MiG-23 Question

[Pirata]

I know the MiG-23 MLD has a more horizontal stance than the early versions, which have a nose-up stance when they're parked. My question is: how? More importantly, how do I reproduce this on a plastic model? Is the nose gear shorter or are the MLG gear longer? Or, is there something else that I'm not thinking of?

Thanks.

[Andre]

I know the MiG-23 MLD has a more horizontal stance than the early versions, which have a nose-up stance when they're parked. My question is: how? More importantly, how do I reproduce this on a plastic model? Is the nose gear shorter or are the MLG gear longer? Or, is there something else that I'm not thinking of?

The MLD has a lighter fuselage than the previous versions, causing it to compress the main landing gear struts less than the previous versions which were 'squatting down' more due to weight. AFAIK the nose gear isn't changed. So, you might be able to bend the MLG struts.

HTH,

Andre

[digit]

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....howtopic=211272

[Floggerman]

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index....howtopic=211272

...and now it should be clear that it has nothing to do with the weight!

[Laurent]

...and now it should be clear that it has nothing to do with the weight!

"Nothing to do with loaded/unloaded plane" I'd rather say. The ML/MLD was lighter than the previous versions. Perhaps the ML/MLD didn't require a big AoA to take off and that could justify why the plane was more horizontal ?

[Floggerman]

"Nothing to do with loaded/unloaded plane" I'd rather say. The ML/MLD was lighter than the previous versions. Perhaps the ML/MLD didn't require a big AoA to take off and that could justify why the plane was more horizontal ?

Compare it with MiG-27D or K, much heavier and same position as ML. One of the main reasons is (as the czech guy wrote) that the position of the MF creates a lot of problems during take off on asphalt surfaces. I myself saw a MF taking off too close to the asphalted touch-down point. The result was that huge pieces of asphalt flow some dozend meters and the tarmac was totally destroyed (very impressive, believe me!). 2nd reason might be that it was very difficult to push-back the MF into a shelter w/o touching the ground. (more difficult because the deep hanging effect was increased due to the wings in 72°, what shifts the CoG backward.)

The airplanes position has also nothing to do with "compressed" or "non-compressed" as the suspension is on the outer part of the gear, the part connected to the fuselage is not suspended! An it's very clearly visible that the difference between MF and ML is exactly here.

[Yuri]

Apart from being lightweight. Didn't the ML have a different engine? There could also be CG differences.

[Floggerman]

Apart from being lightweight. Didn't the ML have a different engine? There could also be CG differences.

The ML's R-35-300 is 114 kg heavier than the MF's R-29-300 (1992 kg vs. 1878 kg)

[Laurent]

Compare it with MiG-27D or K, much heavier and same position as ML. One of the main reasons is (as the czech guy wrote) that the position of the MF creates a lot of problems during take off on asphalt surfaces. I myself saw a MF taking off too close to the asphalted touch-down point. The result was that huge pieces of asphalt flow some dozend meters and the tarmac was totally destroyed (very impressive, believe me!). 2nd reason might be that it was very difficult to push-back the MF into a shelter w/o touching the ground. (more difficult because the deep hanging effect was increased due to the wings in 72°, what shifts the CoG backward.)

The airplanes position has also nothing to do with "compressed" or "non-compressed" as the suspension is on the outer part of the gear, the part connected to the fuselage is not suspended! An it's very clearly visible that the difference between MF and ML is exactly here.

Ok but do you know why the pre-ML Floggers weren't more "horizontal" in the first place?

[Marv]

The absolute best site for MiG-23 detail shots if Hunavia:

http://www.hunavia.hu/

Be sure to click on the small page numbers, found in the lower right side...you will not be disappointed. There are also many detail pix of other Soviet-era aircraft, used by the Hungarian AF...worth a few hours to peruse.

[Two Mikes]

The absolute best site for MiG-23 detail shots if Hunavia:

http://www.hunavia.hu/

Be sure to click on the small page numbers, found in the lower right side...you will not be disappointed. There are also many detail pix of other Soviet-era aircraft, used by the Hungarian AF...worth a few hours to peruse.

Fantastic site Marv! Cheers for posting a link to it. Bookmarked!!

[Pirata]

Thank you, everybody, for your input! FYI, I'm not building the Trumpeter kit. I'm kit-bashing a 1/72 MLD and I'm trying to figure out how to do the landing gear.

@digit: Thanks for the link! I had no idea that I had blundered into an ARC debate! :lol:

@Marv: Thanks for the link! I bookmarked it. There are no MLDs, but I'm planning to re-build my MiG-23UB in the future and those are excellent references.

As long as I have your attention, could you tell me how to identify a live Russian missile vs. a practice one? I'm looking at hanging live R-24s and R-60s and I'm not certain what markings go on a live round. Also, what do the seekers look like? Thanks.

Ok, after reading everything and examining the photos, this is what I've come up with. You guys tell me if I'm right, wrong or crazy.

I ran Jennings' photos though Photoshop and drew some lines on them and this is what I can tell.

First, using the head on photo, I looked for vertical & horizontal constants. The nose gear appears straight in both photos, so that's my vertical constant. (In yellow.) The lower lip of the MLG tire-door (In the dreaded Magenta.) appears perpendicular to the nose strut on both aircraft. The mid-strut of the MF (In Blue.) is nearly parallel to the lower lip and perpendicular to the nose strut. Whereas, the mid-strut of the MLD (In red.) is at an angle to both the nose strut and the lower lip.

In the profile comparison, I'm gonna compare the top of the tire door and the hinge (I'm guessing it's a hinge that the MLG rotate around when the gear come up.) relative to the bottom of the fuselage. In all four photos, the bottom of the fuselage is in red, the top of the tire door is shown with a yellow arrow and the hinge is marked in blue. (The blue line is a little long because a dot was hard to see.) In the the photos of the two MFs, all of these points are at about the same location. That is, the top of the hinge and the top of the tire door are at about the same height as the bottom of the fuselage.

In the two ML photos, the top of the hinge is at about the same height as the bottom of the center-line pylon with the top of the tire door beneath it, confirming that the mid-struts are angled downward on the ML and MLD. But since the hinge is lower than the bottom of the fuselage, that indicates that the top of the strut (The part coming down from within the fuselage.) is longer and that's why the hinge is lower on the ML/MLD than on the MF.

Other than a bird's nest of wires and no mud guard, I'm not seeing anything else different about the nose gear on the MLD. (That's what I'm focusing on because that's what I'm trying to build.)

So, I think the ML/MLD got it's butt-lift by receiving a modified MLG that both lengthened the upper strut and angled the mid-strut downward. That's my theory. Let me know what you think.

P.S. Would it be possible for somebody who has a 1/32 Flogger to white-glue in the short strut and then the long strut and show us what they both look like? I'd like to see how Trumpeter did the longer set of struts. TIA!

Edited July 12, 2010 by Pirata

[utley]

counting black stripes on weapons? all white ordnance on warsaw missiles are war shots, while inert have stripes. i would wait for someone to back that up though...the best place to ask for what they would look like would be over at forums.eagle.ru, any number of ppl there could show you what details go where since some 3d modellers like to add some realism to our flight sims.

Edited July 13, 2010 by utley

[Floggerman]

As long as I have your attention, could you tell me how to identify a live Russian missile vs. a practice one? I'm looking at hanging live R-24s and R-60s and I'm not certain what markings go on a live round. Also, what do the seekers look like? Thanks.

As utley wrote the training missiles had some (between 2 and 4) black stripes and normally no (rear) stabilizers. The seeker is the same like on the real (in fact, a training device is (more or less) only a seeker!)

Here some examples:

http://elhangardetj.blogspot.com/2008/05/u...-de-la-nva.html

Edited July 13, 2010 by Floggerman

[Yuri]

The ML's R-35-300 is 114 kg heavier than the MF's R-29-300 (1992 kg vs. 1878 kg)

Ok, so it's not a CG shift... unless there's a huge difference in weight distribution between the 2 engines (such as a much lighter/shorter afterburner)

[Floggerman]

Ok, so it's not a CG shift... unless there's a huge difference in weight distribution between the 2 engines (such as a much lighter/shorter afterburner)

For sure not. Don't mix it with the R-29-B300 of MiG-27!

[Superheat]

Hi Pirata,

Got interested in this question and started going through all the photos I have of various versions of the MiG-23. I had always thought the difference in fuselage angles that I noted were because of weight variations but, studying the photos, I see that is not true, but I do think I have the answer to your question. I don't think the late versions have a differently angled strut, I think the difference is that the late versions have a longer extension-retraction strut, which extends their gear to a greater angle than the early versions. See the following photos:

Assuming that I am correct, this would make your modeling problem relatively simple: just glue in the main struts at the proper angle and fabricate new longer retraction struts, though that process could be more complicated to do than it is to write.

HTH,

Tom

[Floggerman]

Hi Pirata,

Got interested in this question and started going through all the photos I have of various versions of the MiG-23. I had always thought the difference in fuselage angles that I noted were because of weight variations but, studying the photos, I see that is not true, but I do think I have the answer to your question. I don't think the late versions have a differently angled strut, I think the difference is that the late versions have a longer extension-retraction strut, which extends their gear to a greater angle than the early versions. See the following photos:

Assuming that I am correct, this would make your modeling problem relatively simple: just glue in the main struts at the proper angle and fabricate new longer retraction struts, though that process could be more complicated to do than it is to write.

HTH,

Tom

Thanks Tom, this is exactly what I meant! No weight influence, no compression effect ... (the lower weight could made the lift-up easier but is not the reason, as I explained)

Regards Tom (me2... )

[Pirata]

Hi Tom(s),

Nice photo interpretation! :wacko: Thank you for your input and detailed answer!

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, they got the ground clearance they wanted by simply lengthening the retraction strut cylinder and piston, which pushed the MLG down further. Clever solution. Those are excellent photos, btw. Now, I can start playing with plastic again!

Thanks, again!

Patrick