Garfield Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 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. Quote
Broithe Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 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? Quote
Broithe Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Going back to the Shackleton, I wonder if the demise of WR986 at Safi is unique in aviation history? 'Rat infestation'. http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=157361 ..perhaps they needed an additional crew member..? 1 Quote
Garfield Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 'Rat infestation'. 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? Quote
Broithe Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) 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 February 21, 2015 by Broithe Second thoughts.. Quote
DiveController Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 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? Quote
DiveController Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 ..perhaps they needed an additional crew member..? [ATTACH=CONFIG]17651[/ATTACH] I think you're probably correct. I think there's a little pussy on board more frequently nowadays than on the Shackleton;) Quote
Broithe Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 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.. Quote
Broithe Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 It means Военно-воздушные силы - "military air forces" Raymond Baxter explains it here, at the end... [video=youtube;-pVAAcwaFMI] .when the Bear came to Fairford in 1993.. Quote
DiveController Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 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 Quote
Broithe Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 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.... Quote
heirflick Posted February 25, 2015 Author Posted February 25, 2015 Raymond Baxter explains it here, at the end... [video=youtube;-pVAAcwaFMI] .when the Bear came to Fairford in 1993.. Great find with that clip jim.. enjoyed that! Quote
skinner75 Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 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." Quote
Broithe Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 Tupolev fitted some of the 124s with oversized escape slides. Quote
Broithe Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I went to the RAF Museum at Cosford today - they have a large model Bear hanging up - must be about nine feet long. http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/ Quote
heirflick Posted March 4, 2015 Author Posted March 4, 2015 I see the Russians are at again...... .....cant see the Aer Corps though! Quote
Broithe Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 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. Quote
Garfield Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 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? Quote
Broithe Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) 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". Edited March 4, 2015 by Broithe Quote
Garfield Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Hopefully they're better at it than this guy... Quote
heirflick Posted March 4, 2015 Author Posted March 4, 2015 [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! Garfield - great find with that vid. id say he got his ass slagged off for months after that! Quote
Broithe Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) 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 March 4, 2015 by Broithe Second thoughts Quote
Garfield Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 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.. Must've been pretty hairy after a few shots of vodka... Quote
Broithe Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Must've been pretty hairy after a few shots of vodka... Some "vodka-burners" make full use of the tarmac.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxEHIbHUlY Quote
Garfield Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Some "vodka-burners" make full use of the tarmac.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxEHIbHUlY I was just about to post that video... the commentry from the guys in the tower never fails to make me laugh! Quote
Broithe Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 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. Quote
Garfield Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 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] Quote
Broithe Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 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... Quote
Broithe Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 And, taking off with a bit of slush isn't much of a problem... [video=youtube;SnS-C_oyEd0] They might have had to re-trim with all the extra weight stuck to the back.... Quote
WRENNEIRE Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Broite Class pic, haven't seen another one like it Sweet Quote
Broithe Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 BroiteClass pic, haven't seen another one like it Sweet Just for you. Quote
Garfield Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Looking rather biblical here... [ATTACH=CONFIG]18244[/ATTACH] The lesser-seen Moseski variant... Quote
.png.c363cdf5c3fb7955cd92a55eb6dbbae0.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.