140 people were onboard, 120 deaths.
EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Khankala_Mi-26_crash
The helicopter was severely overloaded (although there’s no indication that this contributed to the crash) and the officer responsible disciplined.
Brings a whole new meaning to: ‘putting too many eggs in one basket’.
If I recall, the Mi-26 crash landed in a minefield, which contributed to some extra casualties.
Iraq was bought between 24 to 28 aircrafts from Germany, starting from 1984 and used these planes in SAR missions and aircraft for general utility or VIP, and Iraq was one of the biggest users of this aircraft.
[
Where are they now – any ideas?
Preliminary Crash investigation results reveal that the An-148 began to break up while exceeding safe airspeeds in a dive. Incorrect readings from airspeed indicators may be to blame.
You said it right, Patrick. “Should be”. But it doesn’t always turn out to be so. Some become a nightmare to maintain although their designers expect them to be easily maintained.
If the aircraft is designed from the beginning as a simple aircraft with an unambitious specification, chances are it will be a cheap and simple plane to maintain. But then you take the MiG-29: 2 tail-fins, 2 engines, fed by 2 air inlets, each of which are fully variable and also contain complex FOD diversion devices. Not to mention, the HMD system with the IRST, all of which makes for an aircraft which is comparably in weight and design to a scaled down version of the F-15C. Contrast that to the relatively simple single engined F-16 design. And yet the MiG-29 was going to be the only aircraft that the USSR would offer to its client states – even to the poorest, developing countries.
No way was the Mig-29 ever going to be a replacement for the MiG-21 – that would be the F-16 – or even the SAAB Gripen.
Point is, the situation is slightly more complex than just “hard and expensive to maintain”.
Perhaps. I think that the main point should be, no country ever designs its aircraft to be any more complex, difficult or expensive to keep in service than they ever needs to be.
Also to say that the old Soviet aircraft were so easy to maintain in service sounds like some old stereotype – which I don’t buy.
That sounds very anecdotal – maybe that’s more an observation on Bulgarian AF practices, routines or whatever – the USAF officers were hardly on the host’s airfield very long were they?
Very often repeated “urban knowledge” without any substantial arguments to back it up. Many Russian types were designed to be operated from forward bases with minimum technical support which is in gross contrast with the claim that they were maintenance intensive.
The Indian air force always found the MiG-29 very maintenance intensive.
The depth of information around here just amazes me!
How did you come to this fascinating piece of info?
It was just a very quick response to the previous poster’s question, I was just recalling from memory – sorry if my wording seemed a bit ‘desultory’ – but isn’t that how many air-to-air engagements supposed to be carried out – by surprise?
I found this link – his name was Captain Phil E. Smith:
http://www.i-f-s.nl/index93a2.html (great website BTW)
He stated “I still regret my aircraft was damaged and lost at sea, but I am still grateful that I had the option to eject, I thoroughly enjoyed my military career and remain close to a lot of the men I had the pleasure to serve with. I was on a combat mission when my directional avionics and magnetic compass became inoperative. I knew I had to avoid Chinese airspace, so I ducked below some cloud cover to try and get a visual of my location. Just as I cleared the clouds, a Chinese MIG fired on me. Though my F-104 was damaged, with a missing wingtip and Sidewinder missile, I turned to fight. As the MIG lit his afterburners and disappeared into the clouds, my plane lost hydraulic power, and I knew I had to eject or crash into the sea.
one of the USAF’s comment on the very 1st Mig-21F-13 that got their hands on and flew in evaluation is that it has “excellent maintainability, reliability & servicibility” and was able to mount sorties all day just with refuel and minor repairs. 😉
That’s coz it’s got no avionics worth speaking of…
I’ve seen a remark that another F-104 was shot down, this time by Chinese J-6 back in 1965. Any more details to this incident?
It’s true. I believe the F-104 pilot never saw what hit him.
Yes; it was always said that Libya had more planes than pilots to fly them. A lot of the pilots were recruited from other Arab countries I believe, Algeria comes to mind.
It might explain the very poor sortie rate by pro-Quaddafi air assets (such as they exist)?
I can’t think of any French helicopters either. Mention of French aircraft in Aussie service brings to mind the Mirage III, which I always thought were a a great success in RAAF service?
Burmese AF – I’d be curious to know the professional background, flight experience, types flown, etc, of the pilots involved?
relax buddy, you can think like that is it comforts you.
But the Russians are not worried and what matters for them is the IOC and the FOC.
And its no worse than the sortie rate for the first 12 months of the Eurofighter or F-35 flight-test programme…
(yes that’s experts and NOT ‘apple in the front grille’ guys)
What on earth is an “apple in the front grille guy”?:confused: