• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

SU-27 First Flight in KRFD

Schnugg

It's gettin' a bit dramatic 'round here...
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The email I recieved yesterday from a member of the project stated it was Puck flying. Back in June he told me there was going to be a Ukrainian pilot in the back during initial flights.

I bumped into an old Topgun bro at Hook 09 who went to Ukraine for Su-27 ground school and flight training for this jet.

Some good tales.
 

yak52driver

Well-Known Member
Contributor
I bumped into an old Topgun bro at Hook 09 who went to Ukraine for Su-27 ground school and flight training for this jet.

Some good tales.

I bet. I understand two pilots went to Ukraine for training. I guess the Ukraine pilots like laying the G's on. They went up with a couple of local L-39 pilots and were pulling 6 g's during airwork. There comment was the -27 doesn't start turning till you get to 6. The local pilots looked all beat up after the flight. :D
 

Excited Mid

New Member
Never understood FFA reg's on demilitarized aircraft and the requirement that ejection seats must be removed. Seems as though in an aircraft such as the SU-27 ejection seats would be a nice form of insurance. What's up with the lousy climb performance?? 64,000ft/min? thats it? that is going vertical at 720mph up to 12 miles?


I would imagine that the FFA wouldnt just want ejected jet aircraft crashing into the sides of building in chicago. At least without the ejector seat the pilot has a chance to control the aircraft away from further damage.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I would imagine that the FFA wouldnt just want ejected jet aircraft crashing into the sides of building in chicago. At least without the ejector seat the pilot has a chance to control the aircraft away from further damage.
So why put ejection seats in an airplane to begin with, if the lazy pilot is going to shell out early instead of properly steering away from the puppy and kitten-filled orphanage he's headed toward?

That's not how NATOPS works. When you pull the handle, it means you have done everything you could to save the jet. The only choice anyone on the ground has is whether or not there's one, two, or four more bodies added to the count, depending on which airframe it is. You generally don't eject if you have control of the aircraft, unless you have no engines left and/or are about to blow up.

And the day the Future Farmers of America takes over aviation regulations . . . well . . . yeah. :icon_tong
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Never understood FFA reg's on demilitarized aircraft and the requirement that ejection seats must be removed. Seems as though in an aircraft such as the SU-27 ejection seats would be a nice form of insurance. What's up with the lousy climb performance?? 64,000ft/min? thats it? that is going vertical at 720mph up to 12 miles?

For the record, I didn't post that.
 

BusyBee604

St. Francis/Hugh Hefner Combo!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
I would imagine that the FFA wouldnt just want ejected jet aircraft crashing into the sides of building in chicago. At least without the ejector seat the pilot has a chance to control the aircraft away from further damage.

In my day (and I think today as well), it was simply understood as a matter of personal honor, that you STAY in the aircraft...doing everything possible to avoid dumping it in a populated area. Even knowing that to clear those in danger on the ground may cost you a safe ejection, you have to make that ultimate sacrifice; however, if you are SURE you can't make it (and still have control), you try to steer it toward the lesser populated area & eject above the seat envelope (as in the USMC F/A-18 accident in SDiego last year).
It's a tough Pilot's decision, but it's of no use to stay in the bird if his situation is untenable... just needlessly adds one more to the casualty list.
The Navy trusts [us] to safely fly these expensive machines, and further, to make the right & honorable decision in extremis.
*FAA vice FFA;)
BzB
 

JTH

New Member
Looks like Pride's Flankers do come with insurance:

As quoted from: http://www.prideaircraft.com/SU27-specs-01.pdf with the main page being: http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm
"Egress System: 2 x K-36DM Series 2 ejection seats, with zero-zero capability"

No halfway intelligent person would purchase a Flanker without ejection seats.

Where would you be able to actually open up the throttles over the continental US in a civilian warbird capable of mach 1+?
 

Raptor2216

Registered User
Looks like Pride's Flankers do come with insurance:

As quoted from: http://www.prideaircraft.com/SU27-specs-01.pdf with the main page being: http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm
"Egress System: 2 x K-36DM Series 2 ejection seats, with zero-zero capability"

No halfway intelligent person would purchase a Flanker without ejection seats.

Where would you be able to actually open up the throttles over the continental US in a civilian warbird capable of mach 1+?


Not that I would recommend it but either low out over the water or low over the desert. It has its hazards but it would probably be fun.
 

EODDave

The pastures are greener!
pilot
Super Moderator
These guys should go out to Fallon and jump into an LFE as a wild card. I can already picture it "'Holy Shit is that a Flanker!"
 
Top