Go to the F-106 site and tell the pilots, who flew the plane, and ground crew that worked on them, that they are wrong.

blah blah blah.

As Andraxxus correctly points out, climactic conditions mean a great spread of performance parameters can change.

(Never mind embellishment.)

I do not know what flight manual you have but it is wrong.
I communicated with former pilots of the F-106 and one I spoke with hit Mach 2.2 plus before having to make a pre-planned intercept turn which scrubbed off speed but he said it was still accelerating hard with no problems.
They said they did not simply push the aircraft for high speed because in full burner it used a lot of fuel and you had to explain to your commander what happened to your fuel load.

Given the choice between who to believe between a pilot taking about their aircraft and the manual, I take the manual every day! :very_drunk:

If its any aircraft in the world, then the MiG-31 is your answer.

Aircraft noise is largely* a solved problem… its just a matter of the fleet catching up with what the airframers can do now.

*While it won’t decrease below background noise when situated near the runway for a few generations of aircraft yet, aircraft are now at the point where it will affect very few on the ascent/approach path. If they have an issue with the noise… then move.

However, for the pax and crew on either of those two flights, had the 2nd engine failed, then the outcome would have been a 100% failure, which would have been pretty significant for all involved!

Yes. If it had.

But… if someone had ran through a red light in the past week, they could have knocked you down and killed you – does than mean you never cross a road?

Basing an argument on remotely possible and any potential scenarios is paralysis by smart-assed lawyers with 20:20 hindsight at its worst.

What if an asteroid had hit Heathrow and destroyed a 747 or 380 on the ramp? Should we ban Heathrow, the 747 or the 380?

Too right… and the airframers agree.

In a world wide exclusive, Boeing’s 797:

It just makes no sense for the Ukrainian Air Force to escort civilian airliners

Unless they are paranoid about Russian involvement?

We also assume that the Ukrainian air force were told about the stolen SAMs by the Ukrainian Army/MOD… if they weren’t aware of that, then in the case of the Su-25 – their train of thought may lead to fighter interception as altitude is too high for MANPAD, which leads to Russia. Misinformation may be present both internal and external to Ukraine.

An awful lot of the tinfoil hat stuff is pure rubbish and not worthy of serious consideration.

However, I will say this. I know from experience the BBC can be very biased in its reporting [based on events here in Ireland that I know in a fair degree of depth]. But, aside from that, the bigger issues is that it is being reported largely from the perspective of the complex social and societal viewpoint of a 1st world country…

For instance, there has been talk about who trained the rebels to fire the SAM… with the implicit assumption it must be Russia.

Its very possible no-one did. To assume they need training is to assume they are both stupid enough and not desperate enough to get some smart people (who may have prior experience of similar systems) on the case and with the manuals. Just because the reporter cannot envisage the scenario where they (the reporter) could operate the system if needed, does not mean no-one else could or would.

There is not likely to be any absolute truth in any news reports from the area given the propaganda going on. All you can do is gather a wide spread of information from various disparate sources and then draw your own conclusion, considering at all times the perspective of the journalist(s).