Posted on 04/03/2014 4:33:44 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
I would. There is a 15% chance of surviving the experience, and historically, I am very lucky.
“As an X USAF fighter mechanic”
What airframe(s)? I’m a core F-16 guy who now works F-15Es. Always cool to see another crew chief.
The MiG is STILL scary to me.
Nah. But I’d do an SU34; at least it has a toilet. Age brings with it certain certainties...
Talk about a wowser, the thought is interesting but being that the -25 was an INTERCEPTOR and was much of a design to counter the USAF B-72 as a very high altitude supersonic bomber. As such its range was short with a max at low altitude of <800 miles while high altitude with combat load was a mere 185 miles or so. So this was a thought experiment and an interesting concept as such.
That great race to a viable Supersonic Transport (SST) that produced the Concorde and the Tupolev Tu-144 as well as Boeing’s never built SST, is, almost certainly, a step too soon taken in the late 1960s. The technology and research produced noisy, expensive and uncomfortable aircraft that could not sustain their promise. The only reason that the 2 types were built is that government prestige and careers got caught in the mix.
Today it would be possible to build a much more civilized and minimized ‘boomer’ airplane and I expect such to be built within twenty years. There is a business need even with tele-conferencing and other alternatives. The trans-pacific and trans-atlantic routes are the obvious ones if the range can be accomodated.
the Mig 25 is scary. Looks like two huge engines with some airfoil strapped on as an afterthought. The ejection seat is where I would focus the most maintenance.
I think you mean the B-70. Still you recollection of the purpose of design is commendable.
Since all fighters I flew required afterburner to maintain Mach plus speeds. When in A/B, and using only internal tanks (not many were rated for Mach plus speeds), the machine had roughly 15 minutes or so of fuel. Not exactly optimal for an Atlantic crossing.
And given some other info we had on the Mig at the time, I believe that the engine life was only slightly longer than the afterburner time.
Even then...more power to the Russians if they can pull this off.
Oops, I meant to say that “...not many external tanks were rated for Mach plus speeds....” Forgot the “external” part.
Gasp, my mind is going. I must be becoming a liberal. Ptui, ptui.
Hard to see how the passengers wouldn’t be very cramped in there.
BUT, their planes never look quite right esthetically to my eye. This thing looks like something right out of the “Transformers” movie.
Just my opinion.
Oldplayer
I agree; most of their supersonic fighters look sort of clunky. The only one I ever thought looked good was the MiG-29, and it bears more than a passing resemblance to a F/A-18.
I’d rather fly on a SR-71 business jet than that.
Interesting story...one heck of a business jet.
Remember going to Nashville to see the Concorde land.
Thousands of people came out to view that bad boy.
That drop-down nose was amazing.Also the noise.
I remember reading that while the -25 was capable of reaching Mach 3, that when it did they had to replace the engines. Also, when we kindly took apart the -25 that was delivered to Japan in the mid-70s, our engineers were stunned to find that the Soviets had not one integrated circuit on the plane - it was all vacuum tubes (which, as it turns out, is ideal for a world in nuclear conflict, as the ICs fry in the presence of EMP, whereas the tubes survive).
Amazing that we caused them to waste such enormous talent and resources to counter a bomber we never ended up building. BTW, I saw one of the B-70 prototypes at Wright-Patterson AFB’s museum - what a MONSTER! Gorgeous, but an absolutely HUGE plane. Had we built a fleet of them, they would’ve been the iconic nuclear bomber instead of the BUFF.
Saw the 1991 Ryder Cup team come into Charleston SC when the team flew in on the Concorde. I was working on top of a building so I got a great view of it. More awesome than that was a few years later. Was working in Saudi Arabia and planning my yearly trip back to here. Travel agent had a deal that for $500 more than the business class trip I had planned, I could take the Concord from London to DC. Was one of the best trips of my life. 3 hrs and 45 minutes. I arrived before I left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.