MiG-23MS - Performance Characteristics?

[Crossi]

Ted,

was the MiG-23 deployed against the F-14 during Constant Peg? A comparison would be interesting, because both are are variable sweep wing fighters.

Crossi

[Bandit 42]

Crossi,

Yes, we flew the MiG-23 (both MS and BN) regularly against the F-14 and the F-14 won hands down. The problem with the MiG-23 was it's relatively low AOA limits and the sever penalty you paid if you exceeded them (eg: departure and spin). All the "then modern" U.S. fighters (F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18) owned the sky against the MiG-23 in a maneuvering fight. It was so lopsided, we didn't allow the US fighters to start offensive or hardly ever even neutral because it was just a waste of time and fuel. We almost always had the US fighters start on the defensive and manuver from there and they still won. The best the MiG-23 could hope for was a quick shot at the beginning of the engagement (since he started on the offensive), and then separate without being killed. We were able to do that occasionally but the usual outcome was that the MiG-23 got killed. The only U.S. aircraft we were even closely matched against was the F-4 and even then the MiG-23 was at a disadvantage. The MiG-23MS was more of an Intercepter than a true Fighter. I understand later models of the MiG-23 had better maneuverability.

Ted

[mig23]

I think the 2-tone grey has too much of the dark grey. In the back of my mind I seem to remember a 3-tone grey with the pattern more like the brown and green model (eg: smaller patches of each color). Can you give that a try?

Hi Ted,

This is based on the Brussels BN pattern but using similar colours to a couple of Red Eagle T-38s in 1987 - 88...





Cheers,

Haydn.

[Lancer]

As I recall, our understanding of Soviet/Warsaw Pact MiG-23 ejection statistics were approximately as follows: one-third survived with minor or no injuries, one-third survived with major injuries, and one-third were killed.

Ted, I believe those statistics are somehow inflated and inaccurate. Maybe the 1/3 killed figure could be covered if we include all Flogger mishaps when the pilot(s) did not eject, but even than there's no justification for the 1/3 ratio of pilots with major injuries - after all, going by the statistics the KM-1M was a pretty good seat if employed within its envelope.

The Romanian Air force had 7 Flogger mishaps in the period 1984-1999.
Ejections took place in 5 cases (3 UBs and 2 MFs), so a toatal of 8 pilots ejected. None was killed, only one injured significantly (broken limb) and another one or two with minor injuries.
One of them ejected on the horizontal at an altitude of 80 meters (260 feet) and survived with minor injuries

The Hungarian Air force experienced 5 MiG-23 mishaps from 1985-1995.
Ejections took place in 2 cases from MF single seaters, both escaped.

Bulgaria was a big MiG-23 user, having around 90 airframes of various versions. They had 12 accidents between 1981-1994. About 3 I don't have sufficient data, 3 pilots did not eject so were killed and in 6 accidents (including one two-seater) 7 pilots ejected, all succesfully.

Sources:
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/
http://www.ondutchwings.nl/db.php
plus various magazines

I'm looking forward to what A.Flogger.D has to say on the subject

[Bandit 42]

Lancer,

Thanks for the information. Accurate data is much easier to come by now than it was back in the 70s and 80s. I wish we had the internet back then. Steve lists 3 MiG-23 ejections in his book. 2 were fatal (although both undoubtedly out of the envelope) and 1 uninjured. I guess I probably knew what the envelope was at 1 time but I can't remember it now. I too am looking forward to what A.Flogger.D has to say.

Thanks again,

Ted

[Crossi]

The EGAF had 10 mishapes with MiG-23 - five of the were fatal.
MiG-23ML: 3 crashes, all fatal. One ejection, but pilot had drowned in the Baltic Sea.
MiG-23UB: 3 crashes, one of them was fatal. Four ejections - one minor and one major injury.
MiG-23BN: 4 crashes, two of them were fatal. Two ejections, one of them with major injury.

The KM-1M was no zero-zero seat. The envelope: 140-600km/h at sea level, 600-1000km/h 30m above ground. Dependent on the  type of helmet up to 1200km/h.

 

[Bandit 42]

Crossi,

Good information. Where did you get it?

Ted

[Crossi]

These information are condensed from various sources, but the former EGAF mishapes are meanwhile pretty good documented.
A good book to start with is: "11-80, katapultieren Sie!" (Translated from German: "11-80 [callsign], eject!!!")
Here are nearly all aircraft accident of the former EAGF listed (German language).

[a.flogger.d]

Ted, Lancer,

the ejection seat KM-1M of the advanced MiG-21 versions and all MiG-23 represented from my point of view a very sophisticated system that worked in almost all cases pretty reliable. Thanks to several barometric sensors and a lot of “gun powder” the pilot in trouble could eject out of the a/c without (too) long lasting meditation.
The training of the ejection procedure was obligatory. I remember that we did it at a special training device with one third a load (approx. 8 g) two times a year during my study in Russia. Once only - to get a better imagination -  with half a load … The only thing we had to do: to press the body to the backrest and pull (better with both hands) the ejection handles. The procedure itself was like a hammer onto one’s head or like a head-on collision; not very convenient. Pilots who were forced to eject told us that they could not remember what happened to them until the parachute had opened.
In the EGAF we had some fatal ejections were the pilots had been killed. But in those cases the circumstances were too critical for this type of ejection seat or the pilot had lost his capacity to act (?). On the other hand I’d like to say that nearly 90% of ejections with the KM-1M were successful (we are not speaking about the older KM-1 !). The most advanced system of ejection seat K-36 the Russian engineers put into the next generation of mil. a/c like the MiG-29 or Su-27. We are all know pretty good how excellent that system works …
Thanks to Crossi I don’t had to look for the exact technical parameters of the KM-1M. All data are exactly the same like they are printed in the technical description or in my russian documents.
Last but not least let me tell you why we were not be afraid of ejecting: because it is much easier not to eject through a (closed) canopy … 
Cheers,
A.Flogger.D

[Crossi]

In the recent German tv broadcast about the "Have ..." programs and constant peg (http://fjphotography.com/constantpeg/forum/index.php?topic=109.0) Herbert J. "Hawk" Carlisle was talking about his ejection from a MiG-23 in 1987.  Same pattern ... unexpected departure from controlled flight while trying to turn falling into an unrecoverable spin. They said it was the third MiG loss.
Would like to know which MiG-23 variant he was flying?!




Here a pretty good picture of an Egypt MiG-23MS. Probably one of which eventually found their way to Tonopah.

[Bandit 42]

MiG-23 BN.

The MiG-23 in general was not tolerant of AOA even close to its limits but the BN (ground attack variant) was especially sensitive. By far, most of our departures from controlled flight were in the "BN" model. This isn't really surprising since we were flying an aircraft designed primarily for ground attack in the air-to-air role. We would have preferred not to have had to do this but most of our MiG-23s were BNs and if we were going to generate any significant number of sorties, we had to fly the BNs air-to-air. We used what we had and sometimes it bit us. The really good news is that Hawk's ejection was successful.

Ted

[Crossi]

The really good news is that Hawk's ejection was successful.

True! Was it the second or third MiG-23 loss (taking Bond's mishape into account)?

Crossi

[Bandit 42]

Crossi,

It was the second for our Squadron. Mark Postai was the first and Hawk Carlisle was the second.

Ted

[Crossi]

Crossi

Attached in the following posts are three pages from the HAVE PAD MiG-23MS Interim Report from the FTD; I also have the Final Report, but have not had a chance to look through it.

I hope this answers some of your SAU-23 questions. Once I have time to look at the final report, I'll scan any new information!

Cheers

Steve

Steve,
is there a picture or drawing of the MiG-23MS cockpit in evaluation document which you could post here?
Crossi

[Crossi]

The problem with the MiG-23 was it's relatively low AOA limits and the sever penalty you paid if you exceeded them (eg: departure and spin).

Ted,
would you mind to explain the use of the rudder during higher AoA with the MiG-23 (we agree both on the limitations   ), e.g. did you used it to roll the a/c like it it has to be done with the Phantom?!
Did the Red Eagles had other departure or spin related accidents (without crashing the a/c) with the MiG-23?


BTW, I have to correct myself. You and "Flogger Geek" are right about the AoA indicator and the true AoA.

As I recall, the AOA limit was around 17 UNITS at 16 degrees wing sweep, 27 units at 45 degrees sweep, and 32 units at 72 degrees sweep. I stessed UNITS because it was in units and not degrees AOA so I don't know how many degrees that corresponded to.

... AOA signal generated/sensed by
left-side sensor AOA vane transducer. This signal sent through a filter to
provide lead to prevent overshoot. These signals are not corrected for upwash or
sideslip. There are charts to correlate cockpit AOA indications to actual
degrees! .

The indicator does show AoA in degree, but not corrected and only local for the left-sided DUA AoA sensor. Flogger Geek correctly described that. There is a rule of thumb for the MiG-23MS to calculate the correlation between true and local AoA:

 α(local) = 1.6α(true) - 1°

Might be interesting for "Flogger Geek".

Chris