Y Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 The Soviet Union’s Jet Fighter of the Fifties Yefim Gordon PROX,Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17 The Soviet Union’s Jet Fighter of the Fifties py Yefim Gordon PORK,‘Mikoyan-Gurevich MIG-17 ‘The Sove! Union's Jet Fighter ofthe ites © 2002 Yetm Gordon ISBN 1 @5780 107 5 Pupiened by Malan Pubiching «4 Wating Ove, Hinkley, LE103EY, England Tet 01455 254490 Fax 01455 254 495 mal: [email protected] Design concept ana iyout © 2002 Migiand Pubihing and Stephen Thompson Associates ictand Pushing isan impxin of lan Alan Pubishing Li Worktwide dstnbuton except North America). ‘Midand Countes Pubcations «4 Wang Drve, Hinckley, LET03EY, England Telephone: 01455 254 450, Fax: 01455 203 737 E-mali mitandoooks@compusere com von miandcountiessuperstore com Printed in England by lan Allan Pring Ls Fierdene Business Park, Molesey Road, Horsham, Suey, KT12.4RG [Allights reserved, No part o this ppubiction may be reprodiced stored in a retieval system, tansmited Inany form or by any means, elocvone, ‘mechanical or pote copie, recorded Croshere, without he weston permission ofthe publishers. Specialy Press Pubishers & Wholesaler nc 11608 Kost Dam Road, North Branch, MN 55056 Tot 651 583:3239 Fax 651 583 2023 Toles telephone: 800 895 4585 “Til page This tate production MIG-17 Fresco-A ‘with 0.88n arbrakes Below: 01 Blue, an early MIG-17 Fresco-A with ‘0.5m irbrakes, i preserved in the museum of the Fussian Air Defence Force's 148th Com ‘and Conversion Training Centre at Savostieyka AB. Very few examples ofthe original production ‘version survive. Sat Yet Gordon archive Contents Introduction: Genealogy Chapters Building a Better Fighter The MiG-17 Family Foreign Production The MiG-17 in Action MiG-17 Operators Worldwide ‘The MiG-17 in Detail End notes MiG-17 in Colour. MiG-17 Family Drawings. 10 “4 59 74 108 113 132‘The design bureau led by Artyom Ivanovich Mikoyan and Mikhail lositovich Gurevich, aka ‘OKB-155' or MMZ' Zenit’ Zenith), had estab lished itself as a ‘fighter maker’ prior to the ‘Second World War. Its fst products to enter production and service - the MiG-1 and MiG-3 highalttude interceptors - were buit on a small scale and overshadowed by the tactical fighters developed by the Yakovlev and Lav- ‘ochkin bureaux, as these were builtin in much ‘reater numbers to suit the needs of the time, When Soviet aviation entered the jet age, however, the Mixoyani/Gurevich OKB was at the foetfont. At first, the other Soviet fight- ‘er design bureaux, OKB-155 tried jet boosters ‘and rocket motors at fist; unlike the other Gesign bureaux, however, these were ‘clean sheet of paper designs, not adaptations of pro- duction models, The 1-250° (manufacturer's esignation izdeliye N)* mixed-power fighter was brought out in 1945. It featured a VROK ‘pseudoturbojet engine’ (vordooshno-reakt ny dvigate’, Kompressoryy) in the tail, the ‘axial compressor being driven via an extension shaft by @ Kimov VK-107R 12-cylinder liquid cooled piston engine which also drove a regu: lar arscrew. This was followed in 1946 by the 270 (izdelye Zh) interceptor powered by @ twin-chamber liquid-uel rocket motor. How- ever, even as design work on these aircraft pro- cgressed the design team realised that pure jet acraf were the way to go. Initially known as the 1.300 (manufacturer's, esignation zdeliye F) and later as the MiG-9 (NATO reporting name Fargo), the Mikoyan (OKB'S fest jet fighter made its maiden fight on 2th April 1946 ~ the fs fight of ajet-powered ‘craft the Soviet Union. I was powered by two RD-20 engines, Soviet copies of the Ger- ‘man BMW 003 turbojet. This was a forced mea- sure intended to save time; true enough, the Soviet aircraft industry was already working on Indigenous turbojet engines, but then the West ‘already had put jet fighters into squadron ser- vee, Catching up with the Westin this respect \was a priory task which could nat wait until the ‘Soviet et engines were brought up to scratch, Init production form (1-30 Vizdelive FS) the MiG-9 became the frst ‘eal jt fighter to enter service wth the Soviet Air Force (WS - Voyen- novazdooshnyye seely). In this context ‘eal’ ‘means that, as far as the W'S was concerned, Yakov fst et fighter ~ the Yak-15 Feather (which entered fight test on the same day as the -300) - was no more than a sort of conver. ‘ion trainer to ease the transition trom piston- Introduction Genealogy engined fighters to jets due to its rather dis appointing performance. Other contemporary Soviet jet fighters created by Aleksandr S Yakoview's OKB-115, Semyon A Lavochkin’s (0KB.201, PavelO Sukho’s OKB.5t and Sernyon M Alekseyev's OKB-21 fared even worse reaching only the prototype stage. The MiG-9 ‘was also the frst Soviet jet fighter to achieve expor status, asmall number ofthese machines being delivered to the People's Republic of China. Yet once again the MiG-9 was a rather ‘obscure type builtin limited numbers. ‘The next type developed by OKB-155, how: ‘ever, was so successtul that it brought Mikoyan world fame (or notoriety. depending on which side ofthe Iron Curtain you were on), becom: ing for many years a symbol of the Soviet Threat. Powered by a 2:270kgp (5,004-Ibst) Rolls-Royce Nene I turbojet, the fist prototype ofthe L310 (zdeliveS) light tactical fighter made its first fight on December 30, 1947. After some ‘minor redesign the aircraft entered production land service with the Soviet Ai Force in 1948, fas the MiG-15 Fagot (izdeliye SV) with the RD-ASF, a licence-bul version of the Nene IL" In ts day the MiG-15 was a high-perfor mance aicrat with good manewverabilty and ‘an excellent rate of climb. twas heavily armed with two 23-mm (90 calibre) Nude maniSoora ‘nov NS-23KM cannons to port and one 37mm (1.45 calibre) Nude man N-37 cannon to star ‘board. Though having a faily low rate offre, they packed a tremendous punch and were very lethal, especially for slow and ponderous bombers which could not get out of the way ‘Quickly. Ingeniously, the cannons and their ‘ammunition boxes were neatly mounted on a single tray under the cockpit. Tis tray could be winched down quickly by means of a hand crank and four pulleys for reloading and main- ‘tenance, reducing turnaround time dramatically ‘As a bonus, this arrangement piaced the can- ‘non muzzies well aft ofthe air intake lip, pre- venting blast gas ingestion and engine surge. ‘The engineers obviously learned from experi- fence with the MiG-9 where the protruding can- ‘non, one of which was mounted inthe intake spittor, caused the engines to flame out when they were fred The fighter evolved into several versions the bestknown of which were the MiG-15bis FagotB (izdelye SD) tactical ighter powered by a 2.700kgp (5.952:Ibst) VK-1 turbojet" land the UTFMiG-'S Midget advanced trainer (1312, izdeliye ST-1 and ST-2). Over the years the design was progressively improved: for instance, on the MIG-15bis the NS-23KMs with ‘.550"pm rate of fire soon gave way to Nude! ‘man/Rikhter NR-23 cannons of identical calibre which offered a much higher rate of fre (850 rounds per minute) for vitually no increase in ‘eight, and more effective airorakes were intro: duced. The fighter proved tobe quite versatile serving such roles as ground attack (fighter: ‘bomber, tactical photo reconnaissance. long: range escon and even target towing, to say ‘nothing of the numerous weapons and avin: Jes testbeds and other research and develop- ment versions The MiG-15 was built in huge numbers at nine () factories in the Soviet Union, as well as under licence in China, Czechoslovakia and Poland: Soviet production alone totalled no fewer than 13,181 copies! The aircraft was 50 successful that it paved the way for Mikoyan (and generally Soviet) fighter design for the rent decade, “The Fagot was to have along service career both at home and abroad, participating in quite ‘a few conflicts around the world, the best known of which is undoubtedly the Korean War (of 1950-53. The MIG-15 also saw aot of action Inthe Midgle East ~and on home ground, inter Ccepting and destroying Western spypianes which intruded into Soviet airspace quite tre ‘quently during the 1950s and 1960s. The MiG’s combat debut in Korea was a rude shock to the Wester world: when the fighter had made is first pubic appearance at Moscow's Tushino airfield in August 1948, ‘Western exper dismissed itas ‘Russian, ergo substandard’ and there was hell to pay for this approach. Early straight wing jt fighters lke the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, Republic F-84 Thunderjt and Gloster Meteor F8 stood virtually no chances against the ‘MiG Menace it was not until the MiG-15's nearest Western equivalent, the North American F-86 Sabre, arrived on the scene that things began to change. (Like the MiG-15, the F-86 also took to the air in 1947 (on 1st October), entered pro: duction in 1948 and was built by the thousand inits home countries and abroad.) Even so, the [MiG and the Sabre were quite a match foreach ‘other when flown by experienced pilots: alot depended on tactics, experience and the pilots’ personal qualities. This was shown to ‘Good effect by the famous test plot Charles ‘Chuck’ Yeager who evaluated a MiG-15bis captured in Korea ‘According to USAF specialists, the MiG-15 ‘was a wel-bui and reliable combat accra but mot? 3with no finesse such as special uel, now struc: tural materials or other innovations. Western ‘experts noted that the aircraft was lighter than Contemporary swept-wing fighters (35% lighter than the F-86F and 47% lighter than the Hawker Hunter). They liked the neat weapons arrange- ‘ment and ease of engine change but erticized the MiG's oversized inlet, low rate of fire and lack ofa gun ranging radar which reduced the chances ofa ‘kill ‘The MiG-15 soon earned a good reputation forrugged simpy, relabilty, ease of mainte ‘nance and the ability to take alot of punishment allinvaluable qualities in awar. The nickname bestowed on it by its pilots and ground crews, ‘samolyotsoldaht (solder aircraft), has to be regarded as the utimate praise, ‘Sil, people are never quite happy with what they have. Faced with the need to counter the threat posed by new fighter jets under devel ‘opment in the USA and their NATO alles, the Soviet Air Force demanded higher peror ‘mance, This could be achieved by developing ‘anall-new fighter or by redesigning the existing MiG-16 (instaling a more powerful engine, Increasing wing sweep to increase speed etc) The Mikoyan OKB chose both ways. The sec: ‘ond, evolutionary approach produced the fighter which is the subject ofthis book - the MiG-17; 2 fighter which equalled the fame of is prede- ‘cessor and saw no less action than the MiG-15 Acknowledgements The author wishes to express his gratitude to the following persons who have contributed 10 the making of this book: Fest of ll as usual, | would like to thank the translator, Dmitry S Komissarov, without whose work and assistance the book would never have appeared. ‘Also, my thanks goto Nigel Eastaway, one of the leaders of the Russian Aviation Research Trust, who provided a lot of valuable informa- tion on Chinese icence-buit MiGs, and Helmut Walther ana Keith Dexter who supplied photos which would otherwise hardly be obtainable. olow: This MIG-T7 Fresco-A,a gate guard at ‘one o the Russian Air Force's fighter bases, aphicaly shows the scimitar wing shape. Russian Language and Transiteration The Russian language is phonetic - pronounced as ‘iter, or as een. Translating intaEnglsh gvesrie tomany problems and the vast majorty of hese arise because Engish is nol a sraightlorward language, wah many pitfls of pronunciation! fccardingy. Russian words must be tarsated trough fo a phonetic form of Engish and this can Teadto citlerent ways of helping the racer pronoun what he sees. Every effort has been mace to stan dardso ths, but nevably variations will occu While reacing trom source to source tis might seem con fusing andlor inaceurat but ie the name as pro: nounced hat sthe constancy, not the speling of hat “The 20 eter ofthe Russian (Cyril) alphabet looks very much ike a Y buts pronounced as a U ‘Another example ie the tan of thought that Russ lan words ending in y ae perhaps beter spet out as Yio underine the pronunciation, bu ti fo that ‘most Wester speakers woud have problems geting ‘hoe tongues around tis! ‘This sa good example of the sot of problem that some Wester sources have sured rom in te past {and occasional even today) when they make the ‘mental leap about what they see approximating to an English eter.(Chapter One Building a Better Fighter ‘The MIG-17's descent is patently obvious ln there vows; was not for nathing the aircraft was known as MIG-15b/¢ 45" Another arly ‘esignation was 1-290, Mikoyan OK 1-330 (MIG-15bis 45°) ‘experimental fightor (i2deliye SI) ‘Tne success ofthe MIG-15 convinced OKB-155 leaders Arlyom | Mikoyan and Mikhail | Gure- vich thatthe evolutionary approach they had taken with this fighter was a good one. Now (0KB-155 began the next stage inthe evolution ofthe Fagot, mating the fuselage, tail unit and VK: turbojet ofthe MiG-15bis with new wings ‘swopt back 45" at quarter-chord instead of 35 This promised an improvement in performance atthe expense of minimum changes in design ‘and manufacturing technology. Besides, the Soviet leaders, including the ‘omnipotent lost V Stalin, also favoured the evo- lutionary approach. The other Soviet fighter ‘makers ~ the Yakovlev and Lavochkin design ‘bureaux - repeatedly approached the govern. ‘ment, proposing new fighter types, but Stalin's reaction was invariably the same: ‘We've got a {good tighter, the MiG-15, and there's no point in developing new fighters in the near future Let's concentrate on upgrading the MiG. Hence in erly 1949 the Council of Ministers issued a drectve tasking the Mikoyan OKB withthe development of an improved MiG-15 in ‘two basic versions - a ‘normal’ tactical fighter ‘and a radar-equipped allweather interceptor (whichis described separately). Continuing the line of fighter-type service designations, the ‘irectve refered tothe new fighter as the 330 ‘a. designation that was hardly used at al The redesigned wings were the principal new feature of the 330. Since the aircraft was based on the Fagot, the day fighter version received the manufacturer's designation ‘adel SI, the | probably standing fr zmeny- ‘onnoye (altered). Unsurprisingly, it was also known initally as the MiG-15bis 45° or MG. 15b\s ‘strela 45° (pronounced sirelah — it. ‘arrow 45}; the latter appellation was technical slang, since the Russian term fr wing sweep is stelovidnost ‘The SI (MiG-15bis 45°) was not the st Soviet aircraft to have 45" wing sweep; tis distinction belonged to the Lavochkin La-176 experimen: tal fighter, a spinoff ofthe La-tS Fantail which entored fight test in September 1948. (The L176 also gained the distinction of being the fist Soviet airrat to break the sound barre, reaching Mach 1.02 in a shallow dive on 26th December 1948 with | Ye Fyodorov at the con- trols and later also in horizontal fight at the hands of Fyodorov and O V Sokolovskiy) ‘Such wings were also being tested by TSAGI! (Tsentrahtnyy aero- i ghidrodinameecheskiy insttoot ~ Central Aerodynamics & Hydro dynamics Institute named alter Nikolay Ye Zhukovskiy) at the time, using wind tunnel morsmodels and gliding models. Adcitional data had been obtained with the B-5 rocket-pow- feted transonic research aircraft developed by Matus Ruvimovich Bisnovat and the DFS 346 rocket-powered Mach 2.5 research aircraft hich was captured in almost complete cond tion by the end of the war and tested in the ussR. Mikoyan engineers went one step further than the others in choosing wing planform. The SI's wings had a scimitar shape, although Rowhere nearly as pronounced as on the Han- dley Page HP.80 Victor bomber. Sweep at {uarter-chord was 45°on the inboard halt-span and 42" outboard leading edge sweep was 49 and 45° 30 respectively). This was done both for aerodynamic. balancing purposes (to Feduce the danger of tip stall) and to ensure maximum commonality with the MIG-15 (the root ribjfuselage attachment points wore the same on the MiG-18 and the S), The kinkin the traling edge at the root became more pro- nounced than on the MG-15 and the unswept portion ofthe traling edge adjacentto the fuse lage was much bigger ‘Wing area was increased from the MiG-15's 206m" (221.5) to 226m" (243.0h") and fanhedral from 2° to 2°: incidence remained Unchanged at 1. The wings utlised new arols (TsAGI §-12S at the root and TSAGI SR-11 at the tip). Aspect ratio and wing taper were 6 Mor lower than on the MiG-15 4.08 and 1.23 versus 4.85 and 1.61 respectively), while mean aero dynamic chord was increased from 2.12m (64114) to 2.19m (78 2%). The wingtips were more rounded than the MiG-15's; an extra pair of boundary layer fences was fited on the inner wings to limit spanwise flow, increasing the total number to ‘ix and the wingyfuselage joint carefully faired at the traling edge. These measures were aimed at improving the aircraft's itto-drag ‘ratio. The ailerons had internal aerodynamic balances and the port one incorporated a trim tab. Finally, the wing structure was stitfened by Using thicker skins. Mikoyan had learned theie lesson withthe MiG-15 which had a tendency to drop a wing at high speed, called vaozhka ln Pussian and caused caused by torsional stifiness asymmetry in the port and starboard wings. The problom was a result of the learning ‘curve during inital production; a lengthy ‘ant vafozhka’ research programme had to be undertaken to cue it The forward fuselage up to the fuselage ‘break point (rame 13) was identical to that of the MIG-15bis. The aft uselage was new, being ‘900mm (2ft11in) longer; total fuselage length was 8.805m (281 tin). Originally the airbrakes were oniy a itl larger than on early Fagot Bs, wth an area of 0.522m* (6.61) each; maximum Collection was 50° versus 55° on the MiG-16. “These views ofthe MIG-17 first prototype (SI-1) clearly show the new sharply-swept wings with 8 cranked leading eage and adaltional boundary layer fenees.iikoyan OKB ‘The airbrakes were rectangular and placed low fn the aft fuselage sides some way ahead of the engine nozzle. They were to function pri marily as dive brakes during bombing (Soviet pilots fighting in Korea noted that the Fagot AB's airbrakes were of litle use during airto ‘ic combat) Vertical tail area was enlarged slightly rom 4.01 (43.01 10 4 26m’ (45.8) but in leading: ‘edge sweep remained unchanged at 55° 41 ‘The horizontal tail, however, was new, with 45 leading-edge sweep instead of 40°, a span of £3.18m (1oR 5¥n) and an area of 3.1m (&3.34°) versus 3.0m" (32.25). A small ventral fn with {an integral tll bumper was added to improve irectional stability. The airrame made large: scale use of the new V95 aluminium alloy. There were no major changes 1 the control system as compared to the MiG-15bis. The control surfaces were actuated by push-pull ‘ods and the ailerons were powered, with asin ‘le 8-7 hydraulic actuator installed inthe cock: pit immediately aft ofthe ejection seat, just ike ‘on the updated frst production MiG-15 (con- struction number 101003) used for develop- ‘ment purposes and on the MiG-15bisP (delve ‘SP-1) experimental interceptor ~ a much-mod: led Fago-A (cin 102005)" equipped with the Toy (Thorium) radar. Inthe course ofthe fight tests the shape of the elevator leading edges was changed trom elliptical to circular. Two rubber fel cells holding 1,250 litres and 150 lites (275 and 33 Imperial gallons) were located inthe centre fuselage and installed via special access hatches: total fuel capacity Including the engine feoder tank, was 1,412 lies (10.64 Imperial gallons). The fuel cells ‘wore positioned in such a way that fuel burnott {id not affect CG position. There were provi: sions for two 400-ire (88 Imperial gallons) ‘drop tanks. The SI's armament was almost identical to that of the MiG-15bis, consisting of one N-37 ‘cannon with 40 rounds and two NA-23s with ‘80rp9. The heavy cannons were intended pri marly for destroying American heavy ‘bombers. For strike missions the wing hard: points could be used for carrying 100-kg or 250-kg (22010 or 551-1b) bombs. AS on the Fagot, there was an $-18 gun camera on the intake upper lip and provisions for an AFA reconnaissance camera (aerofotoapparaht — ‘aerial camera) inthe forward fuselage. The plat was protected by two 10mm (0.39in) armour plates upfront, a 10mm armored headrest and ‘6mm (2.36in) bulletproof windscreen ‘The avionics suite was identical to that of the MiG-15bis - an RSIS Kiyon (Maple) UHF radio (RSI-BM receiver and RSI-6K transmitter) an SRO-1 Batiy-M (Barium-M) identification ‘tiend-oroe (FF) transponder, an RPKO-10M direction finder and an OSP-48 instrumentallancing system (ILS). The later comprised an ARK.5 Amur (arverin the Soviet Far East; pro ‘nounced like the French word amour) automat ‘ec direction finder, an RV-2 Kristal (Crystal) lowrange rio altimeter and an MRP-48 Dya- tel (Woodpecker) marker beacon receiver." The ‘ground part ofthe system included two range beacons, three marker beacons, communica tions radios and an HF or VHF radio direction finder ofacltate approach and landing in bad weather. The ILS was fairly simple and had few components, which rendered the ground part stable for use on ad hoc tactical aie (in truck-mounted form). Electric equipment was powered by a 3-kilowatt GS-3000 startr-gen- feator and a 124-30 DC battery, ‘Asaresultof these changes the S's litidrag ratio deteriorated to 12.6 (compared to the FagotA's 18.9). Hence, wth an equal fuel load, the aircraft had 35km (18.9nm) shorter range than the Fagot. In early 1949 the Mikoyan OKB's experimen- tal shop (MMZ No15s) began construction of two S! prototypes followed shorty afterwards by ated aircraft SP-2 interceptor configura- tion (see next chapter). Designated SI-1, the first prototype of the day fighter version was completed in July 1949. However, the process ‘leining it and applying th finishing touches ‘ragged on for several months and it was ‘not until December that the aircraft was trucked to Mikoyan's fight test facility at the Fight Research Institute (Lil - Lyotno-issle- dovateskiy insttoot) in Zhukovskiy near Moscow. IT vaschchenko (Hero ofthe Soviet Union) was assigned project test pilot. He was one of the first four Soviet pilots to gain the HSU title, receiving it for his contribution to jet aircraft <éevelopmentin the USSR. Among other things, he was actively involved in the MIG-18's trials, otably in ejection seat tests, and knew many cfthe quirks ofthe early jets; thus, the SI-t was in good hands. A F Toorchkov was the engi eer in charge of the test programme ‘The VK-t turbojet fited to the SI-t turned cut to be detective, and the fist fight did nat take place unt 14th January 1950. At an early stage of the intial fight test programme Iaschchenko reported that the aircraft was some 40kmin (21.62k's) faster than the pro- uction Fagot-8. Alot of refinements was made to the prototype in the course of the manutac- ‘ure’ fight tess (eg, various joints were care: fully sealed to reduce drag, increasing top speed stl further). On 1st February the SI-1 reached 1,114kmh (602.16Kts) at 2.200m (7.218R); top speed at 10,200m (3.464%) was 1,077Amih (582.16k's) oF Mach 1.0. The Slwas superior othe production MiG-1bi in almost every aspect of basic performance. ‘The concluding stage of the manufacturer's tials involved several sessions of aerobatics, since aerobatics in fast jets were stil almost Luntrodden ground at the time. On 17th March 1950 laschchenko took off on yet another test fight. Having climbed to 11,000m (36,089) Fst protaype’s perfomance specticatons _—-aruacuers estimates Testesuts “Tepspeed. kmh is) ast 1.82 6227) na 2 2000m (5th) fa 112,601.08) 2200m (7.218) na 114 60236) 135,000m (164088) 1182 6281) 1110(6000) s10000m 2.08) 1.16 60029 1080 66755) 2 10.2t0m (3.468) na 1977 58218) Lancing speed mh ts) 15985) na Tieto heght, me: 105.0 (16088) 20 20 to 10000m G2—0et) “ 52 Fata ct imo, mse tn ast 5130.00) 20/9480) 85.00 (16088) 5507000) 5 (6600) a togtom aoe) 22516400) 135 5460) Serioe cing) 6.00 (5249 1560066.18) Turing time at 00m 3.280, se a na ange at 1000m (28068) mr) ontteral ue ony 1200 68)* 182 874)¢ win rp anes 1570 @8)* na Exdsance cise at 100m (32806 es oniieral uel ny 19° na wih roptanks am a Maxum endvance, ‘nitrate ony 188 na wih rp tanks 254 a Takeotun mt) 0 (1640) na Leng mt) eo) na Tee 00h) ft OH BS) ‘and completed the day's programme, he reported that the aircraft was behaving as usual ‘and began his descent. At §,000m (16,404n) the S-1 suddenly entered a steep dive and crashed, kiling the pilot ‘The aircraft had hit the ground at enormous ‘speed, disintegrating utterly and digging a large crater. Disaster had struck so suddenly that even Wvaschchenko, a highly experienced pilot, ad no time to contact the tower, and the wreckage told very litle about the cause ofthe ‘rash, Whatever had kiled vaschchenko could ‘only be discovered by continuing the fight tests. The first prototype's performance is ind ‘cated in the table above. Some of the SI's Characteristics remained undetermined, as, measurements had not been taken before the crash Even before Ivaschchenko's accident Arty: ‘om | Mikoyan had asked Gheorgiy A Sedov, a test pilot withthe Air Force Research Institute (NIIWS -Nagochno-ssledovatelskiyinsttoot voyenno-vozdooshrykh see) 10 work for (OKB-155. Sedov had been at odds with the institute's leadership for some time, and he wil ingly accepted the offer. In March 1850 Sedov resumed the fight test programme with the second prototype designated S1-2 which had been completed at MMZNo 156 early inthe year. ‘According to OKB documents dated 14th March 1950 the SL2 had an empty weight of 3,646kg (8.0881), a normal all-up weight of §5,050kg (11,1936) and amaximum allup weight, (AWW) of 5 480g (12,081 Ib). The internal fuel load was 1.200kg (2.645.510), increasing to 1,600kg (3527 lb) with drop tanks; normal pay- load was 1,404 (3,095!b) and maximum pay- load with drop tanks 1,894kg (4,043 0). Thus, despite the extensive structural changes, the ‘St-2 was only marginally heavier than the pro- duction MiG-18bis (the Fagot-8 had an empty weight of 3,651kg/8,0491b and a normal AUW (of 5,044Kg/11,1201b). The second prototype's ppayloadnake-off weight ratio was 27.8%, wing loading was 223kg/m’ (,084Ibft) and thrust loading 1.87Kq/kgp (bios. “Trials ofthe St-2 continued throughout 1950. Construction ofthe next two tactical fighter pro: totypes designated S101 and SI-02 did not ‘begin until January 1951. Actually these were pre-production aircraft; they were manufac: tured to Mikoyan OKB specications by the Gorkiy aircraft factory No21 named after ‘Sergo Ordzhonikidze* The St-01 and Sio2 were built under the in-house product code ‘adele 58’ and had a complete avionics and ‘equipment package. Thus the MiG-18bis 45° which was to be redesignated yet - beat the 'MiG-15bisR (ne tactical photo reconnaissance version of the Fagot) to the Gorkiy produc- tion line, which is why the latter aircraft was ‘ven a higher product code, izdeiye 55 The second pre-production aircraft (S102) laid down on 15th January was completed with in a month and rolled out on 16th February ahead ofthe frst aircraft Interestingly, despite the ‘new-bull' c/n 54210102, itcarried a serial which did nat match, 671 Red, revealing that mor 7the aircraft had been bult using the forward fuselage of a MIG-15bis with the construction ‘number 62210671!" The SLO2 was then dis ‘mantled and delivered to Lil by land, becoming the thied MiG-15bis 45° tot. (Speaking of serials in the early 1950s Sov et fighters Nad three- or four-digit seria num- bers. These allowed more ot less positive Identification, since they tied in with the air rat's construction number — usually the last ‘one or two digits ofthe batch number plus the ‘number ofthe aircrat in the batch. In 1955, however, the WS switched (proba bly for security reasons) tothe current system 8 MG Cf two-digit tactical codes which, as a rule, are simply the aicrat's number inthe unit operat- Ingit, making posite identification impossible. Three: or four-digit tactical codes are rare and are usually worn by development aicrat only Inwhich case they siltiein withthe cin or fuse lage number (manufacturer's line number). On miltary transport aircraft, however, three-digit tactical codes are usually the last three of the former cil registration: many SovietRussian Air Force transports were, and sill are, quasi: Ciuilian,Atthe same time the star insignia on the aft fuselage were deleted, remaining on the wings and verical tail only.) Some design flaws became apparent even as the second prototype (SI-2) was undergoing ‘manulacturer’s tests. In one ofthe fights Ghe: orgiy A Sedov almost duplicated the circum stances in which Ivasehchenko had lost his i, ‘AS soon as the aircraf passed 1,000km/n (640.54kts), tailplane flutter began. Reacting Instantly, Sedov throtted back and hauled back on the stick, trying to put the aircraft into ‘a climb and stop the vibration. He was a split ‘second too late~the elevator failed; the outer fends were tom off symmetrically, only some 40% ofthe original area remaining. Using only fengine power to balance the aircraft. Sedov ‘managed to make a safe landing | was prepared for this, ~ Sedov recalled, - ‘because we knew that the horizontal til had Cisintegrated at 1,020 to 1,040kmih [851.35 to '562,16kts] onthe frst prototype. Ithad nothing t0:do with quick reaction. The atttude was nor. ‘mal when itll happened, the aircraft was actu ally beginning to pitch up a lite. | red a ite levator input and felt the aircratt respond, Wel, there was a danger that the remaining levator area might not be enough during approach when speed was low, but ! made it the prototype was saved. The cause ofthe fuer was discovered and it became clear that it was tailplane futter and structural failure that killed aschchenko. Apart from that, Sedov reported aileron reversal at high speeds caused by insufficient wing tor- “Top and above: The second prototype, the S12 (671 oa), was rebuilt from a MIG-15bI5 In ‘order to quickly replace the crashed Mikayan OX Botlom: This view of the 6-2 ilustrates the ‘deployed taps and abrakes. hoya" OK Potorapns on the opposte page Serialed ‘01 Rea, the SLO1 (ein 54210101) was the fist pre-production areraft rolled ‘out in May 1981. ikayan OnE Probably the same aircraft ata later date. ‘The red tin eap and the Gor'klyaireraft factory bbadge on the nose are gone. Nixoyan OKSsional stfiness. These and other reasons neces: sitated a pause in the fights so thatthe aircraft could be repaired and the tall redesigned. “Testing resumed withthe suitably modified ‘S}O2 nthe spring of 1951. After making a total ‘0f44 tights und the manufacturer's test pro ‘gramme the aircraft was handed over to Nil WStor State acceptance (e, certification) trials in Api 1951. Stage 1 ofthe trials ended on 1st July 1951: the S1-02 was flown by L M Koovshi- nov, Yuriy A Antipov, V $ Kotlov and other Nil ‘WS test plots. The State Commission's report Grawn up after Stage 1 said that generally the arrat met the Air Force's requirements and ‘the manufacturer's specifications were largely confirmed. Shortcomings noted at this stage included an awkwardly postioned pitot. Ong- aly it was located approximately t mid-span, [MiG-15 style. Asa result, drop tanks could not be carried because intererence from them fected the pitot and the airspeed indicator gave incorrect readings. Most of the deficiencies discovered during Stage 1 of the State acceptance trials were (quickly corrected. Thus Stage 2 began just ten days later, on 10th July and was completed on {tn August. The S1-02's top speed and rate of cmb at various alttudes as measured during ‘State acceptance trials are listed inthe table on the right ‘As the table shows, the S102's rate of climb was almost on target. Deceleration time trom Vow 10 0.7 Vix Was 17 seconds. Handling characteristics were very similar tothe produc: tion MiG-15bis, except for marginally worse horizontal manoeuvrabily. Field performance ‘also deteriorated slightly, but this was deemed unimportant, since the arcrat could stil oper- ate from the same runways asthe MiG-15. The table below illustrates the SI-02's range and endurance data, The State Commission's report after Stage 2 read as fotows: The modiied MIG-15bis with 45° wing swoop ‘and new tail unit has the folowing advantages ‘over the production MiG-1 (sc) 1. Top speed is 46 to S6km/h (24.8 10 30.3kts) igher: 2. The Mach limit is raised from 0.92 to 1.08; 3. Climb time to 10,000m (32,808) is reduced by 204 30 seconds. The MiG-15bis 45° ls recommended for production. Range Endurance cata Clean’ Droptanks Nema tet weigh, gf) 52721480) §.80(13079 Fuscagaty les im gas) 1410(9102) 226 (461) (use atu, 200 9379, 120008579 Fics, ies gun) ORB 38H) 0 037) Fd corsarton ieseigrsty) S507] 75,16) Maxum are kom) 1286000) 21801182) Forme Onin 2heemin Nevertheless, one of the Si-02's major dof ‘iencies - excessive shell scatter and hence poor accuracy when the NR-23 cannons were fired remained. This problem aso affected the MiG-15bis and was caused by insuficienty rigid cannon mounts ‘At this stage someone apparently decided thatthe changes introduced on the MiG-18bis 45" wore serious enough to warrant a new ser ‘vige designation. During the State acceptance ‘als the aircrat received the designation Under which it would gain fame ~ MiG-17. The rollout ofthe fourth development aircraft ~ thas the rst pre-production aircraft (+01, cin 54210101) was delayed until May 1951 nike the SI-02 this aera was quite logically serialled'01 Red’, so the ‘donor’ (any) cannot bbe traced. Manufactures tests began on tst June and were duly completed on 23rd June. ‘After completing a brief spinning tials pro ‘gramme at the hands of G A Sedov in August the S101 was transferred to Nil VWS on 28th ‘August. There, additional spinning trials were held by L-M Koovshinov betwoen 11th Sep: tember and ttn October. Tes pilots noted that the MiG-17's spinning characteristics were sim- ilar to those of the Fagot B and Midget; the ar craft ipped into an inverted spin onl ifthe plot ‘made serious erors in spin recovery. The bot- tom line was that ..spinning and spin recovery ‘onthe MiG-17 are simpler and safer than on the Mic-15 ‘tase (8) __Topaped.amih (a) Mach amber ate find, mises (Rimi) Tine io eg min a va ne 20946 va aovezy ona na 454/090, 3 ames) i618 oa 29euy a7 amope 1.110600 oat 03799 10 4om0 (892) 06,8789 a9 48,685 ‘6 som 6am) 10060459 oa 9531685, 20 eon 96:5) 82,529 oo 27640, 25 Tom 26s). ek) ace 2010585) 30 aompsz6 = 07 68792, ox 271565) 36 soos) aT oa 5600 2 romeemy 10654) age 2540) 0 ome 191068837 os 209) 57 ‘omar 10278519) 037 ‘56079 @ aom(ess) na na 129200 8 oman na na 69,258) a7 ssom(e2i na aa 2561) 15 ~ Mio17 9Chapter Two The MiG-17 Family MIG-17 Fresco-A tactical fighter (lzdeliye SI; izdeliye 54, izdeliye 40) In typically Soviet fashion, the airraf was ordered into production even before it had completed its trials programme. Pursuant to a Council of Ministers directive dated 25th August 1951 and Ministry of Arcrat Industry (MAP — Ministerstvo aviatseeonnoy promysh- Fennost) order No 851 issued on 1st September 1951 at least six factories were to build the MiG-17. In realty, however, the type was built by ve plants all of which had built the Fagor Not in Kuybyshev (staring in late 1951), No21 in Gorky, No3t in Tbilsi (February 1953), 'No126 in Komsomol'sk-on-Amur (ate 1952) land No1S3 in Novosibirsk; plant No292 in Saratov, also a one-time MIG-15 manufacturer, ever started MIG-17 production. As noted ——- ee —s wo-17 earlier, in Gorkiy the MIG-17 was known as lzdellye 54; somewhat surprisingly the product code in Kuybyshev was izgelye 40, which is lower than the MiG-15's (delve 50). Unike its predecessor which had started is service career with an elite fighter unit at Kubin ka airbase near Moscow, the MiG-17 passed is service tals down south on the Black Sea. A fighter regiment based at Krymskaya AB on the Crimea peninsula was the fst unit to oper ate the type. Production MiG-17s delivered to firstline units had slighty lower performance than the S101 and I-02. Maximum speed at 2,000m (6.561) was 1,094Km/h (881.35Kt5); 102 Re (c/n 1401002), the second production reraft built in Kuybyshev, with dp tanks. teoyan OKB ‘Seon sometime botore 1955, four Gorkly-bil late-production MIG.175 ofthe Naval ae arm (ins 54210607, 5421060, 54210632 and 54210629) make an unusual formation with four MiG-15bis Fagot-Bs from the same unit. The aircraft are carrying early-model sipper tanks. Yelm Gorcon achive poste pape: ‘Two late-production Fresco-As with post-1955 an lon) drop tanks stream contralls ‘erossthe sky. Yet Gordon archivethe aircraft climbed to 5,000m (16 404f) and 10.000m (32,808H) in 25 and 66 minutes respectively, and the service celing was 143500m (47,5728), ange was. 1.280km (697nm) on internal fuel, increasing to 2,060km (1,113nm) with two 400tire (88 Imperial gallons) drop tanks. ‘Speaking of which, the original sipper tanks ‘ivlarto those used on the MiG-15 soon gave way to cylindrical tanks with stabilsing fins \wbich were carted on three short struts (two in ‘fashion atthe front and one atthe rear). Early rocuction MiG-17s had an empty weight of 3800kg (8.3771) and an MTOW of 6.070kg (13,381. ‘The MG-17 became a worthy successor 10 the MIG-15 and MiG-18bi, replacing the Fagot in estiine service inthe WS and later inthe air forces ofthe Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact satel- ltas. Like the MIG-15, was built under licence in Poland (foreign production is described sep: ately). The new fighter received the ASCC reporting name Fresco; later, when other ver sions ofthe MiG-17 became known in the West, this was changed to Fresco-A ‘The MG-17 was very much a ‘pilot's air plane’ and capable of performing highly com plex aerobatics; however, pilots noted that somewhat bigger control inputs were required than on the MiG-15. Acceleration ater take-off was sight better and the airorakes enabled wingovers to be performed throughout the speed range and at alitudes up to 14,000m (45.991), The MiG-17 was rock-steady at high attude and could make turns with only a minor loss of alttude even a its sevice celing. Dead- stick gicing speed, however, was higher than the Fagot 8's, being 270 to 280kmih (146.95 to 151.35Kt). ‘Various improvements were progressively introduced, such as an extra seat belt allowing the pilot to st tighter during sharp turns and a second canopy jttisoniejection handle on the leftarmrest ofthe ejection seat ike onthe MiG- 15, oxginally the seat could be fred with the right hand only). Starting in late 1959, all MiG. 175 were equipped with a new ejection seat esigned in house. The seat featured a retractable visor protecting the pilot's face, leg restraints to prevent injury by the slipstream and stabilising suraces which deployed after {ection to stop the seat from tumbling head over heels Mikoyan engineers also worked on improv- Ing rearward vision, designing a one-piece blown canopy without the rear transverse frame member characteristic of the MiG-15. This was not incorporated on production ait caf: later, however, production MIG-17s were ‘tea wth rear-view periscopes. Arbrake efficiency was soon found to be Inadequate and the design was changed sey- eral times untl the airrakes were satisfactory (s0e section below on MIG-17 airbrake tests), The new airbrakes had an area of 0.88 {@.46t) and a pronounced trapezoidal shape, with @ prominent teardrop fairing over the ‘actuator right in the middle of each airbrake panel. The latter was due tothe fact thatthe air brakes were located farther aft and the fuselage ‘was too narrow at this point to house the actuators internally. Maximum deflection was. increased to 55 MiG-17s with the redesigned airbrakes ‘began roling off the assembly ines in Septem. ber 1952 —ie, at the same time when enlarged airorakes were introduced on the MiG-15bis. The whole affair was perfectly logical; after al, the Fagot. and the Fresco were developed almost in parallel and suffered trom the same ‘problems ~ and so the cure was the same, too. Other changes introduced in 1952 included carefully sealed safety valves in the fuel tank pressurization system which ensured stable fuel delivery throughout the speed range. The FS-155 landingtaxlight in the ai intake sitter was replaced by a retractable LFSV-45 light in the port wing root, just like on the MIG-15bis. ‘A new PLA pitot was installed on the star- board wingtip and thus dia not conflict with the ‘drop tanks. The avionics suite was also upgraded. An 'ASP-3N_ automatic _gunsight (aviomateect ‘esky stretkovyy preetsel) was introduced atthe ssame time as on the MiG-1bs. Later, the Fres: c0 received the Sirena-2 radar homing and ‘warning system (initaly referred to as a tail protection device) with characteristic antennas, ‘onthe fin/stabilizer faring and the wing leading ‘edges and wingtips to give 960° coverage. Early-production MiG-17s had an AGK476 art ficial horizon usually fited to bombers and transports ~ simply because there was.no other model available. However, this model was totally unsuited for fighters and could not func: tion during violent manoeuvres with large bank angles. Hence a new AGI-1 artificial horizon specially developed for fighters (aviagorizont ‘strebeetelnyy) was tested almost simultane ‘ously on the Fagot and the Fresco at NII WS in 1953 and fited to production MiG-17s, starting the folowing year. ‘The Fresco had seltcontained engine start Ing capabilty from the outset (on the Fagot twas only introduced on late batches of the MiG-15bis). Of course, the engine could stil be started in the usual way. using ground power ‘The changes, however, were not limited 0 hardware ~tactics changed, too, and new roles were sought. Among other things the WWS regarded the MiG-17 as an escort fighter, even ‘conducting a special test programme to deter: rine its combat radius. The results are given in the table a the top ofthe following page. ‘Asnoted earlier, the MIG-17 could alsofilthe strike role. In tis case two 50g (1104) or 100-kg (220/1b) bombs were carried under the wings on D4-50 shackles.MIG-17A Fresco-A tactical fighter Late-production MIG-17s were powered by the VK-1A turbojet. While having an identical thrust rating (2,700kgp'5,925ifbst), the VK-1A, hhad a much longer service life and was more refined technologically than the original VK-1. Aircraft powered by the VK-1A were designated Mig.17A, MIG-17 Fresco-A development aircraft ‘with modified airbrakes In 1952 the Mikoyan OKB undertook aresearch programme in order to determine the optimum ‘shape and area ofthe MiG-17'sairorakes. The ‘objective was maximum airbrake efficiency at top speed and in a vertical dive trom the air- craft's service ceiling. Two early-production Fresco-As were used to test fve consecutive irorake versions and the programme pro- ‘ceeded quiciy The first aircraft (identity unknown) had the airorakesinstlledin the usual postion at rame 28; four versions were tested. On the other fighter (114 Red, cin 54210114) tested in July 1952 the airbrakes were mounted immediately aft ofthe wing trailing edge between frames 18 ‘and 22; in this location the airorakes were found to have less effect on longitudinal stabi- ity when deployed. On 114 Reed the airbrakes tapered very sighty towards the rear and the we-17 Bomber econ til ata “Tupole Tw 6 Badger (ris atte, 500 10000 (1609) 208) Combat aus cnitoma km fm) 28545) 380 205) wih dopanks km am) 485 246) 65086) Arak ale ota tga production verson Teetveson Testversion2 066 (1038) Test version 094103) Testverson (114) 00 692) Test version acoepes) 0845) Test version (114d) 036 1032) 1919075) Test version? (114) final version had two prominent stening ribs. ‘The first aft-mounted version was rejected as too inefficient both in level fight and in a dive, and versions 2 and 3 because stick forces with the airbrakes deployed were too high, but the ext one (NOS) was deemed saistactory and recommended for production. As noted earlier, MiG-17s wit enlarged trapezoidal airbrakes on the aft fuselage began roling ofthe assembly lines in September 1952. yushin 1.28 Beagle 200 som 10000 12000 a7) (16409 aoe) a7 amg | mening) sca) 415,200 745 (42) 445 (2405) 50,851) 725082) Defectonangle Location S Fame2s s Fame2 s Fame 28 8 Fame 6 Frames 181022 s Frame 28 na Frames 81022 na Frames 181022 Late production MIG-17s, including a Novosibirsk: built example (28 Bluo, cin 1115328), sit on a tactical airfield covered with pertorated steel plate (PSP). Bath Vetm Gordon achive Bottom right The lead alrerat and the righthand ‘wingman (atthe left in the picture) are two of ‘number of Frosco-As with large airorakes Immediately aft o he wings: compare with the third aircraft a standard early production MIG- 47 with 0.522n" alrbrakes. Sergey and Ditty114 Rod (em 54210114) was intaly used to test ew arbre designs. Yo Gordon awe ‘The SP-2 was equipped with a with a Korshoon ‘ada, an improved version of the Toriy-A ited {othe SP-1, but had cleaner nose contours. ‘Test results with the frst of three forward: mounted versions (No4) were inconclusive and no data are available as tothe other two. Apparently, however, the final one was good enough, since a small batch of Fresco-As was. bul with brakes mounted immediately aft of the wings la 114 Red. One such aircraft con- vertedto fighter-bomber configuration was pre semed at a pioneer camp near Rayki vilage about 40km (25 miles) east of Moscow atleast Uuntl the late 1980s, wearing the (obviously bogus) tactical code 01 Red! ‘As for 114 Red, when the test programme was over the aircrat was converted during 1952, becoming the izdelve SG avionics test- ‘bed deserbed ater inthis chapter. Interestingly, Itreverted to the orginal at mounted 0.522 arbrakes in so doing! [MiG-17 (zdeliye SP-2) development aircraft ‘As noted earlier, the Council of Ministers direc te concerning the MiG-15bis 45” ordered the development ofan all-weather interceptor ver: ‘son in parallel withthe basic day fighter. Des- ignated izdelye SP-2 by analogy with the MiG-18bisP (SP-1), the aircraft was equipped with a Korshoon (kite, a bird of prey) single antenna radar developed by NII-I7 improved version ofthe Toriy-A radar fitted to the SP-1. Like the original Tory, this radar lacked automatic target tracking capabilty, which was a major shortcoming; tracking had to be performed manually by the plot, which increased plot workload. Development of the SI and the SP-2 pro ceeded in paral, but construction ofthe latter arcrat began a lite later; by January 1950 esign was 75% complete and construction was 20% complete. Theinterceptor's wings, tail unit and af fuselage were identical to those of the day fighter version. The forward fuselage was redesigned in a way similar to the SP-1 wih a large bulletshaped radome on the ait intake upper lip. However, the radome was. fared much more smoothly into the forward fuselage, not protruding above the circular cross-section ofthe nose, as on the SP-1. This was because foward fuselage and hence ait intake ameter had been enlarged up to fuse- lage trame 3; actually the SP-2's nose shape was mare similar to the experimental Mikoy- aniGurevich 320 (izdeliye R) two-seat heavy interceptor thanto the SP-1. The $13 gun cam era was moved tothe starboard side ofthe air intake. ‘Onthe $P-1 the Fagor-8's two NR.23 cannons had been deleted 10 save weight, leaving the lrcraft with a single N-37D cannon. With the ‘SP.2, the engineers did exactly the opposite, Mc 30c-17 the service-type designation and the very so ttc performance requirements set forth int CofMl directive suggest that the aircraft wa viewed as a potential rea fighter) Thetwo Al 5s were located side by side ina new af tus lage in the manner ofthe future MIG-19, Hera the aft fuselage had to be widened someutal to accommodate the engines: it had alm! Constant width all the way and then taper sharply aft of the engine nozzles. The fuselage break point was much fate! aftthan on the MiG-15/MiG-17; hence change wore made to frame 13. The main (at) engi attachment points were located on fuselag frame 16 and the forward attachment points frame 14, Two small cooling ir intakes ina dem were added on each side of the une! fuselage att of frame 14, The engines wey started electrcaly. Changes were made to the forward fuselage The inlet ducts were widened somewtal because ofthe increased mass airflow, andy air intake splitter was extended forward ad sharpened - again a fa MiG-19 (e, i was lea! withthe intake's leading edge and straight, ra Concave). The MiG-17's standard forwars ta cellholding 1,175 ies (258.5 Imperial gallons) was retained: it was augmented by a 350s0e (77 Irnperial gallons) integral tank in the at fuselage beneath the engine bay betwee frames 14 and 18 Top and below top: A later M17 with fin aerials and underwing equipment pods. Yelm Gordon ache ‘Above and let Two views ofthe MiG-17M. I aitfered in having part ofthe guidance ‘equipment located in large dorsal fairing ‘ahead ofthe fin Yelm Garson acneThe SM1's airbrakes of almost elliptical tape were mounted fairly low on the aft fuse- lye ses immediately ahead of the engine partes. A large actuator fairing ran the full laghof each aibrake panel straight down the ride, starting some way ahead of it; unlike ae " teMIG-7F, these farings were of trapezoidal tater than semi-circular section. A 15m (61298) brake parachute was housed in a Jena bay under the jetpipes. 4 i The MG-17s standard armament of one N70 wih 40 rounds and two NR-23s with {pg as retained. The aircraft was equipped titan ASP-AN optical sight integrated with an {80:1 Radal gun ranging radar. The avionics, ft ns identical to that of the production WG-17 (OSP-48 ILS, SRO-1 IFF etc) Proiminary design work on the :340 (SM-1) teganin May 1951 and the final manufacturing awngs were issued in September. However prettype conversion had to be suspended at the endo! the year because the AM-S engines = ee stl unavailable, The aircrat was finally ‘completed and rolled outin March 1952, enter. ng fight test so0n afterwards; it was flown by a Gheorgi A Sedov and Konstantin K Kokkinaki vey SAV Minayev was the engineerin charge of betes programme. The SNL had its fair share of troubles, and ‘nese were associated not only with the new powerplant. Minayev later recalled that ‘the omertedt target drone. This version ‘oad gh Two views ofthe M-17PF, 36 the G17 target drone conversion was caed. ae ne stakes on the upper aft fuselage wc-17ove: Three M-17s, Including "2 Black outing, ne in voy, with tree more Froscos wang theirturn. Youn Gordon sche Lut and opposte page top: Twe views of an ean Yelm Gordon achive “= ae ppoate page conte: Another M-17 coded 57 Ret an Hem wit drop tanks. Ym Coron sre ‘Oppose ge bom: This 3/4 rearview of he ‘SM: (1-30) clearly shows the wider rear end with the twin nozzles ofthe Mikulin AMS ‘engines. The SM-1 was the frst step towards {the supersonic MIG-19. Yom Gordon arom 2 worcs of he MIG-19 was largely determined Dye speedy fight tests and refinement ofthe {9p onthe SM-1]. (The AMS was the pre {uso othe AN-8 (RD-3) powering the MiG-19 hah) OF course, there were incidents ike an fngre tossing a turbine blade and lots of other Pegs’ Sedov noted that ‘the SM-1, dubbed [ux tad poor cockpit pressurization; the gem worked only when the engines were ig, they failed, which was a faily com- Ioroccurence, you had to descend immedi thy because otherwise cockpit pressure fell lant andthe plot would start bleeding. (The ed vessels burst because of the pressure acral Aun) The engines often surged oF flamed out sen he totes were advanced sharply. We th several ways of curing the problem in ars of fights, but not until a fuel flow fexoer was invoduced did the axialfow fegpes sant operating normally. The orignal AMS was a non-afterburning Lute rated at 2,000kgp (4,409 st). The fmqTste trust of two AM-Ss was greater fan hat ofa single VK-1F in full afterburner (88601907451 ost) and the new powerplant hed 86kg (1961b) less. Stil the available {stwas not enough to achieve the spectied petorance target. In the course of the ght ‘es prgramme the original engines were sub- sites wih uprated AM-5AS (also non-after uring) dolvering 2,150kgp (8,740 Ibst) each: Jett soon bacame clear that oven ths was not {pod enough. Theretore, the Mikulin OKB, evened the alterburning AM.SF rated at 2180p dry anc 2,700kgp (5,952 Ibs) reheat However, these engines took a long time to eve and wore never fitted to the SM-1 Sill even wih the provisional AM-SAs the Biciat had a noticeably higher thrust/weight ratio than the standard MiG-17, and peror mance improved accordingly. Top speed at 5,000m (16,404) was 1,199Kmh (644.86kts) fr Mach 1.0, and the landing run was almost 30% shorter thanks to the brake parachute Likewise, the more fuet-efcient engines and increased fuel capacity significantly improved the SM-1's combat radius. Eventually the trials ol the SM-1 and the -360 (aka izdelye SM-2) showed that the AM-S was ‘ot powerful enough to achieve truly supersonic performance. Mikuin engineers went back to the drawing board and developed the AM-SF into the even more powerful AM:9. AS for the ‘SNM, the aircraft was later used to investigate the effect of gun blast gas ingestion on engine ‘operation. This immediately opened a whole ccan of worms, since axial-low engines are sen: sitive to gun blast gas ingestion, and caused the armament to be relocated on the MiG-19. MiG-t7 43Chapter Three Foreign Production (CHINESE-BUILT MIG-175 Chinese icence production of the MiG-17 has. been the subject of some controversy unt recently. Contrary to claims by some Western sources, the original MiG-17 day fighter was ‘ever builtin China all Chinese Fresco-As were Soviet-supplied (built in Komsomol'skon- ‘Amur, judging by the cins). However, as with the MiG-15bis, the arcraft nevertheless received the local designation Jianij-¢(otten shortened to Jian-4 or J+); some were resold to other rations asthe F-4 Shenyang J-5 (F-5) Fresco-C tactical fighter (type 56) Manufacturing documents for the MiG-17F day ‘ightor were handed over to the Shenyang air ‘raft factory in 1955, together with two pattern aircrat, 15 completely knocked-down (CKD) kits and materials for a further ten aircraft Licence production commenced in June 1956; ‘Serialled #0101 (Chung 0101), the fst locally manufactured aircrat made its first fight on 19th July 1956 at the hands of factory test pilot Wu Koring It was uitimately preserved at the People's Liberation Army Ai Force Museum in Datangshan near Peking and listed as an Important Historical Monument (!) by the Chi nese government. The icence-buit version was orginally known locally as type 56’ but was redesignated Jian Iie (ian or J-5) in 1964, The VK-1F turbojet “4 we manufactured in Harbin became the Wopen-S (WP-5); the fist engine passed acceptance ‘nals on 19th June 1956, The J-5's performance was almost identical 1o that of the Soviet bull MiG-17F. Expon aircrat were designated Fs. Chengdu J-5A (F-SA) Fresco-D interceptor Development of the first Chinese all-weather interceptor, the J-5A, began in 1961. This was Viually a straight copy of the early production MiG-17PF equipped withthe RP-1 tzumrood-1 radar and armed with three NR-23 cannons Prototype production was assigned to the Chengdu aircraft factory (now the Chengdu Ai- craft Corporation, CAC) in May 196%. The Shenyang factory sent a team of specialists to ‘Chengdu to provide help, as wellas acomplete set o jigs and tooling. Manufacturing drawings ere completed atthe Chengdu factory in 1962 ‘and component production began next March, The static test airframe (cin 01) was completed in June 1964 and static tests continued until ‘September. Finally, on 11th November 1964 the unserialled prototype (cin 02) made is fst fight at Yantang aiild near Xian atthe hands. ‘of Wu Youchang. Certification was obtained during 1964 and the J-5A entered production In Shenyang in 1965. The export version was signated F-5A, Technical data stated for the JA difer tightly from those ofthe Soviet built MIG-17PF. \Wing span has been quoted as 9.6m (31f 6in) ‘Serialod Chung 0101, the test J-5 (Chinese but [MIG-17F) took tothe air on 19th July 1958. Yelm Gordon arrive versus 9.628m (31ft in): maximum TOW & 6,000kg (13,227) versus 6 552kg (14,4481 top speed at 3,000m (9,842) is 1,1454nt (1894's) and range with drop tanks at a unspecified altitude is 1,560km (843nm) Acta of767 single-seat J-5s (the propor Of ‘pure’ J-5s and J-5As is unknown) had bee built when production ended in 1959; pea ‘output was 25 aircrat per month. As well being supplied to the Chinese Air Force, te aircraft was exported as the F-SA, ‘Shenyang J-5 Fresco-C torpedo bomber A ite-known fac is thatthe Shenyang facey developed a torpedo bomber version () oft MiG-17F (J-5). The torpedo was carried unde the fuselage; this required one ofthe canna to be removed and the fuel load reduc to make up for the high weight ofthe tore ‘rials showed that performance (except fa Performance) had deteriorated sharply a ‘compared to the standard J-5 because of high drag generated by the torpedo and te reduced fuel capacity. Thus the torped bomber aid not progress beyond the prototype stage.‘Chengdu Shenyang Ju-5 (FT-5, FST, ‘uG-17UTT) advanced trainer (product 552) br 1968 the Chinese aircraft industry began ent of an advanced trainer intended #83 sxccessor to the J.2 (a licence-built ver Sin al he UTEMIG-15) which could not quite rete requirement of training JS plots. Des- igate Jani aolianj-S (often shortened to Jajan 5 oF 5) it was a unique cross-breed beweenthe UTEMIG. 15 andthe MiG-17 tal aUTEMIG-15 cockpit section mated to a G17 srame. interestingly, the shape of the rete esembled the MiG-17PF with ts charac- ttc fatlp. Yet the aircraft had no radar; the pase was all-metal and there was no intake saresbedy The JUS was powered by a Xian Wopen-SD [P50 or T15D) non-aterburning turbojet Aloep of 58 at a PLAAF airbase, including tune othe trst production arctan (Chung ‘90, Chang 0103, Chung 0201 and Chung {22 The aera at the far end ofthe line have ‘trl serials without the Chung pretx. Yer Gos arose sedsply atthe PLAAF Museum in Datangshan. a licence-buil VK-1A — rated at 2.700kgp (6:952Ibs), with a nozzle shape a la MiG-17. Nevertheless, ithad 0.97m® (10.43!) airorakes borrowed from the MiG-17F. In other words, i was the Fresco-A, Fresco-C, Fresco: and Midget al rlied into one! At 11.5m (374 8X), the aircraft was 140mm (5'4n) longer than the MiG. 17PF (11.38nV37R 3.4); the other cimen- sions were identical Internal fuel capacity was 1,500 litres (830 Imperial gallons), and 400- litre (88 Imperial gal ons) drop tanks could be carried. The Chinese engineers chose to eliminate the builtin weapons tray; the JJ-5 was armed with a single Type 23-1 (NA.23) cannon in a detachable lly pack on the starboard side. Additional pylons for air-to-ground weapons could be ft- {ed outboard of the drop tank hardpoints. Final, the aircraft was equipped with an SPU-2P inter ‘com (samolyotnoye peregovornoye oostroy ‘stvo) and semi-automatic ejection seats; Jane's All the World's Aircraft described them as indigenous but they were probably us a locally improved version of the original Soviet seat ‘The seats could not be used safely below 260m (@53f) at speeds up to 350kmih (188kts) or below 2,000m (6.561f) at higher speeds Prototype construction began on 25th March 1965 and it first flew on 8th May 1966. Alter completing its fight test programme the trainer began production at Chengdu. (Some sources claim the 44-5 was buit by the Shenyang air craft factory, Deliveries to the PLAAF began on 30th November 1967: according to Jane's Ai cralt Upgrades, a total of 1,061 examples had ‘been built when production ended in late 1986.‘The prototype J-5A Interceptor (cn 02) which took off on Tith November 1968 ‘This J5A preserved at the PLAAF Museum a Datangshan ts unusual im having two addtons wing pylons, possibly fr heatseeking AMS 62549 Re production 5 of he PLA, ‘ott " \ Lecking rer napy oe tendSureunded bythe fuselage and wing of 2 ‘igelerTo124K VIP transport and the Solovyov oP taroans from same, this unserialled 4spaned in stylish elsplay colour scheme ‘Sronthe outskirts ofthe Datangshan museum. ‘ne damaged canopy has been replaced with, ‘etmeta note the lack ofthe gun camera enoser 110019316 owned by the Chengdu Aireratt Company which habitually allocated such The JU has two construction number sys fens, s0 the truth is possibly thatthe aircraft vas actualy built both in Shenyang and in Cheng One system (Chengdu production?) 'sstaghtoward ~ eg, 1609 (batch 16, ninth sicatin batch). The other system (Shenyang roaucton?) isa ktle more complicated - 69, 5206; he fist two digits may be an in-house product code. However, itis just possible that 1s 85. proix was simply dropped after a cer ‘anrunber of batches had been bul. Chinese specialists claimed the Ju-5 outper: Jomed the UT-MiG-15, but thats a statement ter 0 doubt. The JW'S's specications are faeated inthe table below. deseah vemare) geo 96m are) hater gone 38m (126), espera woh ig (2) 4080 85) Noa TOW A 0 (11907) 0 9 62513700" Nec om 50000 (164044) 148 65.48) Macnos82 8701988) (45738) Macho92 Nora evsrg sped kmh (as) 775 (48) Ferg A 250135 Agi, 20 (51 Thaw mh et) 200 (19 FeedindzSi.méec inn) 27 6315) Sree eg 14300 46916) Teotan mt 702485) aga Teo 8 5892725) eget macht 21220022570 mom) 1.20 664° Eee 13700 44,9478 wh bine lp gas) doptans —_2hsS6nin "Sone sen satthe MTOW as 60 un ge 351 6m (27, (1341905 ant The JJ5 has been exported as the FT:5 (the eagnaion F-ST has also been quoted) rown export customers are Albania (35), Pak isan 20), Sri Lanka (2) and Zimbabwe (2) Cutcus, several publications call this aircraft MG-17UTI! On when are they going to stop Inetng designations which don' exist POLISH-BUILT MiG-175 Lim-5 Fresco-C tactical fighter (produkt CF) In 1955 Poland obtained manufacturing rights for the MiG-17F and the VK-1F afterburning tu bbojet. Launching production would not be a problem, since the Polish arcaftindustry asso Ciation WSK PZL (Wiytwérnia sorzetukomunika cyinego - Paristwowe zaklady lotnicze, ‘Transport equipment manufacturer State ai craft factories) had already buit the Fagot Lnder licence. The MiG-15 and MiG-1Sbis had ‘been produced by the PZL plant in Mielec (pro nounced 'Melets’) as the Lim-1 and Lim-2 respectively (Lim = licencyiny mysiwiec licence-built fighter), while the RD-45F and VK 1 were produced by the Rzeszow (pronounced ‘Zheh-show’) division as the Lis-1 and Lis2 Uicencyiny silk ieence-buit engine) ‘The MiG-17F would be manufactured by WSK Mielec under the designation Lim-5 (for some obscure reason the designations Lim-3 {and Lim-8 were left unused) and the VK-1F by WSK-Rzesz6was the Lis-5. Continuing the mis Conception which began with earlier licence: built MiGs, Polish documents refered to the ‘icra as ‘produkt CF" (a corruption of the MG- 17F's OKB designation, i2delve SF). WSK Mislec switched to Fresco-C produc: tion in a remarkably short time, but then, the first four aircraft (the pre-production batch) wore assembled from Sovietsupplied CKD kits. The fist Lim (cin 1 00-01)' was manu: factured on 28th November 1956 - only fve days after the 500th and final Lim-2 had rolled (off the production line Appropriately serialled (0001 Fed, this aircraft became the personal hhack of Polish Ai Force C-in-C Gen Jan Frey Bieleck’ alter completing its factory tests. When it was finally retired in September 1994, 0001, Red went to OSL-4 (Oficerska Szkota Lotnicza Officers’ Flying School in Debiin as a ground instructional airrame Three more aircraft serialed 002 Red through 004 Red (cins 1C 00-02 through 1€ 00: (04) were completed by the end of he year, and full-scale production began in 1957. The fst production Lim-5(c)n 1C 01-01) was actually @ Static test airrame. (Some sources claim that the three aircraft completed before the end of 1956 were cins 1€ 01-02, 16.02.01 and 1C 02: 02) ‘Between 8th February and 19th April 1957 the tenth Lim-5 bul, the sixth production ait- craft, 201 Red, cin 1C 02.01) underwent State acceptance trials at INB (Instytut Naukowo- Mor? 4Badawezy - [Polish Air Force) Sci Research Institute), the Polish equivalent WSS, at Warsaw-Bemowo airiol” The fg was flown by test pilots Z Strek, Z Krab an Skowrofski, with T Kuc as the engineer Charge ofthe fight tests programme Even though 201 Red was not yt fited the SRO-IM Radal-M_ gun ranging (hich, ke the SRO-1 IFF transponder, ha be imported from the USSR), itwas founda 130kg (2861b) heavier than a typical buit MiG-17F. However, some Polish sour disciaim this, stating that the weight ofe production Lim-Ss matched the figures in Soviet manutacturing documents. The tals report said that the tested arcrafthas factory handing and operational charac istics: the Lim's performance was ai identical to that of the production Soviet MiG-17F, The table below shows some performs figures of 201 Red (cin 1C 02.01) became the ‘standard-setter’ for produc Lim, Top speed kmh es) ‘tulmiay power s1.000m 82000) 108565485) ns sa3000n gaa) 108567027) Om 5.000m(t6406H) —1060(67287) 0877 0000 NBN) 1027/5513) Om 11000 G6.89H) 101564864) 10 intl aterouner 100m az na na 3000m Get) 1154162378) Om 215.00 (T6a0sH) 115816519) O87 £10000 @2aneR 107658162) Os 2 11000m OHH) 106167951) 10 Range on internal fuel was 659km (386) 5,000m (16,404R), 957km (517nm) at 100 (2,808h) and 1,085km (586nm) at 12.0 (9.3701), Throughout its production run the received detail refinements. For exampleexgaons on he coposte page: snus: 201 Red (e/n 16 02-01) was one of fest production Lins. I underwent State seeplance tials at INB between 8th February {e490 Apel 1957. Ye Garcon achive Soy anbotom: This Lim (ein 1607-07) was sear checkout ils at INB from 70% Sipenber to 19th October 1957. This airraft tester sold to the East German Ai Force {25 Rad Yoh Gordon archive serial Lim (cin 1€ 07-07) which passed (scout als at INB between 7th September {nd 1h October 1957" had an improved after: une contol system which allowed the after. buna tobe selected even i the engine was at les than full military power This feature ‘nated the pilotto adjust engine thrust after. tuner mode by advancing or retarding the ‘rote. The tables below indicated the perfor. tance of Lim cin 16 07-07. Tore OW n er conten ig ib) veut ig 560) ott lacy mgt ig we Ta esenes Sees mt stint poe eksstenume faedamo auitay pone isc finn} 50m 6) seni 19.586) sxsain 23.327) amon eae amon 2.3700 somo (53010) 430 68.7200) iateo iid ttre, msec i: ast ran 920m) sxzmin 655i) 3mm get) xs 608% en (9585) esa 23.5274 szomon aan) eaton ge.700 ‘atoms 010) 80 67200) Theaicrat'stop speed was less than 1%: lower than tat ofthe standard-setter’Lim-5 (cin 1C (241) and range was identical. The test report ‘led to 20 deviations from manufacturing lecealogy, but only one of these complaints, tas cerous, namely the short service life of the 540112108) 5.223(11514) 4364 9620) 42099385) E 14.950 8,72 6600 4542 Top ad above: 1920 Red (cin 16 13-20) Below an boston: Lim 1613 Red! (ein 16 16-13) Lunderwent checkout rials at INB in 1959. was tested between 28th September 1959 and 250689) Yelm Goon arene {25th Mareh 1960, atm Goroon arene Siege se 206141 2335767 254600) 205 4825 177.0 187069 1042007, 35 (659 0569) 760 14360) 52 (12838) ea qian) 42@70) 380087 2a647 180.50) Mor 49'NR-23 cannons. Another Lim-5 which began tests at INB in September 1959 (1613 Red, c/n 1€ 16-13) had a new SRO-2 Khrom (Chromi- um; NATO Oda Rods) IF transponder instead of the SRO-1 Bariy-M fited to earlier batches. In tie more than three and a half years a total of 477 () ‘pure’ Lim - the orginal pro: uation version identical to the Soviet bul MiG-17F — was manufactured Production peaked in 1957 when WSK Mielec turned out 222 aircraft. Curiously, the last aircraft off the line (1914 Red, cin 16 19-14) completed on 0th June 1960 was the 4th airraftof batch 19, lust as had been the case with the last Lim-2 (1914 Red, cin 18 019-14). The last aircraft to be delivered, however, was 1910 Red (cin 1 1810) which entered service on 23th July 1960. : Unike the eater lieence-buit MiGs, the Lin5 was exported in substantial numbers, notably to East Germany. The East German Air Force received 120aircrat rom batches 6 (except cin 1C 0606), 7. 8 9 and 10 (cin 1C 10-01) ‘between June 1957 and Apri 1958. A further 34 ims (G/ns 16 11-05 through 16 11-30 and 1C 12.01 through 1C 12-08) were built for Unknown export customers in ApriL July 1958, plus 29 more airraf(cins 1C 18-01 through 1C 18-29) for unknown customers in April 1960. Other Lim-5s probably exported are cins 1C 14.21, 16 15.08, 1 15-08, 16 15-07, 10 15-10 and 10 1542 through 1C 15-26 (21 in all) these aircraft may have been supplied to Indonesia and Egypt ‘Compared to the Soviet built Fresco-C, the LimS had a marginally higher all-up weight, ‘even though intemal fuel capacity was sightly reduced. Surprisingly enough, top speed at 3,000m (9,842) was quoted as. 1,15¢kmh (623,78kts), which was better than the Lim-5's ‘Soviet counterpart his could be accounted for by a higher-quality surace finish (and hence less drag) or by an error in the test report ~ hich was more likely, ‘The table above right ilustrates the compar: ative performance of Lim-5s in afferent batches during checkout test. ‘The table immediately to the right gives ‘performance comparison of the original MiG-17F and its Polish ‘win ‘The Lin had its public debut (coincidentally with the Lim-2), appearing in the static park at the 1st Warsaw Air Show at Okgcie airport (26th ‘August to 9th September 1956). The Lim ‘became a regular participant of various Polish Airshows in the 1950s and 1960s. It remained the backbone of the Polish Air Force (PWL - Polskie Wojsko Lotnicze) fighter element until replaced in frontline service by the MiG-21 in the mic-608, and even then the trusty Fresco soldiered on with training and research units Until the early 19605. Tthas to be said thatthe PWL was not com- pletely satisfied withthe Lim-5's performance. The Air Force's opinion (shared by the engi ‘neers at WSK PZL) was thatthe fighter needed more effective highIit devices. It was also so MGT LUms pertormance comparson UimSeiniC02a1 UmSen1Cora7 LimSen1C1328 Umsen1Ced Testa e2e7wi94e7 © eeTw IBIS 1980 eosnasa TOW in ar conden i vith tl loa 5500(12125) Saar (r2t05)S500(12125) S800 12125 vith 1050 es (231 im gf) kg (1 8960) ott S205 (n15H1) — $z05(N1814) —SzB5(INSHT) 5S 220(11827 Enaty weight 9) s20@a7 4296357 209M) 4 Bas Lancing week ) 43689629 See) 42 8H UsSenginecn ei 5718 357513 5520 Fuel apaty, es ip ga) fora eel 12 eso9) 12629 zm) BAT sAetogal ak 15030) 18319) 150 (830) 185041) chop aks 2x380(2x658) 21397 2x8734) 21305 21869) 24005 2108 Topspead kmh ts 00m (2508) 106 (6886) 1088 (65108) a8 6600) 1.88 681.78 na ne na na 8 3000m (84) 1985 s7027/ —1048,56648)) 10458700) 1.0507 6679 vist(eza7e) 1.902108) 147 6200) na 500m 164098) ogo sr297) 10531892) 058 67027) RB TL sme(ets13) 4800261254) 6124) ne 11.00 6.894) 1 GeR6ey 100564824) 1 0TOGASBH) 10108 64837 1061 67351) 1057057135) 10885 67054) Fate limb, mse nn ast s50(6a0) 350,68) 50,6) OBB) na na na na 23.000m 2t) meagre = aren aagisreN) 3 6 Er) 7e0(14960) — 760(14960) —760(14960) 76.1486 45000m 164088) Ba (som) — 2545000) 254500) 4 GOD) es2(i2eo — e52(12406) 228m) 65.2(12804) CiotimetoS000m.mint 277263 271283 2778s omes Serie cing. mt ‘4700 14a226) 14850148720) 14700(48228) 147004828) 16600 (54542) Te600(64542) NB EIO,EASH2) 16,600,545 * Nima power arte MG-17F& Lis pertormance G-17F em 115502 LUms en 10241 Powe Keno VF PDL Roezin Us Oveallength 110m 26 4=) 110m 26-42) Wag soar s6imGr7) 961m) Heighten gourd 38m(1250) 36m(i250) Weare. ft) 26080) 226080) Noma atup waht. ig) S545 900 (1 720172" 5.83 (12067) Maumum alup weght. gb) ous 13.38813368)" 6.206 (13681) Top speed kh ts" 5.00m (16088) 1.190 (6108) 1198 61519 22 10000m net) 197 789) fa 5 11.00m 6.854) na 1.061 7351) Fate fim 5.00m (164084. msctinin* —_650(12785) 65212804) Sericecaiingintlatetune,.m(t) 16470 (54035) 16.500 5454) Tie hehe. in: 105.00 (608%) a to 10900m G2a08n) 37 * iter aocumers ge dtrar cata: ** ut aterburerin Sean cendton ‘deemed necessary to boost the aircraft's com> bat potential by adding provisions fora second pair of drop tanks and for unguided rockets, as wall as to improve aerodynamics and uprate the engine. INB engineers even considered a ‘complete redesign of he forward fuselage with lateral air intakes and the cockpit moved for ‘ward in order to improve cockpit visibility. Many of the ideas, however, remained! alsed because the task was simply more the four-man design team at WSK PZL. handle. (At its height the team tasked Improving the Lim-5 comprised 26 e ‘mostly fresh out of college) The di fencountered by the team are illustrated by instance when two young Polish engicary production Lim-5® interceptor. enon archive LinsPs 609 Red (cn 1D 06:0) adapted for tage towing. with a winch driven by a ram ae tutne in large faring aft of the nose gear. Yen Garson arene cane to Moscow to tell their colleagues at (016-155 about ther attempts to develop all-y gle) stabilizers forthe fighter. How many people do you have working on this’, the Moyan engineers asked. ‘Forty’, the Poles pled righty believing that if they told the wth nobody would even listen to them. Yet fe is inflated figure was not good enough la'he OKB and the initiative did not win sup: ot (Perhaps the real reason was that no ober has an ugly baby, and the Mikoyan tegneers simply did not care forthe idea of ‘myone messing around with ther fighter!) Un.SP Fresco-D interceptor (produkt PF) The 12 MiG-17PFs delivered in 1955 were not ‘eoighto suite PWVL's need for an all-weather: ‘apa interceptor. Rather than buy adctional Fresco Ds inthe Soviet Union, Poland obtained {i leance to build this model as well. The Icence bit MiG-17PF received the local de: igaion Lim-5P ([mystwiee} przectwytyiacy ceptor fighter; it was also refered to in Poish documents as produkt PF The Poles wisely arranged to build the late ‘ode MG-17PF equipped with the RP-5lzum- ‘e082 radar. In contrast, the Soviet-buit scat supplied earlier had the original RP-1 lemrood-1 radar; thus the locally-manufac: ued Fresco-Ds could be readily recognized tye larger centrebody radome. The Lim-SP vas armed with three NA-23 cannons with up ‘1009, The fest arcraf, 101 Red (cin 1D 01-01), ‘led of the line at WSK Mielec on 18th Janu: 2 1959 and was delivered to the conversion faring centre at Modin AB on 12th February Thetigh priory attached to the interceptor italy atleast is lustrated by the fact that the fadory suspended production of the ‘pure’ LimStor more than a year (rom January 1958 ‘nko 1960) in order to gear up for building the LimSP. in wo years a total of 190 airraft in six batches was built (129 plus a static test air: fame, cin 10 01-05)! The final Lim-5P, 641 fad (ch 1D 06-41), was completed on 29th December 1960, The ype served with the Polish Air Force url gadually phased out, starting in 1971 the ast examples were retired in 1979. Many Uim$Ps were converted to Lim-6M strike ait: csahorLim€MR reconnaissance aircraft these versons are described separately) The Lim SP was also exported, albeit on a ‘much smaller scale. The East German Air Farce took dalvery of 40 aircraft in batches 1 (ons 1001-06 through 1D 01-10), 2nd 3; the first five aircraft of batch orginally intended for the PWL were diverted to the Indonesian Air Force, and two Lim SPs (cins 1D 06:37 and 1D 16-38) were supplied to Bulgaria ‘The Lim-5P's performance is shown in the table below. ety woh 19 (8) rr Norma AW, 5620 (12389) MAU 652 (14448) real lad 0 1960 2557) Top spedin ‘lan’ consion, nh ts) 211000 G89 1923 60702) 3.000m 82h 1 ogo 67297) Serie cling mt wi ep aks 14450 47 08) in ‘ean conon 1630006847) Tee toheght, i: to 5.00m (16048) 2 to 10000 G2a08t) 4“ (Combat ad onira ut st 12000m (38.3704, km nns* 1100 (88) Combat a with op tanks inmaxeticeny cus km (rn) (35 Toke un mt Tos (2395 103051) Landing mit) 52909 * he terbuer was engaged 300m 842%) wth lesen Lim-5P target tug conversion Some Lim-5Ps - eg, 609 Red (cin 10 0608) were adapted for target towing duties, with a winch driven by a ram air turbine in a large ta ing aft of the nose gear in a manner similar to the Czech MiG-15T and MiG-15bsT.” Unike the latter types, the Lim-SP target tug retained its armament. The winch was removable, a3 a photo of 609 Red taken at a later date shows it in standard configuration, Lim-SR tactical reconnaissance aircraft ‘The frst locally-designed derivative of the MiG: 17 was the Lim5R (rozpoznawczy) tactical reconnaissance aircraft featured an AFA-39 ‘camera mounted in similar fashion to the ‘SBLim-2A - in a small vental tating immed ately aft ofthe fuselage break point. Some ai cra, however, had a camera installation 4 la Lim-2R - ina tage faring offset to port imme. lately at ofthe NR-23 cannons The Lim-5R prototype was converted trom the sixth production aircraft (201 Red, cin 1C 02.01) and tested at ITWL. Later, at least 35 other Lim-5s were converted to ths standara. Lim-5M tactical fighter project (CM-1- first use of designation) ‘The growing speeds and take-off weight of jet icra led several nations to investigate ways mar stland means of improving their field peror mance, starting in the lale 1950s. This also implied the ablity to operate from semi-pre: pared tactical airstrips. Atypical solution tothe problem was the use of jet-assisted take-off (ATO) bottles and brake parachutes. Poland also conducted research in this rection. A team of engineers at WSK Mielec led by Feliks Borodzik developed the CM pro: ject (the first aircraft to use this designation), the M standing for modyhkowany ~ modified ‘The aircraft cifered from the basic Lim in ha. ing two SR (statowa rakieta) JATO bots, ‘each delivering 1,000kgp (2,208llst) for 12 seconds, on the aft fuselage sides. An SH-19 brake parachute (spadochron hamuiacy)" was stowed in a compartment under the jetpipe closed by double doors; this necessitated a redesign of the ventral fin which was now shorter and deeper. The CNHs take-off weight was 10 be 5.697kg (12.5591b) in counter. air configuration and 5,762kg (12,702!) in strike fighter configuration; the design maximum spoed was 1,080kmi/m (583.78Kts) and service caling was to be 14,100m (46,2601), Lim-5M tactical fighter (produkt CM) (CM. frst use of designation; ater changed 10 CM-I second use of designation) Inthe ate 1950s the Soviet Union and hence its Warsaw Pact alles began attaching consider able importance to fighter-bomber aircraft. This brought about an immediate problem: the basic Lim-S was considered inadequate as a sinke irra. bombs were caried, the MTOW se MG? limit imposed a limit on fuel quantty, thereby Feducing combat range, andi crop tanks were Used no bombs could be carried Hence, almost concurrently with the CM project, Feliks Borodzk's team developed the CMI designed primarily for the close air sup prt (CAS) role. The CMU featured twin-wheel ‘main gear units for operations trom grass or dit strips; quite simply, the standard units were modified to carry an extra brake wheel out board of the shock strut ona straight-through axle. All four mainwheels had low-pressure ties. ‘The second major change was the aircraft's increased fuel capacity. 260-itre (57-2 Imperial gallons) conformal tanks were installed under the wing roots, increasing total usable fuel by 513 tres (112.86 Imperial gallons) From there, fuel was transferred to the aft fuselage integral tank via two prominent conduits which ran from the wing traling edge to the airbrake actuator faiings. The tanks supplanted the usual drop tanks, leaving the standard wing hardpoints free for bombs or unguided rockets. They con: veniently doubled as firings for the redesigned main gear units; thus. appropriate changes were made to the gear doors. ‘The tanks protruded far beyond the wing leading edge, terminating about hallway between the air intake and the original wing root attachment point; the inboard boundary layer fences were extended considerably and \wrapped around the leading edge to form the sidewalls. The curious shape ofthe tanks gave rise to such nicknames as ‘szalik’ (scar) or Top et: Lim-SR 1904 Red (cn 1¢ 19-04) was ‘Used to teat various farings for twin mained ‘2 part of tho Lin-s development programms. ‘One ofthe early versions is seen here. Yelm Gordon archive “Top night and above lt A Inter, more elongated rmainwheo faring on 1904 Red. Note the reconnaissance camera faring under the fuselage. Yelm Gordon achive ‘Above right Yet anather type of airing based on {the Lim-Si's unsuceesstul conformal tanks. Note that the wraparound wing fences have Bot been damaged ina test Might. Yelm Gordon achive otniorzyk litle collar) when the airrat nal entered service. (Incidentally, these modifications necessi eda change in the aircraft's markings. The sa ial number was applied in much smaller dot ‘and sometimes repeated on the conformal a sidewalls, and the fuselage szachowniq (checkerboards, pronounced shahovitsy the Polish national insignia - were loca higher because ofthe conduits) The tail unit was reinforced, probably absorb the increased structural loads duty sharp manoeuvres al low altitude typical d CCAS missions. Like the projected CMH, th a craft had an SH-19 brake parachute ina venta Compartment (and hence a new ventral ir) ar provisions for JATO bottles, which as required some local reinforcement of the at trame.Changes were made to the electric and _eunate systems, as well as to the cockpit ‘aupment. Finally, the dipole aerials ofthe RV- {nde atimeter were moved from their usual \eeewing postions tothe fuselage centreline. The prototype OM! was converted trom a ndard Lim-5 (1030 Red, cin 1C 10-30). lie production aircraft, it had conformal fais of a-metal construction. Bearing a slightly aed construction number (CM 10-30) and fe sevice designation Lim-5M, the aircraft ttre ight test on 2nd July 1959. The main objective of the trials held at a seni prepared airfield in the Pomorski Defence Dist was to vey the new landing gear and bake parachute and to determine the ighte's {0 perormance. Stanislaw Kruk was the tegreer in charge of the tials programme. [ute when production aircraft with construc: forrumbers commencing 1F started coming te lne, the prototype's cin was changed ‘eanto 1F 10-30) Thetest report sad that the landing gear has assed the tests successfully ands cleared for tperatonal use on CM fighters’. It also stated atte twin wheels make it possible to com- piety éscontinue the operation ofthese air- tt tom concrete or asphalt runways’. The fapot stessed that the twin mainwheols tehanced fight safety, making the aircraft ess lho veer ofthe runway inthe event ofatyre tiplosio. On average the brake parachute Ieduced the lacing run by 250m (820); how fr thee were cases when the parachute bay ts damaged in a ta-down landing, The LimSM entered production in 1960. leestngly, the fist Lim-5M to be completed At WSK Mielec was actualy the second pro- facton acral (in terms of construction num- es) - 102 Red, cin 1F 01-02, which passed eckout tests at TWL between 19th August t24 200 October. 102 Red had an empty wig of 4.473kg (9,861 Ib), a normal AUW of 6258hg (19,7911) and a maximum AUW of 4958g (15,3901b). Top speed at 3,000m (88420) was 1,108kruh (598.9thts). The air- eathada service ceiling of 19,250m (49,471) ‘ful mitay power and 15,200m (49,8688) fn ful afterburner; it could reach 5,000m (16404) and 10,000m (22,808) in 3.62 and £89 minutes respectively. Concurrently, in late 1960 the prototype was \sedina further tials programme to determine te crabity ofthe nose gear unit during high ss weight take-otfs and landings (6,890kg/ 15188 and 5,800k/12,786 Ib respectively). Aerts, the nose gear was beefed up and this rated design was used on production air- crit Meanwhile, work on refining the Lim-5M cortrued, ‘sed 1 Red, the prototype ofthe unsuecesstu Lins site version. Youn Gordon archive Full-scale production got under way on 30th November 1960 when the frst production Lim- ‘5M in terms of construction numbers (101 Red, cin 1F 01-01) was completed. On production aircrat the conformal tanks had a 13mm (0.5tin) laminated composite skin on a metal framework thei total capacity was slighty less than in the original allmetal version (475 tres/108.5 Imperial gallons). Minor changes were introduced along the way: eg, the radio altimeter aerials which were exposed on the first few LimSMs were soon enclosed by dielectric farings (possibly to prevent damage by stones or other objects thrown up by the rnosewheel). With farings, the aerials looked remarkably similar to the towing hook on a ‘number of Lim-25 used for target towing, ‘According tothe fight marwal, the Lim-SM's take-off run in ful aterburner was 710 10 770m (2.329 to 2.5261), depending on runway class (paved or unpaved). With JATO bottes the fighter became airborne in 350 to 370m (1,148 01,214), which was an improvement of more than 50%. It should be noted thatthe take-off run was shorter than the standard Lim's, despite the higher gross weight, because the large conformal tanks created a ground effect, increasing it ‘Without brake parachute the landing run was 1,140m @,740R), but again, using the parachute halved ths distance (670m /2,1988). The arma- ‘ment consisted of the usual twee cannons {one N.37D and two NR-23s); addtionaly, the Lim-5M could carry two FFAR pods of various ‘models with 8,15 or 25 S-5 rockets each. ‘Generally the Lim-5M was not particularly ssuccesstl, and production ended on 10th May 1961 after ony three batches (10, 20and 30 air- craft respectively) had been built The ype served with both the PWL and the Polish naval ac arm; itwas not much ofapla's airplane’ and hence ot very popular with ts pilots. Ofthe 60 aircraft built, ten were lost in accidents, most of these being attributed to the type's dffcult handling characteristics." All surviving LimSMs were eventually converted to Lim-Bbis standard in 1964-65 (this version is described separately) The following table shows the production Lim-5M's specifications as per manufacturer's documents Orang 108m 98 67) Wg san 928m 07) Higtton gourd aan(i25n) ie ack 38660 (127 Fue cant.) 155 6426 Fue cart, Is pg) 10158) Too sped nt shrek es) 21300 82) 108 6988) at5t0m (1 4t 157 57, at 0otnn 82a) 105 845 Top see altri pone): ax3oton 88%) 260875 at 500m (6408 54 5085 ‘#:0000m 024084 sino Tinetoheigtintal atte in ‘05.0640 see ter0otnn G2a0ee a Tine tone att mite pve, i ‘05.00 640) 368 10000 2408 on Fat of cle st mse ii) ‘ae 51 10009 tay gover 7638 Sees cing.) ‘lulaterarer 15200 sah mitay over 1320 Ceabatas, cldatetner ascraye hsniar poner na * te aerbrer nas ngage at 3 000 (9.824 + ncung Ome fae combat 00m (3.2808, In standard configuration (with conformal tanks) the aircraft clocked @ top speed of 1,046kmih (565.4Kts), exhibiting a sight ten- dency to roll and some vibration at 800kmhh (432.43kts). Without conformal tanks. (with ‘mainwheel faiings only), top speed rose 10 1,091 (589.73kts); again, however, gradu: ally decaying vibration and oscilations in all three control channels were discovered at Tookmh (378.97kts).Lim-SMR (produkt CMR) tactical reconnaissance aircraft project ‘The Lim-5M generated a few spinots ofits own. The first of these was the LimSMR (mod- ‘ikowany, rozpoznawczy) tactical PHOTINT ai craft, aka produkt CMR, Unike the production Lim-5R, it was to carry the cameras in wingtip 'B0dS increasing the wingspan to 10.58m (38h 8.in); three combinations of AFA-29, AFA-BA- 40R, AFABAF-21S and AFPN21 cameras were envisaged. Yet the Lim-SMR remained a paper aircraft Lim-6 experimental tactical (produkt CM) (CM-II~ second use of designation) Development of this version began even before the Lim-5M entered production, and the devel ‘opment process was long and tortuous. The ‘most obvious new feature as compared to the Lim-SM was a relocated brake parachute hous- ing. The ‘chute was housed ina long ‘stinger fairing at the base of the rudder rather than Under the jetpipe, and the standard long shal- low ventral fn was reinstated ‘There were two reasons for this change, Firstly, tests of the prototype Lim-SM (cin CM 10-30) had shown that the vertraly attached brake parachute caused the aircraft to pitch down sharply: this meant it could only be ‘deployed sately when the nosewneel was fly ‘on the ground. Conversely a parachute located ‘above the thrust line caused the fighter to pitch up. increasing drag: hence it could be deployed immadiately attr touchdown, redue: ing the landing run dramatically. Secondly, despite the tail bumper, there were cases when the ventral brake parachute housing was dam. aged ina tai-down landing, The new arrangement was tested.on the sec- ‘ond prototype Lim-5M (ex-Lim-5 ‘1601 Red, cin 1€ 16-01) which, tke the fest prototype, had ‘been retained by PZL as a‘dogship' for testing ‘new equipment. As with te fist prototype, the coin was changed, becoming CM 16.01. Cur: ously, the aircrat had two serials (16 Red to port and 01 Fed to starboard) making up the two halves of the orginal serial, The reason is not obvious, since there was stil plenty ofroom on the nose for the complete seria Originally PZL installed a twin-canopy para- ‘chute system, hoping to get the most out ofthe ‘new location. hiss part othe reason why the parachute housing was so long - ample room hhad to be provided or the two parachutes!) The two parachutes were attached on lines of ‘unequal length (the starboard one was longer). ‘The test programme received the go-ahead in January 1960. However, tests quickly showed that the twin brake parachute system did not work -the port canopy (which was closerto the aircraft) influenced the starboard canopy in ‘such a way as to prevent it from filing propery Hence in October 1960 the prototype Lim-SM was modified to testa single brake parachute in the same location; this worked well and was later used on production aircraft. fighter ss MiGt7 ‘Also in 1960, Lim-5M “16 RediO1 Red’ was ‘modified again, this time in an attempt to improve aerodynamics. Anew, wider rear fuse lage aft of the fuselage break point (tame 13) Was fitted to make use of the area rule; this allowed the fuel pipelines rom the conformal tanks to the aft integral tank to be housed intr. rally. The single engine inspection panel on ‘each side of the ft fuselage was replaced by ‘wo smaller panels. Yet tests showed once ‘again that the conversion had no effect. ‘Because of the conformal tanks/main gear far- ings, the maximum fuselage cross-section was ‘ahead of the new rear fuselage, which meant the area rule could not be used and the idea, was abandoned, ‘Another way of improving the aircraft's field performance was the use of more efficient high: lit devices. In July 1960 PZL engineers com- pleted the development of slotted blown flaps for the Lim-5M replacing the standard Fowler taps. The flaps were blown by engine bleed air which exited via slots on the upper surtace, delaying airflow departure and increasing lt this required modifications tothe engine com pressor ‘The blown flaps were tested in Janwary 1961 ‘on Lim-5M"16 Red) Red’. Inthis guise the ai Craft was intially designated Lim-SMl or pro-

You might also like

• Aerofax - MiG-19.The - Soviet.Unions - First.Production - Supersonic.Fighter PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Aerofax - MiG-19.The - Soviet.Unions - First.Production - Supersonic.Fighter PDF

  162 pages
• Sukhoi Su 24 Fencer Soviet Swing Wing Bomber

  

  100% (4)

  Sukhoi Su 24 Fencer Soviet Swing Wing Bomber

  162 pages
• Warbird Tech 41 - Mig-29 Fulcrum

  

  100% (1)

  Warbird Tech 41 - Mig-29 Fulcrum

  107 pages
• (Midland) - (Red Star 016) - Sukhoi Interceptors-The - SU-9 - SU-11 - SU-15 - and Other Types PDF

  

  100% (5)

  (Midland) - (Red Star 016) - Sukhoi Interceptors-The - SU-9 - SU-11 - SU-15 - and Other Types PDF

  129 pages
• (Midland) - (Red Star 011) - Myasishchev M-4 & 3M - The First Soviet Strategic Jet Bomber PDF

  

  100% (2)

  (Midland) - (Red Star 011) - Myasishchev M-4 & 3M - The First Soviet Strategic Jet Bomber PDF

  130 pages
• Aerofax - MiG-17 PDF

  

  100% (3)

  Aerofax - MiG-17 PDF

  145 pages
• Red Star, Vol 17-Early Soviet Jet Bombers-The 1940s and Early 1950s

  

  100% (4)

  Red Star, Vol 17-Early Soviet Jet Bombers-The 1940s and Early 1950s

  130 pages
• (Midland) - (Red Star 004) - Early Soviet Jet Fighters PDF

  

  100% (6)

  (Midland) - (Red Star 004) - Early Soviet Jet Fighters PDF

  146 pages
• Mig-21 'Fishbed' - The World's Most Widely Used Supersonic - Yefim Gordon, Bill Gunston - Aerofax, 1996 - Midland Publishing - 9781857800425 - Anna's Archive

  

  100% (1)

  Mig-21 'Fishbed' - The World's Most Widely Used Supersonic - Yefim Gordon, Bill Gunston - Aerofax, 1996 - Midland Publishing - 9781857800425 - Anna's Archive

  146 pages
• Mikoyan MiG-25 Foxbad

  

  100% (1)

  Mikoyan MiG-25 Foxbad

  146 pages
• Mig-2327 Flogger Soviet Swing-Wing FighterStrike Aircrart by Yefim Gordon and Keith Dexter

  

  100% (2)

  Mig-2327 Flogger Soviet Swing-Wing FighterStrike Aircrart by Yefim Gordon and Keith Dexter

  178 pages
• Famous Russian Aircraft MiG 21

  

  97% (36)

  Famous Russian Aircraft MiG 21

  723 pages
• Russian Warriors - Sukhoi, MiG and Tupolev

  

  100% (9)

  Russian Warriors - Sukhoi, MiG and Tupolev

  124 pages
• (Squadron-Signal) Aircraft in Action N°131 - Mig-21 Fishbed

  

  100% (1)

  (Squadron-Signal) Aircraft in Action N°131 - Mig-21 Fishbed

  60 pages
• Russian Military Aircraft Guide

  

  100% (10)

  Russian Military Aircraft Guide

  132 pages
• Yefim Gordon - Myasishev M-4 and 3M PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Yefim Gordon - Myasishev M-4 and 3M PDF

  129 pages
• The MiG-21 Fishbed, 1955-2010 (Histoire & Collections - Planes and Pilots 12) PDF

  

  100% (16)

  The MiG-21 Fishbed, 1955-2010 (Histoire & Collections - Planes and Pilots 12) PDF

  99 pages
• MiG-21 - in Action 1131

  

  100% (1)

  MiG-21 - in Action 1131

  60 pages
• Midland - OKB Yakovlev - A History of The Design Bureau and Its Aircraft

  

  100% (5)

  Midland - OKB Yakovlev - A History of The Design Bureau and Its Aircraft

  194 pages
• Aerofax - MiG-15 PDF

  

  100% (4)

  Aerofax - MiG-15 PDF

  162 pages
• MiG-21 Fishbed Aerofax

  

  100% (8)

  MiG-21 Fishbed Aerofax

  146 pages
• MiG-17 Fresco Walkaround

  

  100% (15)

  MiG-17 Fresco Walkaround

  82 pages
• English Electric Lightning Genesis & Projects

  

  100% (3)

  English Electric Lightning Genesis & Projects

  152 pages
• Aerofax - Tupolev Tu-22 Blinder, Tu-22M Backfire

  

  100% (1)

  Aerofax - Tupolev Tu-22 Blinder, Tu-22M Backfire

  96 pages
• DCS MiG-21bis Guide

  

  100% (3)

  DCS MiG-21bis Guide

  132 pages
• International Air Power Review 01 PDF

  

  100% (5)

  International Air Power Review 01 PDF

  197 pages
• Vdoc - Pub Sukhoi Su 7 Su 20

  

  100% (1)

  Vdoc - Pub Sukhoi Su 7 Su 20

  58 pages
• (Aviation) - (AeroFax Extra N°02) - Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 Flucrum

  

  100% (1)

  (Aviation) - (AeroFax Extra N°02) - Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 Flucrum

  44 pages
• MiG 31 Midland

  

  95% (19)

  MiG 31 Midland

  226 pages
• MiG-17 Fresco by Hans-Heiri Stapfer

  

  100% (2)

  MiG-17 Fresco by Hans-Heiri Stapfer

  82 pages
• 04 Luftwaffe Fitter - The Su-22 in German Air Force Service AirDOC

  

  100% (3)

  04 Luftwaffe Fitter - The Su-22 in German Air Force Service AirDOC

  72 pages
• Dassault Mirage F-1, Rene Francillon PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Dassault Mirage F-1, Rene Francillon PDF

  41 pages
• Aerofax - Lockheeds SR-71 Blackbird Family PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Aerofax - Lockheeds SR-71 Blackbird Family PDF

  129 pages
• Mikoyan MIG-19 (Aviation) - (4+ Publication)

  

  100% (26)

  Mikoyan MIG-19 (Aviation) - (4+ Publication)

  47 pages
• (Midland) - (Red Star 024) - Tupolev Tu-144 Russias Concorde PDF

  

  100% (3)

  (Midland) - (Red Star 024) - Tupolev Tu-144 Russias Concorde PDF

  132 pages
• Famous Airplanes 24 Army Experimental Fighters

  

  100% (2)

  Famous Airplanes 24 Army Experimental Fighters

  97 pages
• 002 Su-22M4 Fitter (OCR)

  

  100% (1)

  002 Su-22M4 Fitter (OCR)

  54 pages
• Warplane For The World F5

  

  100% (3)

  Warplane For The World F5

  121 pages
• Squadron Signal 1028 B 47 Stratojet

  

  100% (2)

  Squadron Signal 1028 B 47 Stratojet

  51 pages
• EA-6B Prowler (D&S)

  

  100% (2)

  EA-6B Prowler (D&S)

  70 pages
• Aerofax - Handley Page Victor PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Aerofax - Handley Page Victor PDF

  148 pages
• NASA Facts The Lockheed YF-12 1999

  

  100% (1)

  NASA Facts The Lockheed YF-12 1999

  5 pages
• F-100 Super Sabre in Detail Scale (Bert Kinzey) (Z-Library)

  

  100% (3)

  F-100 Super Sabre in Detail Scale (Bert Kinzey) (Z-Library)

  76 pages
• MiG 21 Lancer

  

  100% (3)

  MiG 21 Lancer

  15 pages
• English Electric Lightning

  

  100% (7)

  English Electric Lightning

  100 pages
• (Midland) - (Red Star 009) - Tupolev - Tu-160.Blackjack PDF

  

  100% (3)

  (Midland) - (Red Star 009) - Tupolev - Tu-160.Blackjack PDF

  130 pages
• (Midland) - (Red Star 007) - Tupolev Tu-4 PDF

  

  100% (3)

  (Midland) - (Red Star 007) - Tupolev Tu-4 PDF

  130 pages
• Hof 12

  

  No ratings yet

  Hof 12

  108 pages
• (Midland) - (Red Star 021) - Antonovs Jet Twins. The An-72-74 Family PDF

  

  100% (2)

  (Midland) - (Red Star 021) - Antonovs Jet Twins. The An-72-74 Family PDF

  130 pages
• Aerofax Avro Vulcan

  

  100% (5)

  Aerofax Avro Vulcan

  147 pages
• MDFSD007 The Boeing FA-18 Super Hornet

  

  100% (8)

  MDFSD007 The Boeing FA-18 Super Hornet

  104 pages
• Combat Machines 02 - B-25 Mitchel

  

  100% (4)

  Combat Machines 02 - B-25 Mitchel

  84 pages
• Air Power Asia MiG Vs Pakistan

  

  100% (1)

  Air Power Asia MiG Vs Pakistan

  15 pages
• MiG-21 (Fishbed) Variants

  

  No ratings yet

  MiG-21 (Fishbed) Variants

  24 pages
• MiG Aircraft Since 1937 PDF

  

  100% (9)

  MiG Aircraft Since 1937 PDF

  292 pages
• Mig 21 Fishbed

  

  100% (2)

  Mig 21 Fishbed

  24 pages
• MiG Aircraft Since 1937

  

  100% (2)

  MiG Aircraft Since 1937

  286 pages
• Mig Fighter Aircraft 1940-50

  

  No ratings yet

  Mig Fighter Aircraft 1940-50

  5 pages
• Korea

  

  No ratings yet

  Korea

  12 pages
• Mig-21Bis: 1/48 Scale Plastic Model Kit

  

  No ratings yet

  Mig-21Bis: 1/48 Scale Plastic Model Kit

  20 pages
• International Air Power Review 04 PDF

  

  91% (11)

  International Air Power Review 04 PDF

  181 pages
• International Air Power Review 03 PDF

  

  86% (7)

  International Air Power Review 03 PDF

  181 pages
• International Air Power Review 02 PDF

  

  88% (8)

  International Air Power Review 02 PDF

  182 pages
• International Air Power Review 07 PDF

  

  75% (8)

  International Air Power Review 07 PDF

  182 pages
• International Air Power Review 08 PDF

  

  75% (4)

  International Air Power Review 08 PDF

  181 pages
• International Air Power Review 06 PDF

  

  80% (5)

  International Air Power Review 06 PDF

  181 pages
• International Air Power Review 05 PDF

  

  80% (5)

  International Air Power Review 05 PDF

  182 pages
• Aerofax - McDonnell Douglas DC-10 & KC-10 Extender (Ocr) PDF

  

  100% (4)

  Aerofax - McDonnell Douglas DC-10 & KC-10 Extender (Ocr) PDF

  130 pages
• Tips - Ilyushin Il 76 PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Tips - Ilyushin Il 76 PDF

  83 pages
• Aerofax - Grumman F-14 Tomcat PDF

  

  100% (2)

  Aerofax - Grumman F-14 Tomcat PDF

  90 pages
• Aerofax - McDonnel Douglas MD-11. A Long Beach Swansong PDF

  

  100% (2)

  Aerofax - McDonnel Douglas MD-11. A Long Beach Swansong PDF

  114 pages
• Aerofax - IIyushin - IL-18-20-22.A.Versatile - Turboprop.Transport PDF

  

  60% (5)

  Aerofax - IIyushin - IL-18-20-22.A.Versatile - Turboprop.Transport PDF

  83 pages
• Aerofax - Lockheed Martin FA-22 Raptor. Stealth Fighter PDF

  

  100% (1)

  Aerofax - Lockheed Martin FA-22 Raptor. Stealth Fighter PDF

  131 pages
• Aerofax - McDonnell Douglas DC-10 & KC-10 Extender (Ocr) PDF

  

  100% (4)

  Aerofax - McDonnell Douglas DC-10 & KC-10 Extender (Ocr) PDF

  130 pages
• Aerofax - Lockheed Martin FA-22 Raptor. Stealth Fighter PDF

  

  No ratings yet

  Aerofax - Lockheed Martin FA-22 Raptor. Stealth Fighter PDF

  131 pages
• Aerofax - Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker PDF

  

  100% (5)

  Aerofax - Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker PDF

  226 pages
• Aerofax - Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey - Tiltrotor Tactical Transport PDF

  

  86% (7)

  Aerofax - Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey - Tiltrotor Tactical Transport PDF

  130 pages
• Aerofax - Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker PDF

  

  100% (5)

  Aerofax - Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker PDF

  226 pages
• (Midland) - (Red Star 022) - Mils Heavylift Helicopters PDF

  

  100% (1)

  (Midland) - (Red Star 022) - Mils Heavylift Helicopters PDF

  129 pages
• Aerofax - IIyushin - IL-18-20-22.A.Versatile - Turboprop.Transport PDF

  

  60% (5)

  Aerofax - IIyushin - IL-18-20-22.A.Versatile - Turboprop.Transport PDF

  83 pages