Owner is a former A-6 dude from my era...Man, hope that thing was either insured or the owner is stupid rich enough not to care.
Between that and some of the declassified stuff I’ve read about CONSTANT PEG, seems the Flogger is/was a bit of a widowmaker.
1.2 seconds, bitch. You'll account for your crew and you'll like it, or else you'll be the one who splats. ?Does front seat go first in this hog? Do soviets discriminate against NFOs more effectively than we do?
From Wikipedia . . .also the amount of aerodynamic "fixes" they seem to have implemented on the Flogger's hind quarters are probably telling about the plane itself.
I'm a Prowler guy and that's still just horrifying. At least we never claimed to be a fighter.Among the nicknames the Constant Peg pilots had for the MiG-23 was the "Looping Hog" because it flew like a pig and one of the few basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) it could pull off in a dogfight was a massive loop. If going fast enough, a MiG-23 could easily perform a loop 4 mi (6.4 km) high that other planes would struggle to follow, at the bottom of which it would cut back inside them and proceed to fly off until outside their visual range so it could come back in again. The only other BFM the MiG-23 could perform, according to Col (ret.) John "Sax" Saxman, was the "no circle fight": as the two aircraft approached and passed close by each other the MiG-23, instead of trying to turn one way or the other with the enemy aircraft (as in a one-circle or two-circle fight), would speed on ahead until it could come back into the fight from a different angle.[29]
I . . . wow. ???We taught the guys that if you were defensive with a Flogger right behind you, then you were automatically offensive, because even the worst pilot in the world would be able to deny him the shot. You would turn, he would try and turn with you, but he would never be able to turn the same corner as you.
— Col (ret.) Paco Geisler, 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron
For accuracy, that's not part of the Operating Limitations for an Experimental aircraft. You can take pax on normal day-to-day flights in most circumstances....s that normally it is against the operating certificate to have any passengers during a demo.
How convenient . . . you lucky bastard.However, it also required that I
1. get rated in the L-39, and
2. get my low altitude aerobatic certification in the L-39.
For accuracy, that's not part of the Operating Limitations for an Experimental aircraft. You can take pax on normal day-to-day flights in most circumstances.
However, if operating in "Waivered Airspace" like you have at an airshow, it is only "essential crew". Now, I can definitely see a case for the MiG-23UB where, even though it can be flown single-pilot, having a second safety observer could be argued reasonably.
Awesome video, but uggh on the music.A fun video one of our support pilots put together.
Between that and some of the declassified stuff I’ve read about CONSTANT PEG, seems the Flogger is/was a bit of a widowmaker.
I like the whole “if you put it into a spin, the engine shaft flexes and makes the motor grenade itself” bit. Very well-thought-out there, Ivan. And I thought sketchy 4.5 bearings were something.A USAF Lt General died flying one in 1984.
On a related note, the CONSTANT PEG birds were why the F-117 wasn't the F-113, F-114 or F-116 among others.