MiG-23 Crash - Michigan - 13 Aug 23
[QUOTE=RickNRoll;11497886]The afterburner wasn't working but engine was otherwise OK. With the wings fully extended there may have been enough low speed lift to allow control for a landing. We won't know because the PNF initiated the eject.[/QUOTE
the optimist of the year award goes to ….
engine relight procedure needs at least 9k feet and 30 seconds minimum. that’s if the shafts not bent and the turkey feathers play ball.
only one 27 has been landed dead stick, only because the pilot didn’t trust the seat, most folk familiar with the jet think he is either crazy or his cojones would have got caught on the sill on the way out.
the interview with the rio, is insightful and seems to be a good coordination effort. All his statements are supported by the video
the optimist of the year award goes to ….
engine relight procedure needs at least 9k feet and 30 seconds minimum. that’s if the shafts not bent and the turkey feathers play ball.
only one 27 has been landed dead stick, only because the pilot didn’t trust the seat, most folk familiar with the jet think he is either crazy or his cojones would have got caught on the sill on the way out.
the interview with the rio, is insightful and seems to be a good coordination effort. All his statements are supported by the video
I think it's safe to say you are in a parallel universe!
The interview with the back seater in post #95 is long but very enlightening, and likely clears up some of those questioning the back seater due to the comments in the NTSB preliminary and the analysis in post #94. The owner requested the back seater ride along as safety observer and that probably saved both their lives.
Low and slow is not where you want to be in a MiG-23, with low and decaying airspeed due to engine issue (roll back, perhaps less than idle, no afterburner, nozzle issue?), stall buffet onset, airspeed decaying from 190, 180, 170..., 800 feet off the deck and descending, downward velocity in a non zero-zero seat, pilot likely fixated on getting a relight and troubleshooting and the book saying your need @ 8,000 feet, 20 seconds and 350 knots for an air-start (which they were never going to get). He further stated that some of the info in the preliminary was not accurate, perhaps due to them getting them casually questioned while they were being poked and prodded in the hospital only hours after the fact. He said he called for wings forward and for the flaps to keep flying and the pilot agreed and later he saw it was time to get out and announced the ejection and pulled the handle sending them both out- and sounds like he made the right call. Mooch in post #94 sensed a red flag when the back seater pulled the handle while the pilot was still trouble shooting, but acknowledged that you cant read everything from a preliminary, and I'm sure Mooch would agree sometimes the GIB has better situational awareness and knows when it is time
Low and slow is not where you want to be in a MiG-23, with low and decaying airspeed due to engine issue (roll back, perhaps less than idle, no afterburner, nozzle issue?), stall buffet onset, airspeed decaying from 190, 180, 170..., 800 feet off the deck and descending, downward velocity in a non zero-zero seat, pilot likely fixated on getting a relight and troubleshooting and the book saying your need @ 8,000 feet, 20 seconds and 350 knots for an air-start (which they were never going to get). He further stated that some of the info in the preliminary was not accurate, perhaps due to them getting them casually questioned while they were being poked and prodded in the hospital only hours after the fact. He said he called for wings forward and for the flaps to keep flying and the pilot agreed and later he saw it was time to get out and announced the ejection and pulled the handle sending them both out- and sounds like he made the right call. Mooch in post #94 sensed a red flag when the back seater pulled the handle while the pilot was still trouble shooting, but acknowledged that you cant read everything from a preliminary, and I'm sure Mooch would agree sometimes the GIB has better situational awareness and knows when it is time
Another video discussing the MiG-23 crash. Ted Drake (Gabby) and Rob Zettel (Z-man) both flew the MiG-23MS for the Red Eagle squadron at Nellis. They have a combined 432 missions flown in the MiG-23MS in addition to MiG-21 flight experience.
Summary of comments:
Both support Ruff’s decision to initiate the ejection. Ejection was not premature; i.e., Ruff waited “until the last second.” Drake/Gabby would have ejected sooner.
Most plausible cause of zero thrust is nozzle or fuel control unit failure.
During SFO, the 23 glides at about a 1 nm/1000 ft. At the target glide speed of 230-250 knots, that’s about a 4,000 fpm descent rate.
Neither would have selected full flaps but don’t believe doing so adversely impacted the outcome of the accident flight.
The comms from Ruff to the PIC during the emergency were not excessive and were appropriate.
Very little control over the MiG-23 flight path just prior to ejection; i.e., the narrative that the PIC was going to steer the MiG away from danger to those on the ground is wishful thinking.
Summary of comments:
Both support Ruff’s decision to initiate the ejection. Ejection was not premature; i.e., Ruff waited “until the last second.” Drake/Gabby would have ejected sooner.
Most plausible cause of zero thrust is nozzle or fuel control unit failure.
During SFO, the 23 glides at about a 1 nm/1000 ft. At the target glide speed of 230-250 knots, that’s about a 4,000 fpm descent rate.
Neither would have selected full flaps but don’t believe doing so adversely impacted the outcome of the accident flight.
The comms from Ruff to the PIC during the emergency were not excessive and were appropriate.
Very little control over the MiG-23 flight path just prior to ejection; i.e., the narrative that the PIC was going to steer the MiG away from danger to those on the ground is wishful thinking.
The following users liked this post:
Apologies if this has already been asked.
Most of the discussion focuses around what the pilots did, what the pilots should have done etc. No one has discussed if the display of this aircraft was appropriate.
My understanding is the aircraft took off, flew around to crowd front in a topside pass around 350knots, hit the burners to climb out, encountered the problem.
Shouldn't the aircraft have taken off, climbed out to a safe altitude. Maybe performed system checks (is that a realistic thing pilots do at displays?) Ran into crowd front with plenty of airspeed in case there was a problem thus giving the crew options in the event of a problem?
With more airspeed aircraft could have climbed out and have more time to fix the problem or safely abandon. Seems to me the aircraft encountered a problem at a speed and altitude that was irrecoverable.
Most heavy jet displays in the UK do just that. High energy displays, boom and zoom if you like, with plenty of safety margin.
Most of the discussion focuses around what the pilots did, what the pilots should have done etc. No one has discussed if the display of this aircraft was appropriate.
My understanding is the aircraft took off, flew around to crowd front in a topside pass around 350knots, hit the burners to climb out, encountered the problem.
Shouldn't the aircraft have taken off, climbed out to a safe altitude. Maybe performed system checks (is that a realistic thing pilots do at displays?) Ran into crowd front with plenty of airspeed in case there was a problem thus giving the crew options in the event of a problem?
With more airspeed aircraft could have climbed out and have more time to fix the problem or safely abandon. Seems to me the aircraft encountered a problem at a speed and altitude that was irrecoverable.
Most heavy jet displays in the UK do just that. High energy displays, boom and zoom if you like, with plenty of safety margin.
The "systems" would've been checked out on the ground after start - exercising of the flying controls, they probably moved the wings to fully forward from swept and culminated with full power checks on take off, so not sure what else you thing could've been done?
I remember reading an article from a well know warbird pilot that said something like "You should fly a twin engine aircraft always within it's single engine profile" presumably so that an engine failure doesn't end with the loss of the aircraft.
