Attn: Russian Plane Lovers
This home video was recently aired on national television. The date it was filmed is unknown, but the tape itself was recieved by the major television networks across the country.
The Movie (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/jetcrash.mpg)
The problem? Poor maintance.
Soviet Haaregrad
30-09-2003, 02:56
The problem? Poor maintance.
I think it's more the Russians like to show off and do their manuvers too close to the earth. The plane caught fire because the back end hit the ground.
Oh well, they get to show of their superiority in ejector seats instead. ;)
Their ejector seats are amazing, apparently they can hit it from the ground and survive. Anyways, I think that footage showed some good air manuevers
Their ejector seats are amazing, apparently they can hit it from the ground and survive. Anyways, I think that footage showed some good air manuevers
Yep! At least Russian E seats dont kill the pilot!
Soviet Haaregrad
30-09-2003, 03:01
Their ejector seats are amazing, apparently they can hit it from the ground and survive. Anyways, I think that footage showed some good air manuevers
Both the UK and Russia have zero/zero seats. The main difference is the Russian ones can be punched out at 740 mph with a good rate of survival, whereas the UK ones are likely to fail, resulting in pilot death, above 600 mph. Martin Baker makes the seats used in American planes and is a British based firm.
Yeah Im talking about the Russians, I saw a video of a MiG 29 doin the same thing, pilot ejected right above the ground and walked away.
Western Asia
30-09-2003, 03:03
The russians have crashed a lot of aircraft.
Problem: poor maintainability (notice the difference from poor maintenance, which is also a major issue)....a plane should be able to survive flying close to the ground. It looks like a fuel line cracked or that the engine otherwise somehow developed a new exhaust port.
As for the ejection seats, yes, they've got some good seats. Check out the latest Popular Science for a special article on the ejection apparatus of various vehicles.
Featured: the B-58 Hustler ejection pod (link (http://www.aeromuseum.org/Exhibits/Aircraft&Missiles/Images/b58seat.jpg). For supersonic, high-altitude ejections...the modern seats in F-22s and other supersonic fighters (all fronts) aren't really approved for the speeds that the aircraft is capable of...)
Russia claims they can be used at mach 2.. which may or may not be true, depending on wether it was exxagerated this time or not.
Oh they can be used at Mach 2... that doesn't mean the pilot will be coming back down in once peice...
Seems to be a MiG-29.
if it is MiG-29 Fulcrom A or C, that explains it, they have stability problems I heard.
Oh they can be used at Mach 2... that doesn't mean the pilot will be coming back down in once peice...
Russia CLaims the pilot will be in one piece.
Western Asia
30-09-2003, 03:17
The main problem is wind-blast (also known as having a sonic boom form around your head)....rips any tissue exposed apart...
I'm guessing that the primary improvements include semi-pressurized airsuits and helmets that can cover the entire body, head, and face with enough strength to resist the wind-derived forces.
EDIT: Looking at the PopSci issue, the Russians have a wind-blast deflector to guard the chest (on the Zvezda-36, reportedly demonstrated in low-altitude ejections twice during public airshows (MiG-29 in 1989, Sukhoi 30 about 1999))....though it looks like you'd endanger your arms.
The ACES II/III (for the F-22) is reportedly approved up to 700mph and uses an initial drouue (apparently to slow the ejection seat to < mach 1) before the main chute is opened.
In short... at those speeds russian pilot breaks his arms, western pilots is ripped to bits.
Soviet Haaregrad
30-09-2003, 03:24
Seems to be a MiG-29.
if it is MiG-29 Fulcrom A or C, that explains it, they have stability problems I heard.
That was a Su 30. How do I know this? Fore-planes like on all post-Su 27 Flanker models, two pilots sitting behind one and other, only the Su 30 meets all of those requirements.
Seems to be a MiG-29.
if it is MiG-29 Fulcrom A or C, that explains it, they have stability problems I heard.
That was a Su 30. How do I know this? Fore-planes like on all post-Su 27 Flanker models, two pilots sitting behind one and other, only the Su 30 meets all of those requirements.
It is? I seems to be recalling that MiG-29 doesn't seem to have those wings... plus that MiG-29 only had 1 pilot.
Thats a Flanker series aircraft, definitely not MiG-29. The paint is one sign, the 2 pilots another. And oh yeah those little canard wings.
Soviet Haaregrad
30-09-2003, 03:30
Seems to be a MiG-29.
if it is MiG-29 Fulcrom A or C, that explains it, they have stability problems I heard.
That was a Su 30. How do I know this? Fore-planes like on all post-Su 27 Flanker models, two pilots sitting behind one and other, only the Su 30 meets all of those requirements.
It is? I seems to be recalling that MiG-29 doesn't seem to have those wings... plus that MiG-29 only had 1 pilot.
Did you watch it closely and notice the two seats fired and the little foreplanes? :P
Hmm, did the Su-34 ever fly in airshows?
Did you watch it closely and notice the two seats fired and the little foreplanes? :P
Yes, I did find it weird that 2 pilots popped up instead of one :P
Haven't noticed the foreplane tho.
Ah well, my mistake.
Soviet Haaregrad
30-09-2003, 03:32
Hmm, did the Su-34 ever fly in airshows?
Yes, but it's pilots sit "arm-to-arm" not one behind the other.
Western Asia
30-09-2003, 03:56
In short... at those speeds russian pilot breaks his arms, western pilots is ripped to bits.
From the looks of the seat, the Russian pilot breaks his arms and his legs...the american pilot in the insulated suit gets a few hairline fractures but is saved from breaks thanks to elastic catch-materials (instead of steel restraint bars).
imported_Ell
30-09-2003, 03:58
Hmm, did the Su-34 ever fly in airshows?
I've read something about Sukhoi being barred because Russia owes a hotel company some fees.