Red Eagles: book opinion?

[alfakilo]

Just an idea....but it is very theoretical, the Soviets were better equipped in every area, sporadic local equality for short periods.

I'm not sure what "better equipped" means. No doubt that the Soviets enjoyed a numerical superiority...other than that, a qualitative comparison might well favor NATO.

Maybe some limited advantages for compact WP fighter-units, if they operating as home-defence units from their own base in wartime.
Most of the non Soviet WP pilots spent 70% of their service time at one unit. Very familiar with their operational area, theye were flying over their own families etc...

Familiarity with the terrain is an advantage...A-10 pilots were quite comfortable with the West German areas they were assigned to.

alfakilo,

Had you any wartime "advice" when you stationed in Europe for the ejection, if you have a chance to choose a WP country against other ?
Something like GDR or Poland, Sovietunion or Hungary, Romania...
There were some "softer" places behind the Iron-Curtain

In my two assignments, our mission involved operations over NATO areas only, especially for the A-10 tour...so I don't remember thinking much about your question. If I had to make a guess, I'd go with something in the south areas...the folks further north seemed to be more "hard core" in their "commieness"!!

[sainz]

I'm not sure what "better equipped" means. No doubt that the Soviets enjoyed a numerical superiority...other than that, a qualitative comparison might well favor NATO.


In my two assignments, our mission involved operations over NATO areas only, especially for the A-10 tour...so I don't remember thinking much about your question. If I had to make a guess, I'd go with something in the south areas...the folks further north seemed to be more "hard core" in their "commieness"!!

My fault, it was ambiguous from me:
" Just an idea....but it is very theoretical, the Soviets were better equipped in every area, sporadic local equality for short periods. "

Better equipped Soviets vs WP. New aircrafts, missiles first for the Soviets, later for other WP countries.
There were very few exceptions, like when HuAF got MiG-21F-13, Hungary based Soviet units flew on MiG-17 -19.
It joins to your older post:
" While I can't quote any specific reference, it was my belief that, when it came to the air threat, the biggest challenge would have been the non-Soviet fighter units. In my opinion, the East German, Hungarian, etc pilots were of a different mindset than their Soviet counterparts, and as such posed a far less predictable and consequently more dangerous threat. "

So it looks like, I must to repeat my question on ejection for F-111, Buccaneer or bomber guys.

[alfakilo]

Better equipped Soviets vs WP. New aircrafts, missiles first for the Soviets, later for other WP countries.
There were very few exceptions, like when HuAF got MiG-21F-13, Hungary based Soviet units flew on MiG-17 -19.

OK...I understand now! Sounds like the US, where as new aircraft came in to the USAF, the older aircraft were passed down to Air National Guard and Reserve units.

So it looks like, I must to repeat my question on ejection for F-111, Buccaneer or bomber guys.

LOL!! Yes...I think so!!

[Sens]

Not only your view, Robert...but everyone else too.

I was stationed at Nellis AFB in 1980 when the F-117 operation was just getting started. We all knew that something was happening, and it was a favorite topic of conversation...but as it turned out, we had zero idea of what the aircraft was. This wasn't all that hard to understand since none of us had any knowledge of "stealth" and so our guesses and ideas were all based on extensions of what we did know about. One of the favorite guesses was that the unit was going to be another Red Eagle squadron, one outfitted with MiG-23s.

Then in 1983, when I was stationed in the UK flying A-10s, the F-117 unit deployed to our base. We moved out of our squadron building to allow the F-117 folks to use it, and we also gave up the use of some of our TAB V aircraft shelters. Again, we knew nothing of what was actually going on...we thought it was a covert A-7 operation (this was one of the cover stories at the time).

Little did we know!!

The 4450th Tactical Group had 18 A-7D Corsair II to train the pilots.
June 1981 the "P-unit" with A-7D and "I-unit" 'Nightstalkers'
October 1982 the "Q-unit" 'Goatsuckers'
October 1985 the "Z-unit" 'Grim Reapers'
Which did become squadrons later

The Aviation Week did report about stealth in 1980 and Bill Sweetman did so for the 'Internationale Wehrrevue' in 1984 as did the Interavia 1985. All that was enough for Testors Corp. to sell the plastic model of the stealth fighter F-19 in 1986.
I add a scan from Bill Gunston about ATB drawings from the early 80s.
Salamander Books Ltd. 1984

Non expected a front-line stealth aircraft before the 90s, when the "F-19" did question that believe in 1986.
The USA were faster.
http://www.rp-one.net/lampyridae/lampy.html

[Sens]

Better equipped Soviets vs WP. New aircrafts, missiles first for the Soviets, later for other WP countries.
There were very few exceptions, like when HuAF got MiG-21F-13, Hungary based Soviet units flew on MiG-17 -19.

That exeption had something to do with the radar. In that days P-variants were seen as superior about limited clear weather fighters.
The MiG-21PF was accepted into the military inventory of the USSR in 1962.
The production of the MiG-19 ended in the 50s already.
In the 80s Hungary did catch-up in equipment, despite the best variants still denied. Su-22M3 and not Su-22M4 or MiG-23MF and not MiG-23ML f.e.

[sainz]

That exeption had something to do with the radar. In that days P-variants were seen as superior about limited clear weather fighters.
The MiG-21PF was accepted into the military inventory of the USSR in 1962.
The production of the MiG-19 ended in the 50s already.

I am talking about September 1961, when 27 x MiG-21F-13 arrived to Hungary to 47th Wing, Pápa AB.
It was a fairly early date for the delivery of MiG-21F-13 compare with other WP countries, not only with Soviet units in the area - Czechoslovakia from 27.9.1962. own built versions later, GDR 4.5.1962, Bulgaria 1963-.
Hungary based Soviet fighter units were equipped with MiG-17F -17PF, MiG-19S -19SV in that time.
In those times HuAF had MiG-15s and a squadron of MiG-17PF, MiG-19PM only.
But it is an exception only, not typical, and the interval was not so significant.

[sainz]

That exeption had something to do with the radar. In that days P-variants were seen as superior about limited clear weather fighters.
The MiG-21PF was accepted into the military inventory of the USSR in 1962.

Many 16.VA fighter-units were good example for this.
One(2) new squadron of MiG-21F-13s, keep in service the MiG-17PF while the MiG-21PF,PFM will available.

[sainz]

In the 80s Hungary did catch-up in equipment, despite the best variants still denied.

After 1990 there were a lot of studies in Hungary on the comsequences of the 1956-Revolution.
One of the most obvious change - after the Revolution Hungary became the "most-free" country in the WP.
Our government could spend more money for the abundance of the citizens.
We had much more chaffers on the shelfs of the shops....the reason why was Hungary the most popular tourist destination in the WP.
When the Soviets tried to sale expensive newer weapons for the Hungarian government, many times we could say No or could buy fewer hardwares....could say no for the HAS building program etc...

[sainz]

In the mid-80s, I spent a little time in East Berlin, both in contact with the general public as well as with WP personnel. I recall one fellow in particular...a Soviet MiG-21 pilot assigned to the joint headquarters area. When introduced to him, there was an obvious dislike on both our parts. I did my best to communicate a "**** you, Boris...your ass is mine" attitude. He probably took offense at that. No regrets on my part...fighter pilots are such little boys!!

Few more ideas on this...

When you stationed in Germany I think you enjoyed the trust of your nation, the trust of your leaders.

While "Boris" was under constant monitoring of his intell guys.
Somehow, somebody recorded, listened his words, behaviour always.
If he took an ambiguous "step", he told any ambiguous words for you or for anybody else in his enviroment - he was in trouble(maybe his family too).
Or if an intell-guy without competence took a wrong conclusion - the aftermath could be the same.
"Boris" was intimidated...

From this viewpoint Constant-Peg, Top-Gun were afar off from realistic-training:diablo:
There were much more "vitality" and "freedom" in your cockpits

[zoot horn rollo]

Not only your view, Robert...but everyone else too.

I was stationed at Nellis AFB in 1980 when the F-117 operation was just getting started. We all knew that something was happening, and it was a favorite topic of conversation...but as it turned out, we had zero idea of what the aircraft was. This wasn't all that hard to understand since none of us had any knowledge of "stealth" and so our guesses and ideas were all based on extensions of what we did know about. One of the favorite guesses was that the unit was going to be another Red Eagle squadron, one outfitted with MiG-23s.

Then in 1983, when I was stationed in the UK flying A-10s, the F-117 unit deployed to our base. We moved out of our squadron building to allow the F-117 folks to use it, and we also gave up the use of some of our TAB V aircraft shelters. Again, we knew nothing of what was actually going on...we thought it was a covert A-7 operation (this was one of the cover stories at the time).

Little did we know!!

Having trailed this across one of the spotter message boards the general view of the last paragraph is as follows:

This is probably the November 1984 deployment of A-7s to RAF Woodbridge from the 4450thTTG under "Coronet Spark".

This squadron was a cover unit used to train crews for the then secret F-117A . The purpose of this deployment appears to have been to test equipment installed on the F-117s in a European environment. These sensors appear to have been housed in the underwing pods which were quickly covered and uncovered for flight operations. When they taxied out they had pods under their wings covered with tarpaulin type material.

These covers were removed after the end-of-runway checks for take-off. These pods apparently carried the targeting equipment fitted to the F-117A's and the purpose of the deployment was to see how these would function in the European environment. The A-7D's were flown in a similar flight profile to the F-117A but of course they were not 'stealthy'. The crews flying the A-7D's were fully qualified F-117 drivers.

31 OCTOBER - 14 NOVEMBER 1984
4450 TTG/4451 TS Nellis AFB
A-7D LV 69-6198,70-0941,70-0969,70-1020

[sainz]

I was based at Soesterberg from 74 to 76.

alfakilo,
Can I ask from you some details on DACT from your Soesterberg period ?
How often, what kind of such sorties were at a frontline USAFE F-4 fighter-unit then ?

Bouncing on "everyday" basis - what does it mean in 1974-76 in Soesterberg ?

" Bouncing was apparently introduced by the British, already back in the 1950s, and occurred on "everyday" basis. Nothing special, no exercise, no official affair, and no particluar qualificiations required. Neighbouring NATO squadrons would regularly challenge each other for such inofficial affairs - just for the sake of it. There were not only "bounces" but also simulated attacks on each other's airfield too - also no part of some kind of an exercise or anything pre-planned. Back then fuel and planes were cheap, and everybody with five minutes of fuel at hand would do it. Plane spotter or not, one could witness such situations over NATO airfields around the entire Europe regularly. "
http://www.s188567700.online.de/foru...=6106&start=45

[alfakilo]

alfakilo,
Can I ask from you some details on DACT from your Soesterberg period ?
How often, what kind of such sorties were at a frontline USAFE F-4 fighter-unit then ?

Bouncing on "everyday" basis - what does it mean in 1974-76 in Soesterberg ?

To me, the term DACT means scheduled air combat training, where units agree on the type of training to be flown, lessons to be learned (commonly known as DLOs...desired learning objectives), the location, rules of engagement (ROE), etc...whereas "bouncing' means just the opposite.

When I was at Soesterberg (74-76), we did far more bouncing than DACT. For one thing, DACT was still a relatively new practice in the USAF, having recently emerged after years of being prohibited. It took the lessons of the Vietnam War to remove the restrictions.

Bouncing, on the other hand, had always taken place among the NATO fighter units, usually on an "unofficial" basis, although back in the 50s, it wasn't uncommon for entire units to meet in a giant furball.

The 32 TFS supervisors took a dim view of bouncing and tried to prohibit it...but for some of us, this all fell on deaf ears. I will readily admit to being guilty of ignoring these rules whenever possible...the expression for such an attitude in those days was "all balls, dick, and no forehead". Mea culpa...but it sure was fun.

Bouncing took a number of forms. Generally, it meant attacking any other fighter when seen, as long as the situation was relatively safe...for example, we didn't bounce folks in the traffic pattern. Otherwise, the game was on and it didn't matter what the other aircraft was doing. If the victim didn't want to play, then he would rock his wings to signal that he had other things to do...at that point, the attackers would break off and let the guy go on with his flight.

Nor did we have any problems with bouncing when we were airborne in the Zulu birds. I was single at that time, 30 years old, and thought I was bulletproof. Not having a family at home, I volunteered for a lot of alert and consequently did my share and then some of bouncing folks with a fully loaded combat configuration. Our NATO call sign was Alpha Kilo, the initials of my name were AK, and so somebody in the squadron tagged with the handle of "alfakilo", and it has stuck ever since.

Those were fun days. Later on in my career when I became a squadron supervisor, one of my tasks was to keep the junior guys in line. I've always laughed at the idea of me having to deal with a younger version of myself...I would have been doing a lot of kicking ass and taking names.

Sorta.

LOL!!

[sainz]

The difference between the R-13 and R-25 was in AB mainly.
R-13:
65,3 kg/sec mass flow, 8.9 pressure ratio, 1,233 K TiT, 1211 kg dry weight
4,070 kp 0.931 sfc dry and 6,490 kp 2.093 sfc wet
R-25:
67,9 kg/sec mass flow, 9.55 pressure ratio, 1,330 K TiT, 1210 kg dry weight
4,100 kp 0.96 sfc and 7,100 kp 2.25 sfc wet (up to 4 min below 4000 metre did rise wet and with it the sfc over 2.25 .

In this case - change the engines for R-25 at regular overhauls in the MiG-21SM,SMT - it is a clear sign of the change of tactics also.
The R-25 was better at low altitudes, than the previous engines.
Engine changes > something like to improve this situation a bit more:

" May 10 1972:

Nearly out of missiles and starting to run short of fuel, the Phantoms went supersonic and sped toward the coast.
"At that time we had strong intelligence that the MiG-21 could not do more than Mach 1.05 below five thousand feet. We were doing Mach 1.15 in combat spread, feeling cocksure as we headed towards the coast."
Dosé recalled:
"Then a MiG-21 came up behind, overtaking fast. He made it look effortless. When I saw the MiG it was about three-quaters of a mile behind Hawkins. I called for an in-place turn, and as we began turning the MiG fired an Atoll missile at Hawkins. Initially it guided, but it couldn't handle the Gs and it wasn't ever a real threat."
After attacking the MiG broke away to the right. Instintictively Dosé turned after it, until McDevitt demanded incredulously, "What are you doing!" The back-seater's tone reminded Dosé that they had neither the missiles nor the fuel for another engagement. Chastened, the pilot reversed his turn and headed for the coast.
Almost certainly the MiG-21 that had caught up with the Phantoms was the new MF sub-type. It was the first time American crews had encountered this version, and its much improved low-altitude performance came as an unpleasant surprise.


As the survivors of Oyster Flight sped out of North Vietnam at low altitude, a MiG-21MF arrived to cause consternation for the second time that day. Oyster 2 ran out alone, 3 and 4 stayed together. Chuck DeBellevue, in Oyster 3, watched with disbelief as the Soviet-made fighter closing from behind seemed to join formation on the pair. "We were running out at seven hundred to seven hundred fifty knots(Mach 1.06 to 1.13), the F-4 wouldn"t go any faster that low. And we had a MiG-21 chasing us and keeping up-that surprised the hell out of us!" To DeBellevue, the MiG's ability to keep up was disconcerting, to Captain Larry Pettit in Oyster 4 it was terrifying: "He was at our eight-thirty position(left quarter), one hundred feet above and about three hundred feet out to the side. He caught up with us and was staying with us! I don't know if he saw us, but he had a gun and he could have strafed the s.it out of us." Larry Pettit's next move did nothing to lessen the danger but was understandable in the circumstances: "I lowered my seat to the floor, to hide from him! He banked towards us and I thought, Oh no, he's going to let us have it with cannon....But he turned and went off in the opposite direction, Tommy Feezel and I thanked our lucky stars and got the hell out of there."

[Sens]

It does seem, that you do use a similar source about that event.

http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/inde...=231&Itemid=47

Here another one to do a personal question via web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_B._DeBellevue

Please, when quoting a source do give the name and the adress. The serious example is at Wikipedia, because it does allow to track its sources and has nothing to hide about that.

[sainz]

It does seem, that you do use a similar source about that event.

http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/inde...=231&Itemid=47

Here another one to do a personal question via web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_B._DeBellevue

Please, when quoting a source do give the name and the adress. The serious example is at Wikipedia, because it does allow to track its sources and has nothing to hide about that.

Original source is:
- ONE DAY IN A LONG WAR, by Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price, Guild Publishing, 1989(my edition from 1990)
Not acig and not wikipedia.

Many people red this book.
Here the "thing" which is interesting > MiG-21MF was faster at the deck, than the F-4. MiG-21SM,bis with R-25-300 were more fast.
And obviously US Navy, USAF pilots did not know this data in mid 1972 yet.

More interesting, if we see the "same-fast" MiG-21 sub-types with delivery dates:
MiG-21R from 1966
MiG-21S from 1966
MiG-21SM from 1968
MiG-21MF exports from 1970, many in Arab hands in mid 1972

[Sens]

Original sorce is:
- ONE DAY IN A LONG WAR, by Jeffrey Ethell and Alfred Price, Guild Publishing, 1989(my edition from 1990)
Not acig and not wikipedia.

Many people red this book.
Here the "thing" which is interesting > MiG-21MF was faster at the deck, than the F-4. MiG-21SM,bis with R-25-300 were more fast.
And obviously US Navy, USAF pilots did not know this data in mid 1972 yet.

More interesting, if we see the "same-fast" MiG-21 sub-types with delivery dates:
MiG-21R from 1966
MiG-21S from 1966
MiG-21SM from 1968
MiG-21MF exports from 1970, many in Arab hands in mid 1972

A single source published in 1989 from Cold War times.
You can read the story in a different way by Walter J. Boyne 'Phantom in Combat'; Janes 1985 and 1994.

The Israelis did fight Russian MiG-21MF from 1970 with F-4E and Mirage IIIC still with ATAR 9B. None did report that MiG were faster than a PFM at low level. In the hot conditions of the ME 700 kt was the limit. The inlet-system and the allowed temperature is the limit. The extra burner injection of the R-25 does give a faster accelleration.
There were constant rumors between US-fighter crews, that some Russian experts may bolster the North Vietnamese ranks like Korea before.
After a long period Linebacker had just started.
How misleading impressions can be have just to mention. The one from behind can fly the inner-line to cut the way of someone. At given point the F-4s pilots have to look to their fuel-state Bingo-fuel in mind, when the MiGs do operate over their homebases in general. In a formation the slowest "ship" will give the pace to allow mutual support. In the 60s the older MiGs were at 600+ kt at low level.

[Sens]

max speed at sea-level
Tip 74 - 621 kt
Tip 76 - 702 kt
Tip 77 - 610 kt
Tip 94 - 702 kt
Tip 94R- 621 kt
Tip 95 - 702 kt
Tip 15 - 702 kt
Tip 96 - 702 kt
Tip 96T- 702 kt
Tip 50 - 702 kt
Tip 75 - 702 kt
Tip 66 - 621 kt
Tip 68 - 621 kt
Tip 69 - 621 kt

Source: OKB MiG

[sainz]

The Israelis did fight Russian MiG-21MF from 1970 with F-4E and Mirage IIIC still with ATAR 9B. None did report that MiG were faster than a PFM at low level.

If this situation was so common, please quote any same combat report from Mid-East, same "drag-races" F-4 vs MiG-21MF at sea level.

The extra burner injection of the R-25 does give a faster accelleration.

The extra burner on the R-25 is a bonus only.
The target of the develpoment was to make an engine, which works better at low-level. There were a lot of other modifications compare with R-13-300.

In a formation the slowest "ship" will give the pace to allow mutual support.

F-4 drivers gave speed data:

"We were doing Mach 1.15 in combat spread, feeling cocksure as we headed towards the coast. "

" We were running out at seven hundred to seven hundred fifty knots(Mach 1.06 to 1.13), the F-4 wouldn"t go any faster that low. "

At given point the F-4s pilots have to look to their fuel-state Bingo-fuel in mind,

Uhumm....
From your viewpoint this is the reason, why they run with the speed > " the F-4 wouldn"t go any faster that low "

How misleading impressions can be have just to mention. The one from behind can fly the inner-line to cut the way of someone.

Generally - Yes.
In this case in my reading - a Classic
When somebody try to rewrite history....

[sainz]

max speed at sea-level
Tip 95 - 702 kt
Tip 15 - 702 kt
Tip 96 - 702 kt
Tip 50 - 702 kt
Tip 75 - 702 kt
Source: OKB MiG

MiG-21S
MiG-21SM
MiG-21MF
MiG-21SMT
MiG-21bis

With absolutely same speed data...haha...no any 1kt difference.
Oh, those fine books on Soviet hardware....

[Sens]

MiG-21S
MiG-21SM
MiG-21MF
MiG-21SMT
MiG-21bis

With absolutely same speed data...haha...no any 1kt difference.
Oh, those fine books on Soviet hardware....

The official data from the designer. The speed capability of the MiG-21 is given by the inlet-outlet system, which does create most of the propulsion from the transonic-range upwards. The basics by the way.
From F to bis = 1175 kt, when the SM/MF was 1204 kt max.
Take your calculator to find out what 702 kt does mean in Russian km/h or Mach number at standard day. The pilot does see his related instruments only and have to trust in the values and red-lines shown there. For safety reasons some values are optimistic for safety reasons. See the top-speed of your car about that. Just a change in tyre-pressure for your car or in atmospheric conditions for the fighter will bring difference. Every fighter pilot will tell you that not all fighters will reach the same speed or have the same climb behavior. So much about ....haha... to stay polite.

The climb-rate or accelleration is given by the thrust versus drag/weight ratio at first.

SM/MF = 160 m/sec
SMT = 200 m/sec
bis = 230 m/sec

All that is the initial climb-rate on half internal fuel and two AAMs.

At low level almost all fighters are strength-limited. (pressure limit !)

A F-4 does burn fuel at ~14 kg/sec in full AB (840 kg/minute) at 10.000 feet subsonic. So the AB is used for accelleration only and the burner was reduced to keep the max practical or allowed speed. Minimum-burner is not untypical for the MiG-21 f.e., when the West did assume the related 5 tons of thrust were the military of the R-13.
The AB is always in need to go supersonic through the transsonic range or over the "drag hill". Related to the design every fighter will settle in its sweet point. Some prominent ones are at Mach 0,98 or 1,02, because the "drag-hill" is not a constant rise or decent. The next pyhsical rule is, at subsonic speeds the drag increases in proportion to the square of the speed.
From a given point you will burn a lot of fuel and create the related noise and buffeting without adding some noticeable speed by that.
An Israeli F-4 pilot did recognise after an ABA mission in Egypt, when disengaging from MiG-21s, that he was unable to go supersonic in full AB like his fellows. The crew realised that not all external tanks and bomb-load were dropped and did cut the useless burner. (630 kt > 580 kt) They went home at Mach 0,9 in full military and throttle down further, when out of harms way.
The F-4 has its best performance at Mach 0,9.

[sainz]

So much about ....haha... to stay polite.

Not necessary to stay polite, feel free....I like your style, when you read something "new" here, which is not in your books:

There is no longer any shortage of uncensored personal reports from that time.

I do not know - But we have chronic shortage of any personal reports from that time.

Please do spare us from that face-saving guess-work.
Even the road-site operations were not trained frequently.

The Russians did use former German airbases from 1945, so nothing to hide about that.

The memories of Russians do suffer over the decades too. At least when not questioned the correct way by less informed internet-people.

The ones intrested can look at Google Earth: 54°15'47'' N and 12°26'32'' E
Here is the former Putnitz or Damgarten AB. Just a few hundred yards from the Bodden where during former GDR times thousands of people did spent their holidays, did sail, boat and taking pictures every day. That AB was too exposed to be shielded from the public eyes. The Russians were aware about that too.
Another example is Lärz, where the public road 198 passes the eastern end of the AB. See Google Earth 53°18'34'' N and 12°46'19'' E and the scans below about the former situation. External details could not be kept from trained eyes or photo-lenses.

I am waiting for those photos ere now...

To ease the temper a little bit. None do question the personal risc to take picture of his own in the 70s f.e..

The official data from the designer.

Data from that book.
I do not think, author did deep research on the topic. Maybe copy some "general" data from a previous book....
The official data are in the combat-manuals, tactics-scenarios of the MiG-21 sub-types, and at the pilots(MiG-21 & F-4) who had a same drage-race at low level
The harsh reality is nerly 80km/h difference at the given sub-types:
MiG-21S
MiG-21SM
MiG-21MF
MiG-21SMT
MiG-21bis
I will be very grateful, if anybody can tell me the exact sea-level speed of a MiG-21SM with R-25 engine....

Over Central-Europe in the 70s this small speed advantage could give some occassional favorable situations for the MiG-21s, but I think more important the bit more chance for the low level getaway for the MiG-21 when nearly reach bingo fuel in a 21 vs F-4 clash...of course if the MiG is in flyable condition so far.

There are no any mystery or appearing of revolutionary new data on the MiG-21 here.
70s was the 70s...
WP had closed, intimidated society and the back research is not too easy.

German reunification was a good chance for the Germans, for NATO.
What do you think, why we do not have public data on WPs real air combat training on the MiG-21, the "500-series" ?
Hundreds of pilots flew these in the NVA-LSK also.
ACT of the WP - The most interesting and most pending topic.

An Israeli F-4 pilot did recognise after an ABA mission in Egypt, when disengaging from MiG-21s, that he was unable to go supersonic in full AB like his fellows. The crew realised that not all external tanks and bomb-load were dropped and did cut the useless burner. (630 kt > 580 kt) They went home at Mach 0,9 in full military and throttle down further, when out of harms way.

If you have date, and source data...please

[Sens]

Data from that book.
I do not think, author did deep research on the topic. Maybe copy some "general" data from a previous book....
The official data are in the combat-manuals, tactics-scenarios of the MiG-21 sub-types, and at the pilots(MiG-21 & F-4) who had a same drage-race at low level
The harsh reality is nerly 80km/h difference at the given sub-types:
MiG-21S
MiG-21SM
MiG-21MF
MiG-21SMT
MiG-21bis
I will be very grateful, if anybody can tell me the exact sea-level speed of a MiG-21SM with R-25 engine....

Over Central-Europe in the 70s this small speed advantage could give some occassional favorable situations for the MiG-21s, but I think more important the bit more chance for the low level getaway for the MiG-21 when nearly reach bingo fuel in a 21 vs F-4 clash...of course if the MiG is in flyable condition so far.

There are no any mystery or appearing of revolutionary new data on the MiG-21 here.
70s was the 70s...
WP had closed, intimidated society and the back research is not too easy.

German reunification was a good chance for the Germans, for NATO.
What do you think, why we do not have public data on WPs real air combat training on the MiG-21, the "500-series" ?
Hundreds of pilots flew these in the NVA-LSK also.
ACT of the WP - The most interesting and most pending topic.


If you have date, and source data...please

The book was written by R A. Belyakov and J. Marmain.
Belyakov was the general designer after the death of A. I. Mikoyan in 1970.
J. Marmain, who did the translation was the cofounder of Aviation Magazine International, one of the world's leading aviation publications. A recognized expert on Russian aircraft for nearly half a century, he ...

The DHS publications in the 90s did use GDR data, handbooks and personal reports. I did not post that, because that are in German only.
If language is no problem, you can ask former personal abou that here.

http://www.flugzeugforum.de/

I am not intrested to do your job. I made bad experiences with ACIG, which were not intrested in too many facts to question their claims. I have no intention to write a book about the MiG-21s and the 70s. All soldiers from that time-scale had the best years and their fighter-plane was their first "love".
By the way, here you can ask about Damgarten or that pic in question or the people from scramble.nl, which did visit it in the 90s.

Flugzeugforum > Einsatz bei > Russische / Sowjetische LSK
Sowj. Flugplätze in der DDR gestern & heute

[sainz]

The book was written by R A. Belyakov and J. Marmain.
Belyakov was the general designer after the death of A. I. Mikoyan in 1970.
J. Marmain, who did the translation was the cofounder of Aviation Magazine International, one of the world's leading aviation publications. A recognized expert on Russian aircraft for nearly half a century, he ...

In this case with the book the situation is very simple:
On speed data my vote is on combat-manual not on that book.
My most diplomatic comment on these:

max speed at sea-level

Tip 95 - 702 kt
Tip 15 - 702 kt
Tip 96 - 702 kt
Tip 50 - 702 kt
Tip 75 - 702 kt

Source: OKB MiG

Not enough detailed.

The DHS publications in the 90s did use GDR data, handbooks and personal reports. I did not post that, because that are in German only.
If language is no problem, you can ask former personal abou that here.

I know these books - German language is problem for me(English too) - but I have colleagues who helped.
I did not seen any personal reports, documents in these books on the advanced ACT on NVA-LSK MiG-21s, any memories on "500s", any copies of the nice drawings from the albums of the "500s", any tactic scenarios etc...
Also, I did not seen any personal reports, articles from German sources about R-25 equipped MiG-21SM,SMT...notwithstanding most of these birds stationed at GDR in 16.VA...

I am visiting flugzeugforum.de usually.
Just a quick idea - those MiG-21 photos in L.F. book with wrong type recognition were there for years:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...&postcount=253
Nobody realized on flugzeugforum these basic errors - that 21SM is a 21bis and with the other photo too...

I made bad experiences with ACIG,

I do not know what does it mean.
But if you check my posts on acig, you can see my "difficulties" too.
I must to say in general:
We are in 2009 and there are a lot of prejudice, false data, misbelief with everything "Soviet" pre 1990.

By the way, here you can ask about Damgarten or that pic in question or the people from scramble.nl, which did visit it in the 90s.

For me the after 1990-Era are not interesting. That is not challenge for me, there are a lot of available photos, data.

I have no intention to write a book about the MiG-21s and the 70s.

The proper word for my work with my book - editing.
I will publish a lot of operational photos pre 1990 - for example thirtysome 16.VA MiG-21 shots, mainly from 60s 70s - stories from pilots, techs, a lot of original documents of ACT, where I give flight hours data I give 14 scanned pages from WP pilots logbooks from different nations and years etc....no any own ideas, conclusions, only collected data.

The Net forums is an other deal...

[Sens]

It does become boring to repeat the basics.
The MiG-21 is not speed limited by the thrust, but by the inlet-system.
Related to the atmospheric conditions it is ~Mach 2 at height.
At sea level it is ~ Mach 1
702 kt is under standard day conditions (+15°C) Mach 1,06
In a hotter day less and at a colder day "faster". The speed is the same, but the speed of sound did change accordingly.
We will be pleased to learn your data from your combat manual.
How about a scan, graphs or data are not restricted by the language.

In the early 90s nothing had changed about the view of Damgarten AB. In GDR times the people had no problem to watch the landings and take-off there from close by. Be it the Bodden (sea) in the west or the fields in the east of that base. You are no more than 100 metre away from the runway. At the flying days they did train touch and go, when slow in that pattern. By the nacked eye you can claim with ease a M from a F or P. There were specialist to view photos taken to find out external differences from sub-types. In the 70s I was not intrested in subtypes or do photos myself. The aera was not closed to the public.
What did you view during your visit there in the 70s?!

Maybe the claims on '500' are limited to Hungary, when most former GDR pilots or radar personal did not mention it.
Every pilot had to qualify for a level to achieve the related class of pilot. The first class pilot could become a sniper or a "top-gun" in western terminology.
That were to find in the first squadron of a regiment, when the third squadron was tasked to do the training to reach a higher class and pass on to the second and third squadron.

[sainz]

We will be pleased to learn your data from your combat manual.
How about a scan, graphs or data are not restricted by the language

How about ?
Can you tell me, why it is good for me ? To give documnets to the Net, which are not in the bibliotheques ?
I gave many "sweetes" like "500s", MiG-21SM,SMT with R-25 etc... a bit too many before book release....

I will give all the interesting data from manuals in my book as appendix.
Not only the basics like speed, range etc...
I will give all restrictions, speed & range data with all armament-droptank configurations on the MiG-21, also comparisons by sub-types etc.
(after can come the aerodynamics to evaluate)

Just two samples from the original Russian manual for "doubters":





Also, I will give some interesting comparisons from the English manuals of the MiG-21, for foreign clients in the 70s.
Very interesting reading, what was missing from the "books" for Arab, African airforces.
Also a massive chapter with foreign pilot-training in the Sovietunion.
http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/robertsz/view/2002?page=0



Lugovoye 1979

(just illustrations, because most of the experts think ere now - the pilot training in the USSR was in Russian only)

What did you view during your visit there in the 70s?!

In My book I will publish some nice flight-line shots from Damgarten from different years, and some other operational photos from the tarmac.
But as I described earlier, to collect data, photos on Damgarten - it was the easiest deal in 16.VA, Damgarten had a lot of visitors on exercises, joint tenant units while the runway of their homebase was under repair etc...
A nice slide or original negative of a MiG-21F -21F-13 from 16.VA - this is the real challenge

Maybe the claims on '500' are limited to Hungary, when most former GDR pilots or radar personal did not mention it.

Question and quick answer from Bulgaria:
"Also interesting data, when started in the Bulgarian AF this program "500s" on the MiG-21 ? "
"As I know, in 1974 a small group of instructor pilots went in Krasnodar for "conversion course". After their return they have trained bigger group of bulgarian fighter pilots from diferent regiments during a course held in Gabrovnica airbase. It was the same year (1974), but how many pilots - I have no information."

As I wrote many times on many forums in the last few weeks -"500s" was the standard ACT program at the MiG-21-units in the WP by Soviet documents.
NVA-LSK pilots flew these too.
Why we do not have personal-reports in German publications or on flugzeugforum.de ?
I can tell many reasons, but it is much better, if a German gentleman answers for this.
Interestingly - many NVA-LSK pilots gave me their original slides and negatives to scan with full copyright(we have some members here, who can confirm it). Also I get their logbooks.
They are very friendly and great guys.
Why we can not see their photos, read their stories in books, on the Net ?
Maybe somebody else can answers for this too...
Why we can not see any pages from NVA-LSK pilots logbooks from the 70s ?
All the necessary answers are in these logbooks for "500s", except the drawings of the manoeuvres and detailed tactics.
Also, GDR and the NVA-LSK was the most reliable client for the Soviets, they got the newest weapons first in the WP.
If we check the NVA-LSK continous modernisations on their MiG-21s - R-13M, R-60 on MiG-21PFM, Monsun, GP-9 etc...- we can see, they were a few steps forward always, than other non soviet WP airforces.
The situation with the "500s" was the same...

But as you wrote - It does become boring...

[Sens]

1300 km/h is 701,943 kn or 702 as given by OKB MiG and Mach 2,05.

On a standard day s.l. (+15°C) speed of sound is 662 kt
Hot summer day s.l. (+30°C) it is 679 kt
Cold day s.l. (0°C) it is 644 kt
Cold day s.l. (-10°C) it is 633 kt

The same MiG-21 has four different Mach numbers shown despite the basic 702 kt, which may differ a few kt by physical state of aircraft from the start.
Mach 1,1 - Mach 1,09 - Mach 1,06 - Mach 1,03
So none will be surprised, pilots do claim different Mach numbers achieved by their mount or some record attempts were made during best atmospheric conditions for the related purpose. Just the "bigger mouth" MiG-21s were capable to pass Mach 1 at s.l. At 3000 m or 10.000 feet all variants were supersonic.

In Phoenix over the Nile you can read about Egyptian pilots send for training on MiGs in the SU. In the North Caucasus military district mainly. Nearly no Arab pilot did speak Russian and none is surprised to see English inscriptions there.
"Brig. Gen. Faruq al-Ghazzawi (ret.) recalled his experiences with the new Soviet fighter:"In 1961 I was among the first group to convert to the MiG-21 in the Soviet Union. Our (former) Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. 'Ala' Barakah led this group. It was wonderful to fly supersonic in the MiG-21F-13. I flew many hours in the MiG. Later I commanded a squadron of MiG-21FLs". ...
Nice to fly, but no combat persistance is the summary of his memories.
Interview taken 31 March 1989 or 38 years later. We do not know, if he had personal notes or data at hand. At that time-scale all technical data about the MiG-21 were known and so none did ask for numbers, just for a high ranking confirmation of thoughts made already. What a pity.

By the way the same thing about your intended book. Your readers may be intrested in the feelings of the pilots about their aircraft or your view about that time-scale. What information they got about their opponents and which they did not as you do to some degree. Here the whole story does become political, when different views do clash.

By the way, you claim about Damgarten does show that external visible differences on aircraft could be spotted by "intrested" people from the military missions for example. The same way the Russians did in FRG, when they drove to the perimeter fence of Nörvenich AB to watch the F-104G from JBG-31 or other visting fighters like F-105D f.e. under the constant watch of the military police on the other site of the fence. There were signs around the perimeter-road, which did show, that parking there was not allowed as taking pictures. But none did care about that. In that years every AB had open days and the visitors were allowed to enter and take seat in every aircraft. The intruments were not covered and none was asked about an identity-card. The feelings in that years were, before the Russians did learn from that, the technology was a step ahead again. At that time scale every year saw new fighters or variants of that to come. The real secrets of an aircraft were under the "skin" at all, the readiness rate or related tactical use could not be watched either.

But the nonsense behavior about security claims have come even worse up today.

[Sens]

After the Russian left nothing has changed about the general layout from 1953.

http://www.flugzeugforum.de/forum/sh...ad.php?t=20831
Here are some pics of the open day 1992, which did remember me on that of the 60s and 70s, when at was no problem to enter every aircraft with the sole demand, please do not touch buttons.

http://www.16va.be/photos_chasse.html

From the time in question.

http://www.strizhi.ru/cgi-bin/yabb/Y...1134581652/250

[Sens]

In My book I will publish some nice flight-line shots from Damgarten from different years, and some other operational photos from the tarmac.
But as I described earlier, to collect data, photos on Damgarten - it was the easiest deal in 16.VA, Damgarten had a lot of visitors on exercises, joint tenant units while the runway of their homebase was under repair etc...
A nice slide or original negative of a MiG-21F -21F-13 from 16.VA - this is the real challenge


Q

For the Russian readers.

To follow the traces of 773 IAP in Damgarten or contact some people about that. It disbanded in March 1994 after the last Open Day. From April 1994 its MiG-29s were flown to Andreapol and integrated in the 28 Gv IAP there. Damgarten was closed in June 1994, when the last An-22 left.
[Moscow Military District, Andreapol (UUEA) 56°38'N-032°19'E, 19 AK, 28 Gv IAP, MiG-29s]

773 IAP did operate MiG-17, Yak-25M (1956) MiG-19 (1959) MiG-21 (1963)
[starting with P] MiG-23M (1974) and MiG-29.

For German readers.
The best way to follow the history of 773 IAP is to ask the soldiers from former JG-9 of Peenemünde, which was the German fellow regiment from 1956-90.
In 1956 the personal from 773 IAP did educate the new JG-9 on MiG-15bis and MiG-15UTI from Czech production. From 1957 replaced by MiG-17F and from 1959 with MiG-17PF. In that time-scale Peemünde was prepared to become the new AB, when relocate there from Drewitz in 1961.

[Sens]

I don't remember our tasking extending into AFNORTH. I cannot find any reference that assigned 2ATAF air defense units into that area.

This was my last sortie in the 32TFS...we joined up with a Dutch F-104. My next assignment was to fly 104s in the US.

Maybe you have refreshed you memory about the 70s. As a pilot, you are a first class source about that time scale. What were your infos briefed about the different MiG-21s f.e.?!

[sainz]

After the Russian left nothing has changed about the general layout from 1953.

And at many people at the West nothing has changed in the way of thinking...
Theye are using old, false data from imprecise books, dubious sources.
When there are some available "corrections" for a long while:

Till 1973 the 773. IAP at Damgarten did operate MiG-21SM with R-3R and did convert to MiG-23M with R-60 from 1974.
The MiG-21bis was accepted into VVS fighter air regiments in February 1972.

Maybe you have some details, which squadron of that regiment got some MiG-21bis temporary?!

The 73 Gw.IAP at Köthen did replace its MiG-21PF with MiG-21bis, when from 1975 it did convert to MiG-23M.

http://www.history.hqusareur.army.mil/uslmannual.htm

Download year 1973 and check page 64:

" On 3 August a tour spent 61 hours in a flying observation position at Putnitz and observed the delivery and activity of Fishbed L to that base. The older model Fishbed Ds from both Juterbog and Putnitz were for the most part phased out and flown to the Sovietunion. "
..and so on...

Here the date for the type change for MiG-21bis at one of the squadrons at 773.iap. is nearly correct.
More about 773.iap. MiG-21PFM,SMT in my coming book...

The first batch of MiG-21bis(natural-metall) arrived to Damgarten-GDR in 1973 together with the missiles R-60.
Next 14 x MiG-21bis arrived there in 1975, these were all gray painted yet.

The best way to follow the history of 773 IAP is to ask the soldiers from former JG-9 of Peenemünde,

Slowly we can agree a bit, go by personal-reports, personal-photos, pilot-logbooks...instead of books.
But please, give some "contacts" to wider public, JG-9 guys from early 70s, who are on the Net, or wrote useful memories


I will answer for your previous post tonight.