Jump to content

Russian bear v pc-9

Rate this topic


heirflick

Recommended Posts

Easy way to make the chips!

 

 

The plane itself would be easily outrun or shot down by any modern fighter aircraft...

 

Just about... TU-95s can fly at around mach 0.8. Apparently RAF Tornadoes used to have problems tailing them at altitude and would have to engage their afterburners to keep up if the Russian pilots decided to have a bit of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just about... TU-95s can fly at around mach 0.8. Apparently RAF Tornadoes used to have problems tailing them at altitude and would have to engage their afterburners to keep up if the Russian pilots decided to have a bit of fun.

Various "games" do go on - we tend to see pictures taken in clear weather - in less perfect conditions, keeping station beside the intercepted plane is not at all easy. On more than one occasion, the Bear has drifted downwards in cloud, until the intercepting pilot has suddenly found himself at 150 feet.

 

Tu 95 seems to be a remarkably reliable device - has one ever crashed outside Russia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironic, given that it's practically impossible to walk 10 feet in Malta without tripping over a cat... maybe they were putting up a last stand in the Shack?

 

They might have risked flying it out to Malta in the hope that it would get sorted out by the additional ground crews available there..?

 

..or, maybe the rats were trying to find a way out to a place of asylum..?

Edited by Broithe
Second thoughts..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Various "games" do go on - we tend to see pictures taken in clear weather - in less perfect conditions, keeping station beside the intercepted plane is not at all easy. On more than one occasion, the Bear has drifted downwards in cloud, until the intercepting pilot has suddenly found himself at 150 feet.

 

Tu 95 seems to be a remarkably reliable device - has one ever crashed outside Russia?

Whose pilots are these exactly? No excuse for not keeping an eye on instruments in low-viz conditions. Modern fighter/interceptor aircraft have so much tech the pilots become complacent regarding situational awareness. THe HUD not turned on then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whose pilots are these exactly? No excuse for not keeping an eye on instruments in low-viz conditions. Modern fighter/interceptor aircraft have so much tech the pilots become complacent regarding situational awareness. THe HUD not turned on then?

 

Bloke here - http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox-06.htm - admits having it done to him in a Phantom - there's a lot of things to look at...

 

..they probably wouldn't do the sonobouy trick these days..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloke here - http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox-06.htm - admits having it done to him in a Phantom - there's a lot of things to look at...

 

..they probably wouldn't do the sonobouy trick these days..

 

Yep, focussed on Bear for nearly 10 minutes to get the reg so they could go home! No situational reference point other than being blindly guided by the Bear. There was probably a MiG on his six to boot. A distracted driver AND distracted co-pilot plus a squadron that had a reputation and condoned laissez-faire flying. Basics not matter what ..... airspeed, relative altitude. Should be ashamed to BRAG about it in an article - enough said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, focussed on Bear for nearly 10 minutes to get the reg so they could go home! No situational reference point other than being blindly guided by the Bear. There was probably a MiG on his six to boot. A distracted driver AND distracted co-pilot plus a squadron that had a reputation and condoned laissez-faire flying. Basics not matter what ..... airspeed, relative altitude. Should be ashamed to BRAG about it in an article - enough said

 

Pay too much attention to the basics and you don't get the picture - or you drive into him....

 

Fairly safe from MiGs over the North Sea back then.

 

About one write-off a week back in those days - http://www.ukserials.com/losses-1970.htm *

 

* don't read the notes with some of these, if you're concerned about people doing things properly....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, focussed on Bear for nearly 10 minutes to get the reg so they could go home! No situational reference point other than being blindly guided by the Bear. There was probably a MiG on his six to boot. A distracted driver AND distracted co-pilot plus a squadron that had a reputation and condoned laissez-faire flying. Basics not matter what ..... airspeed, relative altitude. Should be ashamed to BRAG about it in an article - enough said

 

Pretty cool trick by the Russians! Excerpt from the article here:

 

"One night, my nav and I were in our Phantom, underneath a Bear, cautiously moving into position for my back-seater to read the door number. I was having a hard time getting there as the Bear kept manoeuvring, presumably to make life difficult, and the weather was far from friendly. Having been clinging onto this silhouette in the sky for so long, I began to get an uneasy feeling that everything wasn't as it should be. For the last ten minutes or so, I had been staring at nothing other than the Bear (I really couldn't look away from him due to his proximity, his continual manoeuvres and the fact that it was pitch black) and my nav had been staring through his night vision scope trying desperately to read the numbers so that we could get the hell out of there. I had to back off (down actually) for a moment to check our height. Having started this game at around 7,000 feet, we were now at 150 feet and going down. Those lovely, fluffy gentlemen in the Bear, knowing that we would be working hard to follow their turns, had been gently descending in the hope of wiping us out on a cold, hard, dark sea."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ex-Soviet probe-and-drogue refuelling system is, interestingly, compatible with the NATO standards*, which might come in handy for somebody one day.

 

* i.e., except those US aircraft that are committed to their flying-boom system.

 

Wonder if a bit of reverse engineering went on there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if a bit of reverse engineering went on there?

 

As always. When the MiG 29s were coming to Farnborough, they were asked for drawings to make adaptors, in case they needed to be towed around, etc. "No need. Your stuff'll fit", they were told...

 

..handy if you might end up using somebody else's airfields..

 

On the refuelling front, India uses stuff from both "sides".

 

refuelIAF-380Reu.jpg

Edited by Broithe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name=Broithe;66097 When the MiG 29s were coming to Farnborough' date=' they were asked for drawings to make adaptors, in case they needed to be towed around, etc. "No need. Your stuff'll fit", they were told...

 

..handy if you might end up using somebody else's airfields..[/quote]

 

as always Jim...you are a walking encyclopaedia!:tumbsup:

 

 

 

Garfield - great find with that vid. id say he got his ass slagged off for months after that!:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully they're better at it than this guy...

 

The drogues do have shearing components in to allow for this sort of event - and in case the drogue won't unhitch..

 

 

It's not easy - the old wingtip-to-wingtip method must have been a bit difficult, too. The Soviets kept up with that system up until when the Badger arrived..

 

 

..the Americans and others used this in the early days, too..

 

I presume that it was felt less likely to result in damage to the receiving aircraft.

Edited by Broithe
Second thoughts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some "vodka-burners" make full use of the tarmac..

 

And some others, like this MiG 19, didn't need any runway at all to take off..

 

 

I do like the Soviet fashion for pulling the brake-chute whilst still in the air - a lot of their airliners could often be seen with the thrust-reversers out as soon as the pilot was committed to touch down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like the Soviet fashion for pulling the brake-chute whilst still in the air - a lot of their airliners could often be seen with the thrust-reversers out as soon as the pilot was committed to touch down.

 

It's only when yaw dampers malfunction that it gets serious for them...

 

[video=youtube;1-Z2dO14ApE]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only when yaw dampers malfunction that it gets serious for them...

 

Probably didn't serve many coffees during that interlude - just as well that they're built for hard landings.

 

 

Delivering an Il 62 to a museum with a field nearby? Do it the efficient way.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCZRwv_568Y

 

Lovely example of aerodynamic braking - not the sort of thing to do with passengers on, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use