MIG-23 Down at Thunder Over Michigan Airshow At Willow Run.

I think it’s this aircraft…report from last year…
www.kltv.com

East Texas pilot restores antique Russian fighter jet

KLTV’s Jamey Boyum talks with United 777 Pilot Dan Files about the other jet he flies: A MIG Russian fighter. He has four in a hangar at the East Texas Regional Airport in Gregg County. He has restored one back to flying status.
www.kltv.com www.kltv.com
 
So far no injuries reported (the eye witness account is "different") ...

 
From Fox News' site...

Video shows at least three pilots parachuting out of the jet fighter as it started to smoke.

Nothing like accurate reporting. Couldn't help but notice the irony in the pilot/owner's interview linked above that all of them he owns (I think it said 10) are the trainers because "he doesn't want to die alone". Thankfully the ejection systems apparently worked as intended, so shouldn't be long until we get the story. Given the experience of the pilot, guessing must've been either loss of power or control surfaces because he wasn't able to ditch it into the lake which was apparently very close by.
 
For years I was under the impression that civilian owned aircraft with ejection seats had to be non operational. Seemed it was an FAA rule but not sure…can anyone elaborate? Maybe just an Aviation urban myth.
 
I knew united paid well but damn, I'm doing life wrong. I don't even need a Phantom Killer, I just wanted a Yak-3. username checks :rolleyes: :rofl:
 
I believe this is the one that they didn’t get to fly in the airshow at Oshkosh. The story I heard was the FAA wouldn’t let two people fly it (no non-essential crew) but they said it had to have two people in it for the ejection seats to work.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I believe this is the one that they didn’t get to fly in the airshow at Oshkosh. The story I heard was the FAA wouldn’t let two people fly it (no non-essential crew) but they said it had to have two people in it for the ejection seats to work.
Click to expand...
That was the MiG 29, different owner/pilot.
 
Warlock said:
For years I was under the impression that civilian owned aircraft with ejection seats had to be non operational. Seemed it was an FAA rule but not sure…can anyone elaborate? Maybe just an Aviation urban myth.
Click to expand...
If the seats are hot, they have to be maintained IAW the manufacturer’s requirements.
 
Some jets can't be dead-sticked. You can't survive a dual hydro failure, whether by pump failure, mounted gearbox, or engine failure whether windilling or seized. Nor is windmilling hydraulics sufficient to have enough control surface authority to flare and land the aircraft.

As such, the seats have to work. Mig-23 more than likely belongs to that demographic. T-38/F-5 is the same way, as are many others in the vintage.
 
Warlock said:
For years I was under the impression that civilian owned aircraft with ejection seats had to be non operational. Seemed it was an FAA rule but not sure…can anyone elaborate? Maybe just an Aviation urban myth.
Click to expand...
FAA Order 8130.2 Chapter 4(?) and AC 91-87 have more info on this.
 
"... fell on the roof of a house ..." has been updated to The Wayne County Airport Authority said in a statement on Sunday that the fighter jet had "crashed into the parking lot at the Waverly on the Lake Apartments in Belleville." The airport authority said the plane had "struck unoccupied vehicles in the apartment complex's parking lot."
 
aftCG said:
^pretty sure you don't ditch a jet that glides like a manhole cover
Click to expand...
Poor choice of words from a student... I meant maintain control long enough to get the plane to make its uncontrolled rapid descent into the lake rather than next to an apartment building.

Apparently this same aircraft had an incident just a few weeks ago at Oshkosh where it shed a piece of its canopy (?)
https://twitter.com/x/status/1685355282661089281
 
aftCG said:
^pretty sure you don't ditch a jet that glides like a manhole cover
Click to expand...
It probably glides better than you think. Glide ratio is Lift over Drag. Jets are pretty low drag.

The T-38 has a better glide ratio than a C-172 (9.6 versus 8.8).
 
Pinecone said:
It probably glides better than you think. Glide ratio is Lift over Drag. Jets are pretty low drag.

The T-38 has a better glide ratio than a C-172 (9.6 versus 8.8).
Click to expand...
A "better" glide ratio at >3x the best glide speed.
You stay behind and fly it into the water at ~200 KIAS, I'll go for help.

Nauga,
who gave you a few knots for the flare
 
nauga said:
A "better" glide ratio at >3x the best glide speed.
You stay behind and fly it into the water at ~200 KIAS, I'll go for help.

Nauga,
who gave you a few knots for the flare
Click to expand...
Yeah, but at low altitude and low airspeed, that Mig's gonna glide for.... Not long or far.
 
Hengelo said:
All I know is I'm going through my day looking for excuses to bust out "glides like a manhole cover"...
Click to expand...

I like the statement, but it doesn't apply to jets.

BUT, the T-38 has a best glide speed of 240 knots indicated. :D
 
Pinecone said:
I like the statement, but it doesn't apply to jets.

BUT, the T-38 has a best glide speed of 240 knots indicated. :D
Click to expand...
I think that's were some of the misunderstanding comes from; given the same L/D, a slow plane has more time in the air. The very fast plane has less time (though the same distance), and, of course, is bound to land faster.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
I think that's were some of the misunderstanding comes from; given the same L/D, a slow plane has more time in the air. The very fast plane has less time (though the same distance), and, of course, is bound to land faster.
Click to expand...
That is true.

But the comments made were that jets have low glide ratios, and that is not true.
 
Pretty sure the official benchmark for glide ratio for a Cherokee is "sewing machine". Hope the Mig guys are OK.
 
That would make for an awkward conversation, one would think.

Is the loss of afterburner really that big of a deal in something like that?
 
Well, there's a real test of a relationship. . . when the backseater punches you out while you are still PIC and handling the situation. Doggone lucky that it didn't hit anything and apparently the back seater didn't have the ending up in an apartment cross his mind at all. . . they were a lake at the time but heading right toward land. Looks like he had more control than it appeared.
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
Is the loss of afterburner really that big of a deal in something like that?
Click to expand...
Surprised me as well. Read a couple of accounts online and seems burner is optional for takeoff which can be done at mil power. Why they wanted to light it right after (maybe "wow" effect for the demo?) is unclear to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top