MIG-23 Ejection/Crash this past weekend . . . .

[robav8r]

Some amazing pictures . . .

 

[nittany03]

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.

 

[ChuckMK23]

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.

Owner is a former A-6 dude from my era...

 

[MIDNJAC]

Does front seat go first in this hog? Do soviets discriminate against NFOs more effectively than we do?

 

[nittany03]

Does front seat go first in this hog? Do soviets discriminate against NFOs more effectively than we do?

1.2 seconds, bitch. You'll account for your crew and you'll like it, or else you'll be the one who splats. ?

 

[MIDNJAC]

edit: I think the rear canopy is gone in the first pic, so maybe not

also the amount of aerodynamic "fixes" they seem to have implemented on the Flogger's hind quarters are probably telling about the plane itself. One thing that has been mentioned by some folks I know who do this sort of thing, is that normally it is against the operating certificate to have any passengers during a demo. Wondering how that will go over for them?

 

[nittany03]

also the amount of aerodynamic "fixes" they seem to have implemented on the Flogger's hind quarters are probably telling about the plane itself.

From Wikipedia . . .

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'm a Prowler guy and that's still just horrifying. At least we never claimed to be a fighter.

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

I . . . wow. ???

 

[HuggyU2]

...s that normally it is against the operating certificate to have any passengers during a demo.

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.

During my three seasons as the Safety Officer for The Patriots Jet Team, we flew a 6 ship of L-39's. Each jet was solo except for #1, which had me in the backseat. I had specific duties, and it was spelled out in our documents to the FAA. 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.

I have no clue what the situation was here... nor do I know for sure that they were operating in waivered airspace, or if they were operating in an aerobatic manner. And I'm not implying anyone did anything wrong. I just want to explain what was required for me.

A fun video one of our support pilots put together.

 

[nittany03]

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.

How convenient . . . you lucky bastard.

 

[MIDNJAC]

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.

Thanks Huggy, that's what I was wondering. I was speaking specifically to the demo, or as you probably more accurately say, operating in the airshow box. Could certainly see a mechanic (supposedly this airplane was a real horror show in this respect) or observer (god the vis is bad in that cockpit, second set of eyes might make a lot of sense) being "essential".

 

[VMO4]

Keep in mind there are several different EXPERIMENTAL classifications. This is not the same as buzzing around in your RV-8, which would be EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR BUILT. This most likely was EXPERIMENTAL EXHIBITION, which is how many warbirds end up being registered. Depending on where and what you are flying, it can require a LOA from your FSDO for each flight, with limitations, restrictions, etc...

 

[zipmartin]

When I was a young ensign going through VA-174, the A-7 RAG at NAS Cecil Field in the fall of '77, the Constant Peg guys were doing a road show at all of the Navy bases, briefing everybody on what they'd learned. We had a "Secret" briefing for all pilots (A-7 didn't need no stinkin' NFO's ?) at the base theater. The one thing I remember about it was it wasn't going to turn with anybody and no one was going to run it down because it was so fast.

 

[taxi1]

A fun video one of our support pilots put together.

Awesome video, but uggh on the music.

 

[Flash]

Between that and some of the declassified stuff I’ve read about CONSTANT PEG, seems the Flogger is/was a bit of a widowmaker.

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.

 

[nittany03]

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.

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.