Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
Jinxter13

Ok who's responsible!!!

Recommended Posts

I'm probably in a minority of one, with not many more like opinions, but to me the MLG on the MiG-23/27 looks like a bungled plumbing job. I got an upclose and personal look at the a/c on display at the March ARB museum, and thought what were they thinking when they designed this. I know from all that is available that the USSR at that time and the RuAF probably still do require that their a/c be capable of TO's from unimproved runways, but holyyyyy...nightmares Batman.

Anyone else know of an a/c undercarriage that's looks like it was designed by an Aero-engineer working with a bad hangover.

Edited by Angels49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was copied from the F-4.

Regards,

Murph

The MLG ? <_<

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok who's responsible!!!

That would be a fellow named Pyotr Kolesov. He was the chief designer of OKB-36, the design bureau responsible for the MiG-23. ;)

At least according to Google he's the one responsible. <_< To be fair, while the undercarriage looks like a mess, the Flogger is a right beauty once it's airborne. :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was one of the best designed undercariages because it fits in so little space. The wings in the Mig-23 are high on the fuselage so it cant fit in them & the fuselage space is veeery limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was one of the best designed undercariages because it fits in so little space. The wings in the Mig-23 are high on the fuselage so it cant fit in them & the fuselage space is veeery limited.

With that fact, I'd have to say you are very right. How they got that MLG into such a small space (by comparison) is very ingenious <_< .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked it up, and I have to say that it actually is pretty logically designed given the space constraints. I don't really see what's all that complex about it. It's an unorthodox arrangement but it's not as convoluted or mind-bending as some make it seem like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was copied from the F-4.

Never a bad idea, that.

By contrast, the Tomcat's landing gear was copied from a city garbage truck.

Edited by Fishwelding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never a bad idea, that.

By contrast, the Tomcat's landing gear was copied from a city garbage truck.

I thought they were copied from the A-6 Intruder's .... :cheers:

Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that I do admire the innovation of the Flogger series main landing gear, those OKB engineers must have had a few oragami lessons!

I was comparing pictures of the MiG-23MS with MiG-23UB (2-seat trainer) and noticed that the UB has a more pronounced "nose up" stance, the tail nearly touches the ground. Would the MLG have been altered for the UB or would the nose up stance be caused by another factor? (weight distribution, fuselage length etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I remember reading somewhere that the MiG-23 undercarriage was in fact an engineering graduation dissertation...

While it's of course ugly, it's quite interesting.... they couldn't use the wings because they were with variable geometry.... they only had the fuselage, so this strange arrangement was needed to still have a quite wide track with the limited space of the fuselage...

To mig mongoose: the UB doesn't have a radar in the nose... I think it's just for that

Edited by Yuri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I remember reading somewhere that the MiG-23 undercarriage was in fact an engineering graduation dissertation...

To mig mongoose: the UB doesn't have a radar in the nose... I think it's just for that

And I've heard that the graduate was a woman...

MFs sit noseup aswell (compared to MLs level stance) and I think on UBs, the angle is only more pronounced because of the longer fuselage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I've heard that the graduate was a woman...

I have also heard that the MiG-23 MLG was 'designed by a woman' - although why that should matter is beyond me....

Unless it leads to sexist jokes...... :thumbsup::rofl:

The MiG-23/27 MLG is an exremely clever design - managing to get the biggest wheel track from a mounting on a narrow fuselage whilst still being very compact when retracted.

I guess the nearest western eqivalent would be the gear on the A-7 Corsair - same problem with high wing/fuselage mounting.

The A-7 MLG is much simpler - but probably takes up more room in the wells when retracted.

Plus - it did not have to cater for a rough-field capability that the Flogger had to address.

Would someone care to make a comparison between the two - wheel track, gear well size etc. ????

Ken

Edited by Flankerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Flogger undercarriage is a thing of beauty and adds a lot of 'tude. How many jets have you seen with SPATS? :thumbsup:

However, the U/C doesn't change from series to series. Responsible for the greater or lesser squat is the weight of the plane - not surprisingly the late or 'lightened' versions (ML, P, MLD) are farther from the ground. But I like the toadlike stance of the early models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And UB sits more because it was derived from the M/MF versions wich are heavier. The ML (in wich L means legkij - light) has a weight savings of almost 1250 kg considering the less fuel (more economical engine R-35-300) & lighter airframe in comparision with M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Su-25 is similar as it's MLG is set up in a way to get the widest track and still retract into fairly tight quarters.

The F-111 MLG was also similar in the same respect, a lot of MLG to suck into a small space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...