martinezA professional point of view only comes from pilots that were instructed and trained to fly the aircraft. A bunch of jocks who had the guts to enter the cockpit and fly something foreign without having clue of how it works are surely impressive guys, but ‘professionals’ they surely ain’t. š
That`s typical idiotism of some fanboys. Opinions of few U.S. pilots risking lives in poorly maintained soviet aircrafts are more professional than thousands of east block pilots flying the aircraft regularly every day.:rolleyes:
martinezSteve,
The technical side is to a certain extent irrelevant..
What I find interesting in the different views epxressed here is the seeming inability or unwillingness to understand that the USAF may indeed not have known and understood all of the operating proceedures that the WP would have to hand…..
Thanks, very delicately said, especially when considering F-16, F-15 pilots have flown the Migs. What comical anecdotes would a F-16 pilot say after flying in the F-4 cockpit?
martinezSays who? I have plenty of MiG-23 flight, tactics and mx manuals from a range of countries that operated the type. Your arrogance is astounding.
Says who?? You make me laugh. š If you had any you wouldnt write that retarded story about the “hydro-mechanical inhibitor” as the main reason causing the aircraft not able to slow down or even those remarks about catastrophic explosions, page 225….those are presumably your words.
Your rant only proves that you have no clue what you`re talking about. Over 20 countries operated the type Mig-23 and I never heard from our airforce, nor reading in any incident report or Mig-23 books quoting experiences of foreign pilots regarding complaints and concerns of “hydro-mechanical inhibitor preventing the engine to slow down”, although the whole engine family R-27,R-29,R-35(Mig-23MF,ML,MLD) had the same feature as well as later RD-33 engine when passing Mach1.5 giving a surplus of thrust at high altitudes and speeds. Now, you came up with a bunch of anecdotes from the U.S. Constant peg program, bitching on everything related to the type Mig-23. Your arrogance is above anyone really and that is a fact.
If you ever worked near aircrafts, especially with engines you would know that stall might occur even if throttling up and down very quickly. The abrupt pressure drop, airflow gets out of balance and the required pressure distribution in the engine is disturbed what can generate extremely loud bangs like when strucking metal comming from intake inside. Outcome could be a flame-out and loosing thrust. The so called “hydro-mechanical inhibitor” is there to prevent the engine from stalling to ensure compressor stable work unless the speeds drops below Mach1,15. Today, many of modern turbofans are still susceptible to aggressive throttle movements, even more sophisticated stall prevention/relight control systems might need some time to recover and initiate in re-light sequence.
That pretty much sums you up, Martinez. More putrid comments from someone who cannot stand to be wrong.
BS, it suits to you much better, when trying to discuss technical aspects while backing up that with anecdotal stories of U.S. pilots.
martinezIf you want to argue with them about this, then I invite you and everyone else here to visit the Red Eagles forum .
Thank you very much for your invitation, but I find the Constant peg forum a waste of time. I asked several questions some time ago but no one ever did answer that, so I got impression that time they flew Migs is almost forgotten past and they might not remember it correctly. I understand, it`s better to be quiet than to say something wrong and making clowns out of themselves.
Anyway, I do not need to go to your forum and ask those pilots about the Mig-23. I beg your pardon but they never operated that handful of Mig-23 in a way they should, or the rest of the world maintainers did. We operated 80 Migs-23(BN,MF,ML,UB) for almost 25 years. I have plenty of colleagues, some still working with me at the a/c repair plant, other former pilots I can discuss this matter with them from down to dusk. I do have access to aircraft documentation, military manuals, the airforce aircraft incident database, simply things you would never get access to in your life.
Actually, the issue referenced above, as discussed in the book, has nothing to do with AB. It is about structural loads twisting the motor mounts during spins,
The issue we are talking about is well connected to the R-29 engine-control system, the stall prevention/relight system as well as to aircraft flight regimes(high AOA and sideslip). You are seriously lacking knowledge about the engine, do your research again please rather than believing anecdotes of senile old men.
If that’s the impression they get about the MS or BN, then good. .
Great achievement, when reader`s impression is based on dumb anecdotes, mostly with no technical value. Really, it doesnt bother me if you are critical, but compare and crosscheck your US sources before posting blunders.
martinezThanks, I`m looking forward to visit this one. Hopefully, Migs will fly that day. Is there somewhere an article about Serbian Migs-29 describing installed and uninstalled devices(comms, navs, iff, gps,…) during the overhaul&modernization program they underwent in Batajnica? Thanks
martinezJust to speculate a little on the causes: With two up-coming air shows in Belgrade this summer it is very likely that the pilot was performing high-risk manoeuvres in preparation for the display flights. With that in mind, any number of things could have gone wrong and caused the crash.
Very sad, my condolences to their friends and Families. Anyway, what upcoming airshow are you talking about? Please write dates. I plan to visit Batajnica this year. Thanks
martinez
martinezIt appear to me that Russian aviation Engines in general are very hard to get some common history that are not biased from authors point of veiw..
Special western authors:confused:
It is not a bias rather lack of knowledge or interest in history of soviet/russian aviation technology which doesnt permit you to make an unbiased point of view. Then you turn everything up side down, like telling that Soviets not having superior materials in engines used some “strange methods” to cool turbine blades. They drilled holes to cool them down, but today at least half of modern engines if not all have drilled holes in high-temp turbine blades and are cooled internally as well as externally. Why just not say, they came up wih something new not known for Yanks at that time?
I remember some others, like wondering why Soviets built such a monstrous engine accelerating the Mig to nearly warp speeds, but unable for US pilots to slow it down by installing the so called “anti-deceleration mechanism “??!!..:rolleyes: stupid soviets…or the R-29 is running so hot that it repeatedly sounded “false” fire alarms. Do I really need to continue? Every ground personnel operating, not researching the aircraft would know what to do, when fire alarm goes on without a fire. Almost the same fire detectors based on ionized gas principle are used in the RD-33 engine bay.
Anyway, I`m glad that someone raised this question, bcs after reading this book the majority of adolescent aviation freaks is thinking what a piece of $hit the Mig-23 really was.
The response i got about what was posted here is that half is complete BS. The melting canopy and self-destructing engine. As martinez said there is limitation when flying with speed above 1.15M that cannot allow the engine to be put bellow maximal.
Thanks Pesho, you are correct, when passing 1.15 Mach compressor speeds up to higher rpm levels giving more thrust and could stall when abruptly manipulating with throttle, to slow it down just to put it back to maximal switching off the AB. As I remember correctly, documentation is stating 1.5 Mach for MF and ML. Chris, please correct me If I`m wrong. Thanks
martinezHe had the throttle pushed to the stops and was going as fast as that giant engine would push him. Apparently the plane had a tendency to nose down a bit at warp 9 and become almost unmaneuverable. The pilot didn’t like the idea of doing Mach 2.5 straight down and pulled back on the throttle and…nothing happened. The engine continued continued at full power. He believed his only option was to punch out, which he did, at supersonic speed.
They did say that while the engine had a horrible habit of self destructing on a regular basis, it was the most powerful engine any of them had ever encountered and the Mig 23 was incredibly fast. However, going Mach 2.5 was likely to get you killed. Apparently the cockpit canopy would just about melt and kill you. Any high G maneuvers would cause the engine to come apart and kill you. Once at high speed, if the plane was abruptly slowed down the turbine blades would brake off, the engine would come apart and kill you…I guess they were afraid of getting killed.
I`ve read some pages and the story above as well, for me it was enough to be convinced that buying this book is a waste of money. I`d recommend to all readers to check some facts about the R-29(or any) engine design and operation prior to start reading the book, then you will find it very amusing and asking, what a crap he is writting there??!! Apparently, the author never made that to read something about the R-29 filling the book with dumb anecdotes about blades hitting the engine casing and ripping everything apart. Anyone with even a bit of knowledge about jet engines would know what will be the cause when abruptly switching engine regimes from full AB to idle at supersonic and how the pilot will feel that.
Anyway, my colleague a former Flogger test pilot just told me that during flight tests after heavy maintenance, they could easily reach speeds up to 2.7 M in a straight flight, even if redlined 2.35M. The problem beyond 2.35M is reduced directional stability and not canopy getting hot.:rolleyes:
The author claims the reason the Mig 23 engine didn’t slow when the throttle was closed was because it had an anti-deceleration mechanism. A what?? It seems that if the throttle was chopped suddenly at ludicrous speed, the sudden deceleration would rip the engine out of the airplane. What?? Is that normal for fast aircraft?
What, confused? š There are other ways how to shut-down the R-29 engine or the afterburner when it goes crazy, or something malfunction. Unfortunately, the dumb Lieutenant General sitting there never made it learn something about the aircraft nor the engine, therefore he died. I’m curious, has anyone ever bothered to check what is the top speed of Mig-23BN?
True is that there is a mechanism to prevent compressor r.p.m falling abruptly(a limiter, a precaution for compressor not to enter other than operational regimes, bcs when passing speed 1.5M, the R-29 engine goes to special regime(RD-33 has similar), giving even more thrust. Pilots used to call it a second stage afterburner converting the Mig-23 to a stratospheric missile…:). What a great feature for a interceptor, do not you think?
martinezRepairs also have to be a task that can be performed by a 19 year old fresh out of tech school. There are no Phd Chemists maintaining F-22s.
Hardly thinkable really that even a 19 year old fresh out from a tech school is preparing the F-22 to a flight day will be able to perform repairs of fiber/epoxy structures. Firstly, knowledge required to operate the aircraft is at different level as those guys working at depot maintenace level.
For example, repairing common defects(delaminationS, cracks or various perforations after mechanical constraints) on Russian CFRP composites like the KMU-4, KMU-3 used on wings, fuselage and tail of the baseline Mig-29, the personnel have to be skilled in NDT methods widely used to analyze composite structures and finding flaws not detected by visual inspections. The repair is then carried out by a special polyamide/epoxide glues mixed with curing agents like triethanol-amino-titanate heating both the damaged substrate and applied glue. The process of heating takes several hours using jigs and of course with surface preparations like paint removing and cleaning the surface of the composite part.
Hardly imaginable this all carried out at the on-field maintenance level, maybe in US Airforce with the F-22 is this common, but I doubt elsewhere is.
Regarding stealth coatings and their repair procedures, especially after reading the Olsen article above, probably no one is doubting that “stealth coatings” became a maintenance nightmare in general, very difficult to repair not only for a 19 year old fresh out from a tech school mixing the special 3-layer coating system working with a paint brush and roll restoring electrical, chemical and mechanical properties of the repaired coatings essential to achieve low RCS, one of crucial feature for a stealth aircraft.
Moreover, regarding the Olsen article he surprisingly claims problems with stealth coatings when he began work with the Lockheed group on the F-22 in 1995. His task there was as written ” to test the LO coatings and the effects of defects, collect RCS data, and develop standard repair”.
On pages 15 you can read following…..
“The initial coatingsābefore any repairāfailed by giving heightened RCS signatures…….For instance, the ārepairedā coatings registered heightened RCS signatures as bad as the unrepaired coatings.”
No matter why he is upset suing Lockheed or want to make big money, it doesnt bother me, but I remmember reading articles during nineties about B-2 not able to fly in rain, water/moisture damaging stealth coatings making maintenance and repairs expensive and needing climatized shelters operating from. The logic of Olsen arguments(meaning technical aspect) is quite comprehensible to me. Everyone in LM and USAF knew it for more than ten years that stealth coatings are susceptible to abrasion, scratches, gouges and aircraft fluids affecting their properties(of course some might have been fixed completely/partially) and now after few years of the F-22 operational service those early coating problems causing “minor” corrosion on some mechanical access panels which need surprisingly “depot level of maintenance” to be changed.
Well, stealth is not for poor….:)
martinezHi guys, some of you maybe noticed that Google Earth updated Catumbela AF base. Nice to see the same small assembly ramp changed a little bit. The old roting and rusting Fencer since 2000 dissapeared, but now it seems a new one with a shinning camo and white radome is sitting there….:eek: Thinking, even if it looks like there is a new one, it could be some kind of trick like airframe preservation or cleaning of the old one, but Hell in Angola??……That wont let me sleep til I find out…:D
P.S. As I was assured many times that Angola got only one Su-24 from Belarus sitting at Catumbela AFB almost for a decade. Without spare parts, ground tooling and measure equipment they managed to fly only several times, since 2001 they made engine runs only. Still, do not believe there were/are another Fencers in Angola.
Martinez
martinezNo one will ever put effort to repair this burned and melted airframe, no fck way. They`ll start from the scratch.
A several years ago a Mig-29 burned on the runway during take-off when pilot set the throttle to AB. Left engine exploded while some parts hitting fuel tanks set the a/c on fire. The Mig accelerating but with speed still below 70km/h, pilot could not use the ejection seat and had to jump out from the inferno after stoping it in the grass.
When comparing what left from the burned Mig with those Sukhoi Su-35 pictures, our Mig came out much better but damaged fuselage a wing spars by the fire implied, that repair will be pointless.
martinezThank you very much for your explanation, Martinez.
We have known Su-17 began to be installed a LRF device from M2 variant with Fon-1400 LRMTS, M3/M4 with Klen-PS or Klen-54. So now as my understanding, Su-17 / M variants without both ranging radar and LRF could determine the target’s range by a gyro gun-sight (and therefore, pilot could know if target was within the missile’s range).
Hi Kopyo,
Sorry, my previous reply was not correct. The Kh-23 missile launch is executed without any assistance of LRF and radar ranging devices. I`ve checked that with several combat employment manuals for Mig-23BN, MF, ML and the Su-22M4/UM-3K(Kh-25MR). Pilot had to visually estimate the range according to “known” target size, so practicing was crucial to achieve a desirable results. The recomended launch range for the Kh-23 is between 6km to 3km (max. range was stated 10km), shallow dive angles from 10 to 30deg and altitudes up to 5km. About 2 seconds after launch the Kh-23 missile began to receive radio signals from the DELTA-NM antenna installed in the aircraft. Pilot had to operate the special 4-way knob very gently placed on the control column. The Kh-23 missile leaves a notable trace of smoke in its flight helping the pilot to keep it in sight a guide it into terminal phase. Regarding HUD settings, whether the bomb-sight PBK-3 or ASP-23/ASP-17 gun-sights, the Kh-23 missile could be launched with help of both the moving reticle mode or the fixed one “the cetka”, the manual ranging and angles approximation mode comparing the lenghts of different markings in relation to target size and range.
martinezI have a concern about the system of Su-17 / Su-17M which was replaced the ranging radar by a Delta-N in the cone. That is how they can determine the target range. I read a document about Kh-23 (AS-7 Karel) missile, in which mentioned that the pilot had to estimate the target range by “eyesight”.
Could some ones here explain me that? Thank you in advance.
The Delta-N was a device with an antenna to guide the Kh-23 via radio signals. Later on, it was used as a pod mounted externally on a pylon for fighter aircraft types. Ranging was done via Laser range finder like the “FON” installed in the nose. Probably, in case when the laser finder malfunctioned, pilot could estimate the target range by “eyesight” as well, but with help of CETKA HUD mode for ground attacks.
martinezI still felt compelled to stress the point about the MiGs… There is absolutely no confirmation at all that the RuAF will get, or is even interested, in the MiG-35 or a mod.variant of the Fulcrum.
They might put it into “official service” for certification and foreign sales purposes, of course.
Fulcrums will end their glorious career some time more or less soon and that will be it, .
…..at this point if there was not a certain future for the Fulcrum at all, what has been their aircraft carrier program for long time, I think they would not put Pogosyan in charge of the RSK and Putin`s billions of rubles subvention imho. Hopefully he was not getting the top job at deeply indebted MiG to bury the program slowly as well as the company itself bcs then there is literally nothing else to save the brand Mig. You may remember that Sukhoi company has risen from the death largely/only bcs of export success of Flanker mods what helped Sukhoi to start new aircraft programs and a small scale production for the RuAF as well.
The Mig-35 with AFAR and other things like the OLS-K, SOLO, SOAR, etc.. is a very good selling item, far better than what Sukhoi has ever offered to the export market and now with Pogosyan leadership and under his responsibility, a similar resurrection should take place at the RSK.
martinezMy point is that there is no legal, contractual reason within NATO membership which says that you can’t buy Russian aircraft for your air force,
There are reasons, albeit indirect ones. NATO membership demands fully compatible airforces, what simply cant be fullfiled with russian hardware. This is not just about the widely medialized IFF, Radio compatible systems or ammunition but it goes down to cross servicing and maintenance, lets call it interoperability. Lets assume a Mig-29 pilot flying above west Europe is experiencing difficulties and is forced to land on an airfield in Netherlands. The ground personal there should be able to give the Mig-29 a basic care, at least to fill it with missing liquids. Do you think they have enough skilled personal and ground equipment to fill the Mig with fuel or check its hydraulic systems? Not to mention further logistic support.
Therefore former east block countries are “forced” to buy western hardware what is illogical in most cases simply when you have the whole infrastructure to repair/maintenance russian aircraft, ground control and measurement equipment, stands and jigs throughout aircraft logistic life.
Meaning that when buying a new aircraft, its price is a fragment of the whole complex system and it is easier and cheaper to modernize/westernize russian aircraft than buy a new wester one.
A good example are Mi choppers, I doubt that some east block countries will ever drop Mi-8/Mi-17/Mi-24 helicopters in favour of western ones. You right, Czechs bought Mi-171 recently, but were not satisfied with them, meaning the avionics suite were not up to date and fullfiling all NATO standards(missions in Afghan)….outcome is modernization done by Czech companies.
http://www.ct24.cz/domaci/41297-vrtulniky-mi-171-pro-afghanskou-misi-maji-zpozdeni/
Sign In
