: Want to buy a MIG 21...cheap?



ABCF
04-06-08, 07:29 PM
Check it out...ready to fly

http://www.raptoraviation.com/aircraft%20spec%20pages/Mig21UM.html

MauiV
04-06-08, 07:59 PM
One of the guys on Maui that owns a few dozen helos was within a hair of buyin a MIG 21 but the deal fell through last second. As an air traffic controller lets just say Im glad he didnt. He did eventually get a powered glider which is a TOTAL PITA to mix with a push of Boeing 767's.

dkozloski
04-06-08, 08:04 PM
The Mig-21s I've seen up close, show some pretty crude workmanship. I don't know if this makes them unsafe but I do know that the contours of the skin more closely resemble a New York garbage can than an F-16.

MauiV
04-06-08, 08:16 PM
Its not the workmanship that concerns most. Its pilots who fly stuff that starts with a November getting ahold of the throddles to way to fast a plane with way to slow a brain to keep up. I see guys everyday that struggle with Barrons and Panthers let alone a fighter. Most Bonanza pilots are in over their heads, thats why they call them Dr. Caskets.

dkozloski
04-06-08, 09:00 PM
Its not the workmanship that concerns most. Its pilots who fly stuff that starts with a November getting ahold of the throddles to way to fast a plane with way to slow a brain to keep up. I see guys everyday that struggle with Barrons and Panthers let alone a fighter. Most Bonanza pilots are in over their heads, thats why they call them Dr. Caskets.
I owned and flew a Beech Bonanza for years. I figured there was no way I was going to get hurt in the crash because I was always about half a mile behind the plane. I also had a Cessna 180 on floats and a Howard DGA-15P.

CIWS
04-06-08, 10:27 PM
The Migs may look rough but they're actually pretty solid. The back seat in those has crap visibility.

dkozloski
04-06-08, 11:38 PM
When the Mig-25 Foxbat was flown out of Russia to Japan the American experts were surprised by the brown stains all over it. They were even more amazed to find that instead of being made from titanium like the SR-71, it was made from sheet iron and the brown stains were rust. In fact their impression of the whole thing was so bad that at first they were sure it was a scam, that the Russians were putting them on with a badly made fake.

I've seen the Stolichnaya Vodka Mig-17s in several air shows and the afterburners are laughable. The flame is orange and the whole thing has the look of a fake. In contrast, when you light off the burner in an F-16 the flame is blue to invisible and it really looks and sounds like it's doing something.

When India got pissed off at the U.S. over our relationship with Pakistan they decided to show us and they bought Migs from Russia. The folly of the move caught them between the eyes when they found out that the Russian turbine engines lasted hundreds of hours vs. the tens of thousands of hours they were getting from American and British engines.

The landing speed of the Mig-21 is so high that they normally deploy a drogue chute to get the thing slowed down before the brakes burn up.

Florian
04-07-08, 12:13 AM
note that the avionics package is only Navcom w/ILS.....youd need to dump 15-20K into the panel alone. Also, its needs its annual (and likely a hot section) so chalk up another 20-25K....

Hoo fah....


F

CIWS
04-07-08, 07:31 PM
I've seen the Stolichnaya Vodka Mig-17s in several air shows and the afterburners are laughable. The flame is orange and the whole thing has the look of a fake. In contrast, when you light off the burner in an F-16 the flame is blue to invisible and it really looks and sounds like it's doing something.

You're comparing a F-16's engine to a Mig-17s designed in the 1940s ? Come on Koz :)



The landing speed of the Mig-21 is so high that they normally deploy a drogue chute to get the thing slowed down before the brakes burn up.

Not uncommon for fighters and interceptors who went into service in the mid/late 50s and were Mach 2 capable. Just like the F-104 Starfighter, to be capable of that performance the planes had thin wings and overall surface area requiring high landing speeds and long runways.

CIWS
04-07-08, 07:33 PM
note that the avionics package is only Navcom w/ILS.....youd need to dump 15-20K into the panel alone. Also, its needs its annual (and likely a hot section) so chalk up another 20-25K....

Hoo fah....


F


:true: and it's probably all still in Russian.

dkozloski
04-07-08, 08:12 PM
You're comparing a F-16's engine to a Mig-17s designed in the 1940s ? Come on Koz

Substitute F-94C for F-16 and it's still the same observation. All you can see coming out of the Mig is smoke and out of the F-94C(first U.S. jet with an afterburner) you see blue Mach diamonds. The Mig is as crude as hammered poop.

CIWS
04-09-08, 11:25 AM
Substitute F-94C for F-16 and it's still the same observation. All you can see coming out of the Mig is smoke and out of the F-94C(first U.S. jet with an afterburner) you see blue Mach diamonds. The Mig is as crude as hammered poop.

Hmm, my friend owned a Mig-17 for a while and I don't remember it being too much different than his F-100. Certainly not the same but still spewed a red/orange flame in burner with very little smoke until it came out of burner (f-100) then it left a black smoke trail like many of the early jet fighters.

Here's a guy flying his with several burner passes and takeoff

Jb9mrTZqZXI


Here's my friend's F100 flying and in takeoff w/burner.

Q1k5H4PZtzE


However Migs were designed to be simple and functional. Easy to maintain and CHEAP to build in large numbers. Unlike American aircraft which were more complex and expensive.

dkozloski
04-09-08, 12:10 PM
Hmm, my friend owned a Mig-17 for a while and I don't remember it being too much different than his F-100. Certainly not the same but still spewed a red/orange flame in burner with very little smoke until it came out of burner (f-100) then it left a black smoke trail like many of the early jet fighters.

Here's a guy flying his with several burner passes and takeoff

Jb9mrTZqZXI


Here's my friend's F100 flying and in takeoff w/burner.

Q1k5H4PZtzE


However Migs were designed to be simple and functional. Easy to maintain and CHEAP to build in large numbers. Unlike American aircraft which were more complex and expensive.
When you're looking up the tailpipe of a Mig-17 and then a comparable American jet when they are both on afterburner it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that there is something much more intense going on in the American burner. The difference is that the American burner is made from an alloy that tolerates a leaner and therefore much hotter mixture. It's interesting to note that just before the collapse of the USSR, the Russians completed an upgrade of their commercial fleet to where the engines became as efficient as those in the original Boeing 707s that went out of service years before. The Mig 17 has a range of less than 300 miles without external tankage because of the extreme consumption of fuel. A reciprocating engine is a mechanical monstrosity. A turbine is a metallurgical monstrosity. The incorporation of a metal alloy that will allow the engine to operate at even slightly higher temperatures increases the efficiency markedly.

An extreme example was the Mig-25 Foxbat. In a single, 10 minute, full throttle, blast the aircraft would be out of fuel and the engines would be turned to scrap from the heat. In contrast, the SR-71 which went into service in 1964 would cruise for hours on end at well over 2000MPH.

The efficiency of Russian turbine engines has never remotely approached that of their western counterparts because of deficiencies in alloys.

dkozloski
04-09-08, 01:19 PM
After Peristroyka and Glastnos got going good some FAA inspectors went to Russia for some ridealongs with Aeroflot. The first thing they noticed was that the aircraft were being flown at significantly higher Mach numbers than their American counterparts and they assumed they were seeing aerodynamic superiority in action. When they got back and reported what they had seen they were informed that what they were seeing was a disregard for the possibility of the aircraft breaking up in inadvertant transonic flight by cutting safety margins thin.

MauiV
04-09-08, 01:37 PM
If you and your plane cant competantly do 250 knots, fly commercial. Your in the way.

In case you haven't noticed, I hate dinks. We have a higher percentage of heavy operations than any airport in America (and hub the 9th largest airline in the world, who only owns heavies) and inevidably someone in a C152 wants to come shoot ILS approaches at 60 knots. The best thing about post 9/11 was when all GAs were grounded. Reagan National must have been a dream gig when they were banned.

SWA pilots are my personal favorites. They hit the throddles and get going. Some others sit on my runway and build their courage because apparently 10,000' just isnt quite enough to get their rustbucket heeps off the ground.

Farmer Bob in a Mig is just askin for trouble.

These views are exclusively mine and do not reflect those of any agency or anyone else involved in the process. Unless of course you agree, then your one insightful mofo.

orconn
04-09-08, 02:27 PM
While the MIGs were certainly comparatively crude, they got the job done in combat. And certainly caused American designers to keep on their toes. Soviet tanks were not design and construction marvels either but they certainly kept Western designers moving ahead.

I am not in favor of jet fighter ownership by civilian pilots, i.e. the ongoing training to keep up to legitimate proficiency in this type aircraft is just too time consuming, not to mention expensive for a civilian aviator to afford.

dkozloski
04-09-08, 02:32 PM
If you and your plane cant competantly do 250 knots, fly commercial. Your in the way.

In case you haven't noticed, I hate dinks. We have a higher percentage of heavy operations than any airport in America (and hub the 9th largest airline in the world, who only owns heavies) and inevidably someone in a C152 wants to come shoot ILS approaches at 60 knots. The best thing about post 9/11 was when all GAs were grounded. Reagan National must have been a dream gig when they were banned.

SWA pilots are my personal favorites. They hit the throddles and get going. Some others sit on my runway and build their courage because apparently 10,000' just isnt quite enough to get their rustbucket heeps off the ground.

Farmer Bob in a Mig is just askin for trouble.

These views are exclusively mine and do not reflect those of any agency or anyone else involved in the process. Unless of course you agree, then your one insightful mofo.
Just vector the little guys into a mountain or out to sea and they're out of your hair.

CIWS
04-09-08, 09:53 PM
The Mig 17 has a range of less than 300 miles without external tankage because of the extreme consumption of fuel.

The Soviets had a completely different game plan than the west when it came to their fighter aircraft and how they would handle intruders. They would tend to scramble and engage the enemy for short periods of time near their bases using GCI and then break it off and return. Many of their early fighters were built on this premise. Not for long term patrols over great distances and extended "dogfights" unlike the west. The Soviet "Top Gun" training for the Mig-21 was to simply scramble, fly up to meet the enemy aircraft, and engage with their missiles for a few passes and then return to base. You can look at them and judge them with western eyes all day long and say their tech was junk or whatever you want Koz. But it was the way they chose to deal with the west and they built their military around their concepts of fighting not ours. Low cost and in large numbers.


An extreme example was the Mig-25 Foxbat. In a single, 10 minute, full throttle, blast the aircraft would be out of fuel and the engines would be turned to scrap from the heat. In contrast, the SR-71 which went into service in 1964 would cruise for hours on end at well over 2000MPH.

Again you compare two completely different types of aircraft with different missions to try and make one of their planes look so inferior. Apples to oranges.
The Mig-25 was originally designed and built to intercept a bomber flying at high altitude at Mach 3 and do a quick engagement with AA missiles. In typical Soviet design of the time the aircraft was purpose built, for as cheap as possible to accomplish it's designed mission. Get to altitude, intercept a Mach 3 bomber and engage it with missiles, then return. Nothing beyond that, and over 1000 of them were built that were able to do just that.

MauiV
04-09-08, 10:02 PM
the way they chose to deal with the west and they built their military around their concepts of fighting not ours. Low cost and in large numbers.

The T-72 tanks proved that crap in quantity is no match against an opponent with enough machines with quality.

The sheer number of crappy weapons needed to overwealm their superior counterparts is astronomical. Ask Egypt, Syria and Jordan how well their superior numbers worked out against superior equipment. About 6 days.

CIWS
04-09-08, 10:18 PM
The T-72 tanks proved that crap in quantity is no match against an opponent with enough machines with quality.

The sheer number of crappy weapons needed to overwealm their superior counterparts is astronomical. Ask Egypt, Syria and Jordan how well their superior numbers worked out against superior equipment. About 6 days.

We never engaged the Soviets who had the real numbers. All we've ever seen is other countries who bought their equipment, and didn't use it the way it was intended.

dkozloski
04-09-08, 10:27 PM
The Soviets had a completely different game plan than the west when it came to their fighter aircraft and how they would handle intruders. They would tend to scramble and engage the enemy for short periods of time near their bases using GCI and then break it off and return. Many of their early fighters were built on this premise. Not for long term patrols over great distances and extended "dogfights" unlike the west. The Soviet "Top Gun" training for the Mig-21 was to simply scramble, fly up to meet the enemy aircraft, and engage with their missiles for a few passes and then return to base. You can look at them and judge them with western eyes all day long and say their tech was junk or whatever you want Koz. But it was the way they chose to deal with the west and they built their military around their concepts of fighting not ours. Low cost and in large numbers.



Again you compare two completely different types of aircraft with different missions to try and make one of their planes look so inferior. Apples to oranges.
The Mig-25 was originally designed and built to intercept a bomber flying at high altitude at Mach 3 and do a quick engagement with AA missiles. In typical Soviet design of the time the aircraft was purpose built, for as cheap as possible to accomplish it's designed mission. Get to altitude, intercept a Mach 3 bomber and engage it with missiles, then return. Nothing beyond that, and over 1000 of them were built that were able to do just that.
I prefer to think that the Russians were forced to use the tactics they did because their stuff was junk and wouldn't do any better. Our stuff did everything theirs did plus we were able to project power all over the Earth because our stuff was built for the long haul. In the end, we were right and they were wrong. The F-15 has never been beaten in combat no matter who was flying it.

CIWS
04-09-08, 10:40 PM
In the end, we were right and they were wrong.

You're speaking in terms of politics and economics. Luckily we never saw a full blown engagement of forces to really tend that statement. Plus as you'll notice as of late it may not be over yet. The price of a barrel of oil has been putting a lot more money in their pockets.

dkozloski
04-09-08, 11:44 PM
I saw the statement a while back that the total Russian economy is not as big as that of the state of California. As far as GNP ranking, it is way down at the bottom of the list. They were destroyed by communism and it'll take generations to recover.

CIWS
04-10-08, 08:51 AM
They could probably recover a lot quicker if the government wasn't so corrupt.

dkozloski
04-10-08, 09:51 AM
I read several articles that stated that the only people in Russia that understand the free enterprise system were the Russian gangsters. The rest have no concept of property rights, personal ownership, and personal initiative. Since there is no way for big investors to be able to control their property or projects, and no civil legal system to redress wrongs they have to work through the Russian Mafia.

dkozloski
04-10-08, 09:56 AM
CIWS is right about the Russian air defense system. The Russian military could never get beyond the idea of total central control and were afraid that if the aircraft had suficient range everybody would defect to the west like Victor Belenko. They built tremendous amounts of servicable but crude weapons that were expendable just like their troops.

MauiV
04-10-08, 11:29 PM
We never engaged the Soviets who had the real numbers. All we've ever seen is other countries who bought their equipment, and didn't use it the way it was intended.

You think a Soviet at the wheel is goona get a few hundred more yards out of a round than an Iraqi? I have friends that were tank commanders in Gulf 1 and they laugh at how in efficient the T-72s were. Thet were sitting ducks and target practicce for the Abrams. Unless the T-72's could advance faster that a M1A1 can fire it isnt even a contest.

My better is better than your better.

dkozloski
04-11-08, 12:14 AM
In some of the major tank battles the Iraquis never got off a shot. Their sighting and fire control systems were so far outranged they were totally helpless. The Russian stuff was junk.
The Americans might as well have been playing video games with a bunch of stooges.

hueterm
04-11-08, 01:03 AM
Also, isn't it the case that the T72 can't fire while moving? Range notwithstanding, that's a HUGE disadvantage.

Spyder
04-11-08, 01:32 AM
You think a Soviet at the wheel is goona get a few hundred more yards out of a round than an Iraqi? I have friends that were tank commanders in Gulf 1 and they laugh at how in efficient the T-72s were. Thet were sitting ducks and target practicce for the Abrams. Unless the T-72's could advance faster that a M1A1 can fire it isnt even a contest.

My better is better than your better.


No, but a dozen Abrams against a hundred and fifty T-72's might not be too happy...

dkozloski
04-11-08, 02:28 AM
No, but a dozen Abrams against a hundred and fifty T-72's might not be too happy...
I saw a program on the history channel where it was 16 Abrams against 120 T-72s dug in hull down in the middle of the night and the battle lasted about twenty minutes. There were no surviving T-72s and no disabled Abrams. In the whole Gulf war there were no Abrams tanks to receive a disabling hit.

The U.S. had lousy tanks for fifty years and finally decided to do something about it. The Abrams was the result and it is magnificent. It went through a period of development and got some deserved criticism. They went back and fixed the problems and the result is an unbeatable machine. The guys that man them are the best in the world at what they do. Every battle exercise they perform is against heavy odds and on unfavorable terrain. They'd have done the same to the Russians and the Russians know it. Why do you think they threw in the towel?

trukk
04-11-08, 11:33 AM
The T-72 tanks proved that crap in quantity is no match against an opponent with enough machines with quality.


You guys ar eforgetting how the crappy but numerous Shemans, but the ass smack on the much better, but fewer Panzers and Tigers in WWII.

Shermans were designed by industrialists, to be made quickly, cheaply and in great numbers.

-Chris

CIWS
04-11-08, 11:41 AM
You think a Soviet at the wheel is goona get a few hundred more yards out of a round than an Iraqi?

Even an inferior weapon in the hands of a capable/trained and determined crew can win the day. The Germans in WWII had a vastly superior weapon in the Tiger and the 88's, and yet the Soviets would still win the day with their masses. It's not just about the weapons platform, but the tactics employed.



I have friends that were tank commanders in Gulf 1 and they laugh at how in efficient the T-72s were. Thet were sitting ducks and target practicce for the Abrams. Unless the T-72's could advance faster that a M1A1 can fire it isnt even a contest.

My better is better than your better.

I do not consider the Iraqi Army and the Russian/Soviet Army of the 80s in the same league as far as training and equipment at their disposal or the tactics each would employ. Just because they have some of the same basic equipment doesn't mean the outcome would be the same.

I'm not saying we wouldn't defeat the Soviets, I'm saying do not simply discount them because the platforms may not be as sophisticated as ours. That is underestimating the enemy and never recommended.

CIWS
04-11-08, 11:50 AM
I saw a program on the history channel where it was 16 Abrams against 120 T-72s dug in hull down in the middle of the night and the battle lasted about twenty minutes. There were no surviving T-72s and no disabled Abrams. In the whole Gulf war there were no Abrams tanks to receive a disabling hit.

The "battle" was one in which the U.S. forces did an end run and surprised the Republican Guard units at night who were not expecting them to be anywhere near. So the U.S. tanks were able to move on them, just outside of their range and bullseye the enemy units. Not exactly the same as massive Soviet tank divisions converging like was expected by us in the Cold War.

MauiV
04-11-08, 11:54 AM
The US plan for a mass of T-72's coming over the horizon into Europe wasnt a tank battle, it was the use of battlefield tactical nukes to decimate those masses.

Rommel seemed to do just fine against the Shermans and Crusaders until Adolph decided he wanted to micromanage his Field Generals. Handcuffed and unable to make decisions doesnt bode well for guys in the field.

CIWS
04-11-08, 12:42 PM
The US plan for a mass of T-72's coming over the horizon into Europe wasnt a tank battle, it was the use of battlefield tactical nukes to decimate those masses.

The use of tactical nukes is a possible option in extreme circumstances. Not the battle plan. Otherwise why waste your budget developing sophisticated and expensive weapons systems to deal with masses when you only plan to nuke them. Much less the problem of starting a nuclear exchange.

MauiV
04-11-08, 01:00 PM
The use of tactical nukes is a possible option in extreme circumstances. Not the battle plan. Otherwise why waste your budget developing sophisticated and expensive weapons systems to deal with masses when you only plan to nuke them. Much less the problem of starting a nuclear exchange.

I didnt develop the plan, Im just sayin what it was. The NATO forces were at a GROSS disadvantage numbers wise during the peak of the Cold War. The development of the M1A1, the F16, the FA18, the A10, the Patriot MDS, the Phoenix missile, the Tomahawk and others were the result of trying to AVOID the only real option NATO had to stop a mass of Red rolling into Germany. The plan was no big secret and the Soviets knew what was waiting for them if they crossed that line. Mutually assured destruction is a powerful deterrent.

The tactical nuke was also in the Soviet plans to be used against the far superior US Naval force. Delivery for Backfire, Blinder, Badger and Bear bombers via the Kitchen, Kingfish, and Kelt missile systems was their only viable option vs a carrier group. Thus the F14 and the Phoenix missile tandem for carrier defense.

dkozloski
04-11-08, 01:01 PM
The tactic to be used against massed Soviet tanks was to be swarms of Wart Hog tank busters and Apache helicopters. In past wars the preferred weapon was artillery. Tank on tank was for mop-up. Masses of tanks on open terrain is a shooting gallery. The Iraquis found that out.

I find it amazing that people still don't want to give our military the credit they deserve for being the best equipped and best trained force the world has ever seen.

Our military trained for years in scenarios that involved being faced with overwhelming odds and learned to successfully deal with it. Our forces made it look easy in Iraq because they were trained and prepared.

Our guys excelled at operating and maneuvering at night where they owned the battlefield and they could unerringly hit what they were shooting at.

CIWS
04-11-08, 01:18 PM
The tactical nuke was also in the Soviet plans to be used against the far superior US Naval force. Delivery for Backfire, Blinder, Badger and Bear bombers via the Kitchen, Kingfish, and Kelt missile systems was their only viable option vs a carrier group. Thus the F14 and the Phoenix missile tandem for carrier defense.

Oscar I and II - Slava and Kirov armed with SS-N-12 and SS-N-19s were their answer to U.S. Carrier battle groups. Again with a tactical nuke as an option in an extreme case.

CIWS
04-11-08, 01:21 PM
I find it amazing that people still don't want to give our military the credit they deserve for being the best equipped and best trained force the world has ever seen.



I think anyone who really knows things, knows this. If not they're in denial or blind with pride.

MauiV
04-11-08, 01:54 PM
Oscar I and II - Slava and Kirov armed with SS-N-12 and SS-N-19s were their answer to U.S. Carrier battle groups. Again with a tactical nuke as an option in an extreme case.

An Oscar class sub sounds like a friggin steel trash can rolling down the street.

One of my bosses was a P-3 pilot in the 70s-80s. The Soviet sub force wouldnt make it 100 miles out of harbor without being on the bottom of the sea floor.

CIWS
04-11-08, 02:12 PM
Oscar IIs were double hulled and had a much quieter propulsion than the Is. But still the Soviets employed different tactics to deal with their more noisy boats. However they were certainly harder to find than any surface ship and they carried more SS-Ns.

Sinister Angel
04-11-08, 05:26 PM
Heh, I was going through my old school work stuff from the Great Lakes Maritime Academy when I went there. Found a powerpoint I did for the Naval Science class I had to take. It was for a presentation on the Ohio Class subs

Here's the title slide. I thought it was witty at the time
http://www.rrfaae.com/dropbox/Ohio%20Class.jpg