweep is controlled by some alghorythm, it means that pilot is not aware (or is not always aware) what will be its position during this or that manuver he is planning to take. And, more over, it is quite likely wing sweep will be in process of change while the manuver, adding to complexity.....

That is not exactly correct: more correct form is "it was not supposed to be changed during the maneuver in air coimbat"

"The MiG-23 was one of the first Soviet aircraft equipped with variable geometry wings. They were controlled hydraulically using a small lever located under the throttle control lever in the cockpit. There were three main angles of rotation of the wings, which were set by the pilot for various flight modes. The first, in which the wings were fully opened at 16°, was used during cruising flight at a speed not exceeding Mach 0.7, or during takeoff and landing. The wings, opened at an angle of 45°, were used for basic fighter maneuvers, as well as for cruising at high speed or for interception at low altitude. The wings, opened at an angle of 72°, were used for interception at high altitude or for high-speed throws at low altitude.

-----

Starting with the model released in 1971, the wing surface of the MiG-23 (known as the Model 2) was increased by 20%, which required a position change of 18°, 47° 40' and 74° 40' (although for convenience, the original markings were retained on the cockpit indicators and in the operating manuals). An extension of the leading edge was added, but the slats on the leading edge were removed to simplify production. However, this aggravated the MiG-23's stability problems at high angles of attack and made takeoff and landing difficult.[10] The final wing design of the Model 3, presented on the MiG-23M, retained the dimensions of the Model 2, but slats on the leading edge were added.[11]

The improvement of the wing rotation mechanism on the MiG-23MLD made it possible to add a fourth wing rotation position by 33°, which was intended to reduce the turning radius and rapid braking during air combat. However, with the wing position at 33 °, it was much more difficult to control the MiG-23MLD, and it suffered from insufficient acceleration. Only experienced MiG-23 pilots could move the wing to this position, while the combat manuals still recommended a 45° position." 

(МиГ -23 Микояна-Гуревича - Википедия (turbopages.org)

More from Rus Wiki

"The sweep angle of the consoles is changed within 16°-72° (there are three preset positions: 16°, 45° and 72°, but in reality they are 2° 40" larger).

 The consoles are rotated by a two-channel hydraulic motor of the SPK-1 system, which has IP—23 screw ball converters that convert rotational motion into translational motion (control of the console shift is done using a lever installed in the cabin on the left side, next to the ore). Although there are three fixed wing positions — 16, 45 and 72 degrees, in fact, the wing can be moved to any working angle from 16 to 72 degrees, including intermediate positions. So, for example, when distilling an aircraft, the optimal wing sweep was considered to be a position of about 30 °. Later (on the MLD modification), the wing position sensor mechanism received another fixed position at 32° — for combat maneuvering." (МиГ-23 — Википедия (wikipedia.org)_

But the "algorythm" is not random, it controls the wing within precise limits of which the pilot is aware:

 

Re. MiG-23, that's what I meant, I wasn't clear enough.

[urbanoid]

 

[old_goat]

Adjusting wing position was a quite serious problem of the Mig-23's pilot. Not only the 3 (later 4) wing position meant 3(4) totally different flying characteristics, but generally, the 23 was unforgiving for pilot errors. It was a vicious aircraft to fly. On top of that, the view from the cockpit was poor. 

Also, the extremely unreliable and poor quality radar and fire control systems were the true achilles heel of the aircraft. On paper, its performance wasnt bad at all. But in reality, that was rarely, if ever was achieved. The radar required constant maintenance and the performance totally relied on the mechanic's skills. It was frequent that one radar saw the target at lets say 40 kilometers, the second only to 25, and the third 33. It varied wildly. The later N-003/Sapfir-23ML was more reliable, and had more stable working parameters, but by the time it was introduced, the soviets were significantly behind the west in terms of electronics. 

The last MLD variant was significantly improved, but that was too late. By that time, it was hopelessly obsolete. All in all, the Mig-23 was probably one the worst fighters ever designed. It was loathed by mechanics and pilots too. No wonder that the Mig-21 served far longer than it. 

[ink]

4 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

In some of Soviet sci-fi books, people of future society were having next to no "property" of their own at all - just a box of memorabilities etc. while using housing etc. for free on temporary basis (as long as they needed it).

Other authors were showing more traditional society with family homes that house multi-generation family......

 

Thanks Roman. I'll have to watch those later, I'm afraid.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

I'm not a pilot, so not going to debate about something i do not know. My idea is that from engeneer point of view controlling the plane while its aerodynamics is in transition might be challenging (may be, it could be compensated by electronic assistant as it is dome at modern planes, but for 1970th it was still not possible as far as i understand).

Look a the Tomcat, the whole fuselage box is a giant wing. You got a lot of lift out of that. I wont say you get stability out of that, but it means that although there is definately a pitch movement out of the wings moving, its not as severe as you may think, and easily counteracted with trim.

No, not all aircraft are identical. The Tornado didnt get much trouble out of it, because it was, or so is my understanding, an intermediate stage between hydraulics and fly by wire, and they probably took a lot of the pitch out of it by that. Mig23, you only have to read the trouble the americans had with the thing. If you didnt manage your wing sweep at high mach numbers you had instability. Sometimes even when you did.

In its defence, Bojan has asserted that its his belief they didnt align the fuselages correctly, and that may have led to some instability at high mach numbers. Thats certainly possible, because the Mig21's were certainly like that (though it only demonstrated it in the stall configuration, not high mach numbers where it was still steady as a rock). OTOH, if the fuselage elements are that easy to misalign, you have to ask how well it could possibly work in Bumfuckirsk, Siberia, when they have to maintain the aircraft under  primitive conditions.

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, old_goat said:

Adjusting wing position was a quite serious problem of the Mig-23's pilot. Not only the 3 (later 4) wing position meant 3(4) totally different flying characteristics, but generally, the 23 was unforgiving for pilot errors. It was a vicious aircraft to fly. On top of that, the view from the cockpit was poor. 

Also, the extremely unreliable and poor quality radar and fire control systems were the true achilles heel of the aircraft. On paper, its performance wasnt bad at all. But in reality, that was rarely, if ever was achieved. The radar required constant maintenance and the performance totally relied on the mechanic's skills. It was frequent that one radar saw the target at lets say 40 kilometers, the second only to 25, and the third 33. It varied wildly. The later N-003/Sapfir-23ML was more reliable, and had more stable working parameters, but by the time it was introduced, the soviets were significantly behind the west in terms of electronics. 

The last MLD variant was significantly improved, but that was too late. By that time, it was hopelessly obsolete. All in all, the Mig-23 was probably one the worst fighters ever designed. It was loathed by mechanics and pilots too. No wonder that the Mig-21 served far longer than it. 

You do have to wonder if that it was a considerably newer aircraft than the Mig21 caused issues with maintainance. You only have to look at the step up of the F104 in Luftwaffe service called untold problems, because they were just not use to maintaining anything that sophisticated.

I think perhaps the Mig27 wasnt so bad, apart from the gun. Alhough its hard to see what it offered that the later Su17 didnt do just as well.

[Ssnake]

18 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You only have to look at the step up of the F104 in Luftwaffe service called untold problems, because they were just not use to maintaining anything that sophisticated.

Turning it into a multi-role light bomber didn't have anything to do with it...

[seahawk]

13 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

I'm not a fighter pilot, but my knowlege of how airplanes manuver is making me think having unpredictable wing sweep is increasing, not decreasing, pressure on pilot. It is not like automated control of cooling airflow door position that was real reduction of pilot's workload.

Western pilots were not as skilled or trained as Soviet fighter pilots, so they needed more automation.

[Perun]

Do we have here any pilot so he can tell us from real experiance

[sunday]

3 hours ago, Perun said:

Do we have here any pilot so he can tell us from real experiance

Only DCS players, I am afraid...

[Perun]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Only DCS players, I am afraid...

I am afraid to

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

Only DCS players, I am afraid...

A I have a couple of ex-colegues from Patriot Park who are retired pilots who have started their career at MiG-23 and later were flying MiG-29. Actually, one of them even have survived his MiG-23 crush (he ejected safely). So if we got a question formulated, i could try to ask them (not sure they would bother to answer, but who knows...)