Red Eagles: book opinion?

[AbitNutz]

So I bought and read the book "Red Eagles" by Steve Davies. I found it a bit disjointed but I really enjoyed the opinions of the Mig's by US pilots.

They were universally enamored by the Mig 21's. Multiple pilots talked about how it was superior to the F4 as a dog fighter. They made it sound like the F4 was a square peg trying to be hammered in to a round hole as a dog fighter. The F4 had many great attributes but the general opinion was that a well flown Mig 21 would shoot down a well flown F4 just about every time. I wish there was of a comparison to the F8 Crusader. Even when flown against against much more modern US fighters, like the F16 and F15...the US pilots had better be careful!

They loved flying the Mig 21. The fighter had no bad habits and was a wonderful handling airplane. They did complain that taxing the airplane was reversed from what they considered normal and when explained, did sound very goofy. They also said that visibility out of the cockpit was pretty poor and the layout was a mess. There were all kinds of valves all over the place that had to be twiddled with. They said it looked like it had been designed by a plumber.

No mention was made of maintenance problems with the airframe itself and the impression was that it was extremely rugged. The main complaint was that engines were built to be disposable, 150 or so hours and off it went to GE to be TBO'd as best they could....to the tune of 6 million dollars each. Which was a gigantic amount of money at that time. They never said it was unreliable but that it just wasn't designed to last.

The Mig 23's they had were another story. The US pilots were scared to death of them and just about every part of it was a maintenance nightmare. They did say that while the engine had a horrible habit of self destructing on a regular basis, it was the most powerful engine any of them had ever encountered and the Mig 23 was incredibly fast. However, going Mach 2.5 was likely to get you killed. Apparently the cockpit canopy would just about melt and kill you. Any high G maneuvers would cause the engine to come apart and kill you. Once at high speed, if the plane was abruptly slowed down the turbine blades would brake off, the engine would come apart and kill you...I guess they were afraid of getting killed.

They said the engine was so big that radar routinely identified the Mig 23 as a DC10. I swear, that's what they wrote.

Did they ever cure the cockpit layout complaints in the later Mig 21 versions? It sounds like a wonderful airplane. Pity they couldn't marry the GE J79 to the Mig 21. As I understand it, that engine was pretty much bullet proof. I bet if they managed to pull that off, they'd still be flying them at Groom Lake. They really liked that aircraft....

[Sens]

A little bit of black and white view. The limited view from cockpit, tricky behavior when flown to the limits, limited combat persistence by limited fuel and weapons-load are some other shortcomings. But pilots do enjoy roadster to have some fun over the home-base. See Warbirds worldwide special about that and its MiG-21 profile f.e.. On the other side it does show, that the US pilots did show little understanding about the way a MiG-23 was operated or the author was looking for selling claims at first.

[haavarla]

So I bought and read the book "Red Eagles" by Steve Davies. I found it a bit disjointed but I really enjoyed the opinions of the Mig's by US pilots.

They were universally enamored by the Mig 21's. Multiple pilots talked about how it was superior to the F4 as a dog fighter. They made it sound like the F4 was a square peg trying to be hammered in to a round hole as a dog fighter. The F4 had many great attributes but the general opinion was that a well flown Mig 21 would shoot down a well flown F4 just about every time. I wish there was of a comparison to the F8 Crusader. Even when flown against against much more modern US fighters, like the F16 and F15...the US pilots had better be careful!

They loved flying the Mig 21. The fighter had no bad habits and was a wonderful handling airplane. They did complain that taxing the airplane was reversed from what they considered normal and when explained, did sound very goofy. They also said that visibility out of the cockpit was pretty poor and the layout was a mess. There were all kinds of valves all over the place that had to be twiddled with. They said it looked like it had been designed by a plumber.

No mention was made of maintenance problems with the airframe itself and the impression was that it was extremely rugged. The main complaint was that engines were built to be disposable, 150 or so hours and off it went to GE to be TBO'd as best they could....to the tune of 6 million dollars each. Which was a gigantic amount of money at that time. They never said it was unreliable but that it just wasn't designed to last.

The Mig 23's they had were another story. The US pilots were scared to death of them and just about every part of it was a maintenance nightmare. They did say that while the engine had a horrible habit of self destructing on a regular basis, it was the most powerful engine any of them had ever encountered and the Mig 23 was incredibly fast. However, going Mach 2.5 was likely to get you killed. Apparently the cockpit canopy would just about melt and kill you. Any high G maneuvers would cause the engine to come apart and kill you. Once at high speed, if the plane was abruptly slowed down the turbine blades would brake off, the engine would come apart and kill you...I guess they were afraid of getting killed.

They said the engine was so big that radar routinely identified the Mig 23 as a DC10. I swear, that's what they wrote.

Did they ever cure the cockpit layout complaints in the later Mig 21 versions? It sounds like a wonderful airplane. Pity they couldn't marry the GE J79 to the Mig 21. As I understand it, that engine was pretty much bullet proof. I bet if they managed to pull that off, they'd still be flying them at Groom Lake. They really liked that aircraft....

Great stuff AbitNutz!

I think i will procure that book!

Does it say anything about the early mig-29?



Thanks

[AbitNutz]

Unfortunately not. I would have really liked to know what the US thought of the Mig 29 as well as the SU-27. The only mention of them was that the author was sure the US has some.

As far as the B&W view of the Mig 21, maybe so but I was ready to read of every niggling fault the Mig 21 had. It was really a pretty flattering portrayal.

As far the Mig 23 goes...they told of an incident where a pilot was killed in it. It had all the disclaimers...There was no punches pulled. He shouldn't have been flying it. However, the peculiarities of the Mig 23's systems that led to his death were to say the least...unusual.

He had the throttle pushed to the stops and was going as fast as that giant engine would push him. Apparently the plane had a tendency to nose down a bit at warp 9 and become almost unmaneuverable. The pilot didn't like the idea of doing Mach 2.5 straight down and pulled back on the throttle and...nothing happened. The engine continued continued at full power. He believed his only option was to punch out, which he did, at supersonic speed. The lip of his helmet caught on part of the ejection seat, when the slip stream hit him it caused his head to whip back, breaking his neck, killing him instantly. Again, the author said this too was the pilot, not the plane but...

The author claims the reason the Mig 23 engine didn't slow when the throttle was closed was because it had an anti-deceleration mechanism. A what?? It seems that if the throttle was chopped suddenly at ludicrous speed, the sudden deceleration would rip the engine out of the airplane. What?? Is that normal for fast aircraft?

If the pilot had just waited, the engine would have slowly wound down. All indications were that the plane impacted the desert floor with the engine at idle.

How they came to all of these conclusions when the only person in the aircraft was killed is likely a very interesting story all in itself.

[Arthur]

Steve Davies occasionally visits this forum. I'm sure if you brought your questions to his attention through PM, he'll give some response. Him being an OK guy and all that.

[pesho]

What is the type of MiG-23 and with what engine?

[jdsgn]

Not to ruin your thoughts on the Mig-21 but it is certainly not a dogfighter. It may be more maneuverable than an F-4 (not by that much) but it is certainly outclassed today by a wide margin by almost anything in the sky. They are plentiful, cheap, rugged and hard to spot visually and might even be able to slip through radar undetected if things go its way, but its not a dogfighter (the 17 was much better at that)

[Grizzly01]

What is the type of MiG-23 and with what engine?

Those were ex-Egyptian early MiG-23MS export models with R-29 engine. Early MiG-23MS (and M in Soviet AF) aircraft were restricted to 5G maneuvering limit due to defective airframe parts and poor AoA handling. After 1976 the quality of the airframe and flight control system were improved and Soviet pilots were allowed to practice dogfights. So unfortunately US pilots had to fly the least capable and the most unforgiving Flogger model.

[AbitNutz]

Page 224 says it was a Mig 23BN Flogger F. The engine was a Turmansky R-29-300 (R-29A). The pilot killed was Lieutenant General Robert "Bobby" Bond.

When the author writes of the R-29 you can just feel his awe, yet total dislike for that engine...and for the Mig 23 in general. While incredibly powerful, he writes that it ran extremely hot and that Turmansky went to weird lengths to cool it (like drilling air cooling passages in the turbine blades) because they either didn't have the expensive coatings and metals available to the West or just didn't want to invest in them as the engines were viewed as disposable.

It's interesting that Davies said all the Russian planes went faster than their published speed. I was always a doubter of Mig 25 speed claims. After all, look at a Mig 25 vs an SR-71. The Mig looks like an overly square, well...Mig. The SR-71 looks like it was designed by Star Fleet Command and Capt Kirk flew it. Maybe I'm a bit more of a believer now. After all the Starship Enterprise looks like a Frisbee with some chopsticks stuck in it.

I'm rereading the book. I'm starting to pick up more detail but Mr. Davies, if you're reading this...I like your book. Maybe by going through it again it'll flow a little better for me.

I'd still like to see a Mig 21 with a J-79 in it.

[AbitNutz]

Not to ruin your thoughts on the Mig-21 but it is certainly not a dogfighter. It may be more maneuverable than an F-4 (not by that much) but it is certainly outclassed today by a wide margin by almost anything in the sky. They are plentiful, cheap, rugged and hard to spot visually and might even be able to slip through radar undetected if things go its way, but its not a dogfighter (the 17 was much better at that)

I just read aviation books and live within driving distance from the greatest aviation museum on earth. The author says it's a dog fighter. My thoughts are pretty much a irrelevant.

[Flanker_man]

I just read aviation books and live within driving distance from the greatest aviation museum on earth.

You live near Monino, Moscow ??? Wow !!!

Ken

[wilhelm]

If the pilots were impressed by the R-29, I'd love to know what they thought of the R-35!

I started a little thread a while back after having a look at some of the basic data on the R-35. It pushes out 8550kg (18850lb) dry, and 13 000kg (28700lb) afterburning in a J-79 sized package of roughly the same weight!

The Khatchaturov R-35, does anyone know the extent of the difference between this engine and the R-29?

[pesho]

Page 224 says it was a Mig 23BN Flogger F

If that is the case i found some of the statements questionable. Our Bulgarian pilots loved the BN. And out of 8 lost planes, only two were caused by failure in engine/systems. I will try to get some opinions about the book from few pilots and post them here.

[MiGMan]

On the other side it does show, that the US pilots did show little understanding about the way a MiG-23 was operated or the author was looking for selling claims at first.

hiya!

I too read the book and came to the same conclusions! great accounts, and certainly a great insight into the horrors of the 23MS (stands for mega S**t? - but i still love it )

problem i found is it seems to take these accounts and applies it to Mig-23s in general (similar issue with call F-7s and Mig-21s a generic "mig-21" ), in that regard it disappointed me, as i was hoping for more insight vs anecdotal tales.

overall a great first into to the subject, im looking forward to a more comprehensive companion in future years though

[martinez]

He had the throttle pushed to the stops and was going as fast as that giant engine would push him. Apparently the plane had a tendency to nose down a bit at warp 9 and become almost unmaneuverable. The pilot didn't like the idea of doing Mach 2.5 straight down and pulled back on the throttle and...nothing happened. The engine continued continued at full power. He believed his only option was to punch out, which he did, at supersonic speed.

They did say that while the engine had a horrible habit of self destructing on a regular basis, it was the most powerful engine any of them had ever encountered and the Mig 23 was incredibly fast. However, going Mach 2.5 was likely to get you killed. Apparently the cockpit canopy would just about melt and kill you. Any high G maneuvers would cause the engine to come apart and kill you. Once at high speed, if the plane was abruptly slowed down the turbine blades would brake off, the engine would come apart and kill you...I guess they were afraid of getting killed.

I`ve read some pages and the story above as well, for me it was enough to be convinced that buying this book is a waste of money. I`d recommend to all readers to check some facts about the R-29(or any) engine design and operation prior to start reading the book, then you will find it very amusing and asking, what a crap he is writting there??!! Apparently, the author never made that to read something about the R-29 filling the book with dumb anecdotes about blades hitting the engine casing and ripping everything apart. Anyone with even a bit of knowledge about jet engines would know what will be the cause when abruptly switching engine regimes from full AB to idle at supersonic and how the pilot will feel that.
Anyway, my colleague a former Flogger test pilot just told me that during flight tests after heavy maintenance, they could easily reach speeds up to 2.7 M in a straight flight, even if redlined 2.35M. The problem beyond 2.35M is reduced directional stability and not canopy getting hot.

The author claims the reason the Mig 23 engine didn't slow when the throttle was closed was because it had an anti-deceleration mechanism. A what?? It seems that if the throttle was chopped suddenly at ludicrous speed, the sudden deceleration would rip the engine out of the airplane. What?? Is that normal for fast aircraft?

What, confused? There are other ways how to shut-down the R-29 engine or the afterburner when it goes crazy, or something malfunction. Unfortunately, the dumb Lieutenant General sitting there never made it learn something about the aircraft nor the engine, therefore he died. I'm curious, has anyone ever bothered to check what is the top speed of Mig-23BN?
True is that there is a mechanism to prevent compressor r.p.m falling abruptly(a limiter, a precaution for compressor not to enter other than operational regimes, bcs when passing speed 1.5M, the R-29 engine goes to special regime(RD-33 has similar), giving even more thrust. Pilots used to call it a second stage afterburner converting the Mig-23 to a stratospheric missile.... What a great feature for a interceptor, do not you think?

[haavarla]

I`ve read some pages and the story above as well, for me it was enough to be convinced that buying this book is a waste of money. I`d recommend to all readers to check some facts about the R-29(or any) engine design and operation prior to start reading the book, then you will find it very amusing and asking, what a crap he is writting there??!! Apparently, the author never made that to read something about the R-29 filling the book with dumb anecdotes about blades hitting the engine casing and ripping everything apart. Anyone with even a bit of knowledge about jet engines would know what will be the cause when abruptly switching engine regimes from full AB to idle at supersonic and how the pilot will feel that.
Anyway, my colleague a former Flogger test pilot just told me that during flight tests after heavy maintenance, they could easily reach speeds up to 2.7 M in a straight flight, even if redlined 2.35M. The problem beyond 2.35M is reduced directional stability and not canopy getting hot.



What, confused? There are other ways how to shut-down the R-29 engine or the afterburner when it goes crazy, or something malfunction. Unfortunately, the dumb Lieutenant General sitting there never made it learn something about the aircraft nor the engine, therefore he died. I'm curious, has anyone ever bothered to check what is the top speed of Mig-23BN?
True is that there is a mechanism to prevent compressor r.p.m falling abruptly(a limiter, a precaution for compressor not to enter other than operational regimes, bcs when passing speed 1.5M, the R-29 engine goes to special regime(RD-33 has similar), giving even more thrust. Pilots used to call it a second stage afterburner converting the Mig-23 to a stratospheric missile.... What a great feature for a interceptor, do not you think?

It appear to me that Russian aviation Engines in general are very hard to get some common history that are not biased from authors point of veiw..
Special western authors


Do anyone know of others good Aviation books on this matter?


Thanks

[crossiathh]

... I'm curious, has anyone ever bothered to check what is the top speed of Mig-23BN?

Operational limit is 1350kmph IAS and max. top speed is 1.7 Mach.

[sandiego89]

I personally enjoyed the book, very interesting and overdue subject. I would have loved more technical information, but in the credits he did admit most of the maintainers clammed up pretty tight. Quite surprised by the number of sorties they were able to fly given the lack of manuals etc.

I found the the comments on the MiG 17 the most interesting, namely how after every student flying a US aircraft got badly beaten on the first encounter they quickly learned never to get low and slow with the Fresco. I wonder how many of the the US losses in and around Vietnam were a result of "buck fever" and getting inside the MiGs stronger envelope? Getting the pilots to understand that the MiGs were just another aircraft with good and bad points was the main point of the program.

I think the book shows the real strengths of the program (or any good program really)- they had support from on high, checked thier ego at the door as the emphasis was on training not beating everyone, and got the best sticks and ground crews they could find.

Now Steve- I want the rest of the story on early MiGs, the Groom Lake MiGs/Doughnut/Drill, SU-20/22's etc. Pretty please?

[Sens]

Operational limit is 1350kmph IAS and max. top speed is 1.7 Mach.

So it does seem that aircraft identifications is neither a strong point of US-pilots nor of the author.

[pesho]

The response i got about what was posted here is that half is complete BS. The melting canopy and self-destructing engine. As martinez said there is limitation when flying with speed above 1.15M that cannot allow the engine to be put bellow maximal.
And btw the story about the melting canopy is actually for E-266(MiG-25). When they tested the plane for maximum speed, the canopy "welded" itself to the body and for the pilot to exit the canopy must be cut out.

Operational limit is 1350kmph IAS and max. top speed is 1.7 Mach

[martinez]

It appear to me that Russian aviation Engines in general are very hard to get some common history that are not biased from authors point of veiw..
Special western authors

It is not a bias rather lack of knowledge or interest in history of soviet/russian aviation technology which doesnt permit you to make an unbiased point of view. Then you turn everything up side down, like telling that Soviets not having superior materials in engines used some "strange methods" to cool turbine blades. They drilled holes to cool them down, but today at least half of modern engines if not all have drilled holes in high-temp turbine blades and are cooled internally as well as externally. Why just not say, they came up wih something new not known for Yanks at that time?
I remember some others, like wondering why Soviets built such a monstrous engine accelerating the Mig to nearly warp speeds, but unable for US pilots to slow it down by installing the so called "anti-deceleration mechanism "??!!.. stupid soviets...or the R-29 is running so hot that it repeatedly sounded "false" fire alarms. Do I really need to continue? Every ground personnel operating, not researching the aircraft would know what to do, when fire alarm goes on without a fire. Almost the same fire detectors based on ionized gas principle are used in the RD-33 engine bay.

Anyway, I`m glad that someone raised this question, bcs after reading this book the majority of adolescent aviation freaks is thinking what a piece of $hit the Mig-23 really was.

The response i got about what was posted here is that half is complete BS. The melting canopy and self-destructing engine. As martinez said there is limitation when flying with speed above 1.15M that cannot allow the engine to be put bellow maximal.

Thanks Pesho, you are correct, when passing 1.15 Mach compressor speeds up to higher rpm levels giving more thrust and could stall when abruptly manipulating with throttle, to slow it down just to put it back to maximal switching off the AB. As I remember correctly, documentation is stating 1.5 Mach for MF and ML. Chris, please correct me If I`m wrong. Thanks

[Arkali106]

Page 224 says it was a Mig 23BN Flogger F. The engine was a Turmansky R-29-300 (R-29A). The pilot killed was Lieutenant General Robert "Bobby" Bond.

When the author writes of the R-29 you can just feel his awe, yet total dislike for that engine...and for the Mig 23 in general. While incredibly powerful, he writes that it ran extremely hot and that Turmansky went to weird lengths to cool it (like drilling air cooling passages in the turbine blades) because they either didn't have the expensive coatings and metals available to the West or just didn't want to invest in them as the engines were viewed as disposable.

It's interesting that Davies said all the Russian planes went faster than their published speed. I was always a doubter of Mig 25 speed claims. After all, look at a Mig 25 vs an SR-71. The Mig looks like an overly square, well...Mig. The SR-71 looks like it was designed by Star Fleet Command and Capt Kirk flew it. Maybe I'm a bit more of a believer now. After all the Starship Enterprise looks like a Frisbee with some chopsticks stuck in it.

I'm rereading the book. I'm starting to pick up more detail but Mr. Davies, if you're reading this...I like your book. Maybe by going through it again it'll flow a little better for me.

I'd still like to see a Mig 21 with a J-79 in it.

I refer you to figure 3 down the page:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...aft/aurora.htm

It somewhat resembles the Tu-22M, A-5, MiG-25, MiG-23, etc. in aspects of its configuration. Does anyone know the speed the design was supposed to be able to operate at? Or any other general details?

[Sens]

I refer you to figure 3 down the page:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...aft/aurora.htm

It somewhat resembles the Tu-22M, A-5, MiG-25, MiG-23, etc. in aspects of its configuration. Does anyone know the speed the design was supposed to be able to operate at? Or any other general details?

Such things will be unmanned to be worthwile in some mission at all and started from a carrier at height.

[MiGMan]

Anyway, I`m glad that someone raised this question, bcs after reading this book the majority of adolescent aviation freaks is thinking what a piece of $hit the Mig-23 really was.

sadly that view is already pretty well entrenched outside fo those with russian ac interest while the very early versions may be deserving of the rep (i prefer "colourfull" ) the mid to late versions certainly weren't dud aircraft, and the ground attack variants have more than proven themselves over many different wars!

a book like this would of benefited from being co written by someone like yeffim Gordon (i know some will groan, but i cant think of a another author!)

[Krishna_j]

It appear to me that Russian aviation Engines in general are very hard to get some common history that are not biased from authors point of veiw..
Special western authors


Do anyone know of others good Aviation books on this matter?


Thanks

One unbiased and fairly unique book is By Sergei Burdin

Tupolev Tu-22 Blinder: Supersonic Bomber, Attack, Maritime Patrol and Electronic Countermeasures Aircraft (Hardcover)
by Sergey Burdin (Author) - UK 2005


covers first hand reports by iraqi and libyan crews who flew the bomber and the trials and tribulations of this quirky arircraft and its engines

[Grizzly01]

sadly that view is already pretty well entrenched outside fo those with russian ac interest while the very early versions may be deserving of the rep (i prefer "colourfull" ) the mid to late versions certainly weren't dud aircraft, and the ground attack variants have more than proven themselves over many different wars!

a book like this would of benefited from being co written by someone like yeffim Gordon (i know some will groan, but i cant think of a another author!)

"Red Eagles" is based on the memories of the former pilots and their opinions, so I don't think that Steve Davies is at fault if some of the information provided by those pilots is biased or incorrect.

[Steve Davies]

I'm rereading the book. I'm starting to pick up more detail but Mr. Davies, if you're reading this...I like your book.

Many thanks. I appreciate the feedback.

[Steve Davies]

problem i found is it seems to take these accounts and applies it to Mig-23s in general (similar issue with call F-7s and Mig-21s a generic "mig-21" ),

Thanks for the feedback, MiGMan.

Would be interested in knowing why you feel this way (genuinely). I didn't think that the text would give the impression that *all* MiG-23s were the same; and I thought I had treated the different MiG-21s and copies individually.

This is definitely something I can look at if you can present some specific examples that you have picked up on.

A book like this would of benefited from being co written by someone like yeffim Gordon

No, it would not have.

In the first place, it was researched from scratch, required a significant amount of relationship building to get people to open up, and called on more than 80 hours of interviews - all things that Mr Gordon is not renowned for.

In the second instance, this book is a collection of anecdotes - I did not present it, and do not pretend that it is, a technically-impeccable book about data, statistics and side-by-side comparisons. I would love to have written such a book, but the reality is that it would not have been accessible to the wider audience. It is what it says it is: a collection of stories that, to the best of my ability, I have tried to weave together to tell the story of the squadron.

[Steve Davies]

I`d recommend to all readers to check some facts about the R-29(or any) engine design and operation prior to start reading the book, then you will find it very amusing and asking, what a crap he is writting there??!! Apparently, the author never made that to read something about the R-29 filling the book with dumb anecdotes about blades hitting the engine casing and ripping everything apart.

Martinez

The 'crap' comments about the motor shedding blades are made by experienced fighter pilots who flew these two versions of Flogger (and the MS in particular), who ran the mishap investigations into the three losses and two additional spin incidents, and had access to Soviet accident and engineering reports that detailed the problem quite clearly.

If you want to argue with them about this, then I invite you and everyone else here to visit the Red Eagles forum - http://fjphotography.com/constantpeg/forum/ - where you can put your questions to two of them directly. I will then stand back and watch them expose you for the clown that you are.

Anyone with even a bit of knowledge about jet engines would know what will be the cause when abruptly switching engine regimes from full AB to idle at supersonic and how the pilot will feel that.

Actually, the issue referenced above, as discussed in the book, has nothing to do with AB. It is about structural loads twisting the motor mounts during spins, and the propensity of the MS in particular to spin with little or no tactile warning.

Then you turn everything up side down, like telling that Soviets not having superior materials in engines used some "strange methods" to cool turbine blades. They drilled holes to cool them down, but today at least half of modern engines if not all have drilled holes in high-temp turbine blades and are cooled internally as well as externally. Why just not say, they came up wih something new not known for Yanks at that time?

That's exactly what the book says.

Anyway, I`m glad that someone raised this question, bcs after reading this book the majority of adolescent aviation freaks is thinking what a piece of $hit the Mig-23 really was.

If that's the impression they get about the MS or BN, then good. Compared to other contemporary fighters designed for the same tasks, it is perfectly true.

[Steve Davies]

I personally enjoyed the book,
Now Steve- I want the rest of the story on early MiGs, the Groom Lake MiGs/Doughnut/Drill, SU-20/22's etc. Pretty please?

Thanks. I'm working on it