Red Eagles: book opinion?

[Sens]

If you can find fighter guys who were stationed in Germany mid 70s:

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.

For me was very interesting, how uninformed were the pilots(all whom I and my friends met) about the -21bis technical details, weapons, ACM-limits in the mid 70s, when it was dead or alive question in the low level arena above Germany. Check their knowledge with R-60.
Russians started the exercise 500-series at MiG-21 units - I did not found any sign at the other side - if it won attention at the time.

Su-17 - You will find estimated data only at first line units mid 70s
(instead of the lot of export Su-20 - one of the reasons, why I am riding on this)

Also interesting, what they known, when the first MiG-23ML(A)s arrived to GDR.

Ask them, how they known, what was the time-limit(in practice) in 16.VA to takeoff all planes from an airbase at normal peace-time alert-status.

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.

[milmascaras]

I am sure they did - it certainly had some excellent characteristics. Bear in mind, however, that the opinions in the book (and on the forum) come from men who had flown the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 before they ever set eyes on the Flogger, so their frame of reference is quite different.



You see, that's the kind of useful contribution that I can actually work with to provide a counterbalance should the book ever go to a second edition. Thanks.

Opinions are most of the time biased and a realistic opinion should be made always considering aircraft evolution, the MiG-23 had different variants and all of them had different engines, claiming the MiG-23 had bad engines is unrealistic without saying what engine and what variant.
A simple accident can not claim to say this aircratf was not good and just because it was a western pilot who said that is true it is even more biased. More than 3000 MiG-23s of the fighter versions were built all of them improved as new batches were deployed.

See the MiG-23 had a limited but acceptable rear visibility, contrary to most opinions
generalizations are in this case very unrealitic and limited.

[Peter G]

Is that view through the cockpit rear vision mirror/persicope?

[Sens]

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.

[Sens]

http://www.s188567700.online.de/foru...hp?p=5247#5247

" Belive it or not, but we apparently missed one point while discussing the Su-17/20/22 family: its nuclear capability.

As could be expected, not much is known about this, but the article "Poland's Atomic Adventure", by Wojciech Luczak, in AIR Int, July 1996, revealed some highly interesting aspects about this arena as well.

Namely, according to the Luczak, the Polish Su-20/22-crews trained intensively the use of tactical nukes, and the Polish AF was to use these already on their Su-7BMKs and BKLs (that's the designation Luczak used in his article, Arthur ). In total, the Poles used two polks of 30 of these planes, of which the 5 Regiment "Primorski" was trained by the Soviets to deploy the RU-57 nuke, carrying it on one of fuselage weapons racks; for this purpose, Polish Su-7s were put under the direct control of the Soviets. The Poles never ever got any nuke into their hands, but they were also extensively trained in in handling and maintenance of these.

In 1974 the Polish AF was also equipped with 26 Su-17M/20s (based at Powidz, where also the General Staff Special Reserve Force was stationed), and these were capable of carrying 1kT RN-28s, 5kT 244Ns, and 10kT RN-24s, but could also carry earlier devices, like 8U-49s, 6U-57s, and 8U-63s. For exercises, however, Poles usually used the RN-24-drill round. Several of Su-20s delivered to Poland were of the R-version, and could carry the KKR-1 recce pod (these saw estensive service along Danish shores, as the Poles were to attack Denemark in the case of the war with the NATO), as well as one of the mentioned nukes (but only if the recce pod was removed). "



In all Soviet AF regiment in the WP countries were 1 squadron with nuclear-task. They were trained all times for this, their planes were kept in this config always....
Even the fighter regiments with MiG-21 -23.
All other planes had the wires, but those were without pylons, switchboxes etc.

You can see the switchbox for the spec.weapon over the gunsight in the cockpit of this MiG-21bis:



MiG-21bis "11" from the 515.iap. on a live-firing exercise at Damgarten AB in 1984.
This is one of the Nuke-carrier Fishbeds, the A-bomb pylon is visible under the fuselage, and the electrical-box over the gunsight too:



You can see, while an outdated type(-21bis in 1984) from a "clean" fighter-regiment, which was stationed at a secondary-battlefield(as Hungary) went for live-firing to GDR - they kept it in "hammer" configuration.

You can not believe, because you can not see such photos, or such planes at short range previously.
Why ?
Because there are no good photographic(or eyewitness) evidences at the West(not too much at East too).
Only from the period 1991-94 16.VA in Germany. You seen what the Soviets share with you

Do you have details about the Russian airlift from Tokol to Egypt in 1970?
No longer a secret, so the former personal can give some details about that.

[sainz]

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.
.

False infos, I red same "data" in English(German) publications many times.

My data came from pilots and from techs, who served in Damgarten in that period, and from others who were there on live-firing exercises many times in the early-mid 70s.
I have many photos from these people, 4 such pics will publish in my coming book(good shots - flight-line, taxiing, armed-planes with specific objects in the backgroud, not only doubtful landing shots).

Few words from a pilot who served in Damgarten in MiG-21bis era:

" В 1973 в Дамгартене все бисы были серебристыми, в 75 г. получили из Горького 14 МиГ-21 бис последней серии (с РСБН и ракетами Р-13 и Р-60), которые были окрашены в серый матовый цвет(см. фото) В 76 г. два раза перегонял новые бисы из Горького для немцев в Пенемюнде, они были без окраски и опозвнавательных знаков (серебристые). На заводе в Горьком стояло десяток самолетов в серой матовой окраске. Вполне очевидно, что перекраска в камуфляж в основном выполнялась на местах, ведь сама кампания по перекраске интенсивно началась после преоразования ВА в ВВС округов. "

" В 1977 из Германии (773 иап, Дамгартен) я поступил в ВВА им. Ю.А.Гагарина , когда все самолеты были еще без камуфляжа, в 79 и 80 г. на стажировке в 145 иап в Ивано-Франковске самолеты были уже все перекрашенными. После окончания ВВА в 1981 в 927 иап в Березе самолеты тоже уже были "испачканными", правда, когда это было сделано я не знаю, но еще в 1976 они были светлыми. Кстати, в Березе тоже была прежде матово-серая эскадрилья с РСБН. "

Few of these guys are on the Russian Net.....

When I can meet more than 2 guy who served at a Soviet AF unit in the same time, they tell same stories and show me photos of same planes.....I do not have more doubts.

Again some data from Russian Net:
(check authors background)
http://airforce.ru/history/modern/35iap/index.htm

" Самолеты МиГ-23М в середине 1974-75 гг. почти одновременно поступили на вооружение трех истребительных авиационных дивизий 16-й воздушной армии в четыре полка: 31-й гв.иап (Фалькенберг), 35-й иап (Цербст), 85-й гв.иап (Мерзебург) и 787-й иап (Финов-Эберсвальде). На тот период это была самая современная и сложная в эксплуатации авиатехника Группы советских войск в Германии. Первыми в 1974 году МиГ-23М получили в Мерзебурге и Фалькенберге полки 6-й гв.иад. Поступившие год спустя в Цербст машины уже отличались от них усовершенствованным двухступенчатым механизмом разворота колеса МРК-30 (летчики говорили: «Чтобы по лесу рулить было удобно»). "

" В марте 1977 года полк участвовал в проверке ГИ МО. В программе было два ключевых момента: перелёт в Мары одной эскадрильей и полковой проход. По воспоминаниям участников, вылетели при погоде ниже минимума: вошли в облака еще в процессе уборки шасси, и шли в них парами над всей Польшей. У ведущего не убралась правая стойка, т.к. он рано поставил кран нейтрально. Самое интересное, что по уровню подготовки летчики не имели права лететь парами в облаках, да и в тот период это упражнение было исключено из курса подготовки из соображений безопасности. А погода была такая, какая есть, и лететь надо. Так и летали в облаках и парами и звеньями без всяких допусков. Если что случится, всегда можно обвинить лётчика, а не того кто разрешил такой полет. Особенность проверки с перелетом в Мары заключалась в том, что летело четыре группы из ГСВГ: Цербст и Финов на МиГ-23, Альтес (833-й иап) и Дамгартен (773-й иап) на МиГ-21. Первоначально хотели на перегонке поменять: экипажи из Цербста и Альтеса летят туда, а из Финова и Дамгартена – обратно на этих же самолётах. В итоге финовские и дамгартенские летчики слетали туда и обратно на Ил-18, а цербстские и альтес-лагерские на боевых прошли маршрут целиком. Все четыре группы пуски произвели довольно успешно, только Альтес упустил мишень на малой высоте."

If you can find anybody who served in Damgarten in very late 70s, he can tell a funny story with bort-24:
(phots from my archive - 1977 freshly camouflaged plane from Damgarten)





p.s.: 927.iap. Bereza - an interesting unit too, they did the special(Nuke)-training for -21drivers in the 70s, many WP pilots were "guests" there...

[sainz]

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

I have a lot of notes about the movements of planes from other units at Damgarten on exercises.
And the full-list of side-numbers, many factory No. from Damgarten-unit too.
Not well known - many of the earlier used MiG-21SM there had "bis-engine"....

[sainz]

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.

" Taking pictures every day "....aahhh
Show me a singular MiG-21 shot from Damgarten !

Exclusively after 1990.
What are you talking about is the situation in the period 1990-94...again.

In GDR times these "near-airbase" places were under controll of the Soviets.
This is the main reason, why you could not see same photos of 16.VA. MiG-21, -23M, Su-7 etc...
(a Hungarian tech took some photos of HuAF MiG-21UM after rebuilt with fresh camo in the workshop in late 80s, he avoid the prison just nearly....and there are many same stories. People were intimidated - no photos)

[sainz]

Do you have details about the Russian airlift from Tokol to Egypt in 1970?
No longer a secret, so the former personal can give some details about that.

Tököl AB near Budapest was the regular stopping-place for the Soviet flights to Egypt.
Tu-16, Beriev amphibians, Antonovs(I have many photos too, at this airbase HuAF had the MiG-21, Mi-8 rebuilt center, some of those guys were brave)....Soviet crew usually spent the whole night there. One of these Antonovs - full load in hot weather - crashed after takeoff, killed Hungarian civils.
There were an urban-legend: 515.iap. went to Egypt to fight - false too.

[Sens]

False infos, I red same "data" in English(German) publications many times.

My data came from pilots and from techs, who served in Damgarten in that period, and from others who were there on live-firing exercises many times in the early-mid 70s.
I have many photos from these people, 4 such pics will publish in my coming book(good shots - flight-line, taxiing, armed-planes with specific objects in the backgroud, not only doubtful landing shots).

Few words from a pilot who served in Damgarten in MiG-21bis era:

" В 1973 в Дамгартене все бисы были серебристыми, в 75 г. получили из Горького 14 МиГ-21 бис последней серии (с РСБН и ракетами Р-13 и Р-60), которые были окрашены в серый матовый цвет(см. фото) В 76 г. два раза перегонял новые бисы из Горького для немцев в Пенемюнде, они были без окраски и опозвнавательных знаков (серебристые). На заводе в Горьком стояло десяток самолетов в серой матовой окраске. Вполне очевидно, что перекраска в камуфляж в основном выполнялась на местах, ведь сама кампания по перекраске интенсивно началась после преоразования ВА в ВВС округов. "

" В 1977 из Германии (773 иап, Дамгартен) я поступил в ВВА им. Ю.А.Гагарина , когда все самолеты были еще без камуфляжа, в 79 и 80 г. на стажировке в 145 иап в Ивано-Франковске самолеты были уже все перекрашенными. После окончания ВВА в 1981 в 927 иап в Березе самолеты тоже уже были "испачканными", правда, когда это было сделано я не знаю, но еще в 1976 они были светлыми. Кстати, в Березе тоже была прежде матово-серая эскадрилья с РСБН. "

Few of these guys are on the Russian Net.....

When I can meet more than 2 guy who served at a Soviet AF unit in the same time, they tell same stories and show me photos of same planes.....I do not have more doubts.

Again some data from Russian Net:
(check authors background)
http://airforce.ru/history/modern/35iap/index.htm

" Самолеты МиГ-23М в середине 1974-75 гг. почти одновременно поступили на вооружение трех истребительных авиационных дивизий 16-й воздушной армии в четыре полка: 31-й гв.иап (Фалькенберг), 35-й иап (Цербст), 85-й гв.иап (Мерзебург) и 787-й иап (Финов-Эберсвальде). На тот период это была самая современная и сложная в эксплуатации авиатехника Группы советских войск в Германии. Первыми в 1974 году МиГ-23М получили в Мерзебурге и Фалькенберге полки 6-й гв.иад. Поступившие год спустя в Цербст машины уже отличались от них усовершенствованным двухступенчатым механизмом разворота колеса МРК-30 (летчики говорили: «Чтобы по лесу рулить было удобно»). "

" В марте 1977 года полк участвовал в проверке ГИ МО. В программе было два ключевых момента: перелёт в Мары одной эскадрильей и полковой проход. По воспоминаниям участников, вылетели при погоде ниже минимума: вошли в облака еще в процессе уборки шасси, и шли в них парами над всей Польшей. У ведущего не убралась правая стойка, т.к. он рано поставил кран нейтрально. Самое интересное, что по уровню подготовки летчики не имели права лететь парами в облаках, да и в тот период это упражнение было исключено из курса подготовки из соображений безопасности. А погода была такая, какая есть, и лететь надо. Так и летали в облаках и парами и звеньями без всяких допусков. Если что случится, всегда можно обвинить лётчика, а не того кто разрешил такой полет. Особенность проверки с перелетом в Мары заключалась в том, что летело четыре группы из ГСВГ: Цербст и Финов на МиГ-23, Альтес (833-й иап) и Дамгартен (773-й иап) на МиГ-21. Первоначально хотели на перегонке поменять: экипажи из Цербста и Альтеса летят туда, а из Финова и Дамгартена – обратно на этих же самолётах. В итоге финовские и дамгартенские летчики слетали туда и обратно на Ил-18, а цербстские и альтес-лагерские на боевых прошли маршрут целиком. Все четыре группы пуски произвели довольно успешно, только Альтес упустил мишень на малой высоте."

If you can find anybody who served in Damgarten in very late 70s, he can tell a funny story with bort-24:
(phots from my archive - 1977 freshly camouflaged plane from Damgarten)





p.s.: 927.iap. Bereza - an interesting unit too, they did the special(Nuke)-training for -21drivers in the 70s, many WP pilots were "guests" there...

The memories of Russians do suffer over the decades too. At least when not questioned the correct way by less informed internet-people.
The first translation is about the conversion of the GDR JG-9 at Peenemünde, when it did receive MiG-21bis or Tip 75, which were delivered via Damgarten.

[Sens]

" Taking pictures every day "....aahhh
Show me a singular MiG-21 shot from Damgarten !

Exclusively after 1990.
What are you talking about is the situation in the period 1990-94...again.

In GDR times these "near-airbase" places were under controll of the Soviets.
This is the main reason, why you could not see same photos of 16.VA. MiG-21, -23M, Su-7 etc...
(a Hungarian tech took some photos of HuAF MiG-21UM after rebuilt with fresh camo in the workshop in late 80s, he avoid the prison just nearly....and there are many same stories. People were intimidated - no photos)

Your problem is, that I did visit the GDR several times from the 70s, when the main part of my family was and is still there. My scans were taken from the Lutz Freundt books to give a visual impression for the other members here. Of cause I did not miss the opportunity to visit the first Open Day there, like that at some other places too. The Russians did use former German airbases from 1945, so nothing to hide about that. Of main intrest was the air-activity, followed by the unit, type and weaponary.

[niksi]

Do you have details about the Russian airlift from Tokol to Egypt in 1970?
No longer a secret, so the former personal can give some details about that.

Pardon my ignorance, but what was airlifted from Tokol to Egypt in 1970?

[frankvw]

Your problem is, that I did visit the GDR several times from the 70s, when the main part of my family was and is still there. My scans were taken from the Lutz Freundt books to give a visual impression for the other members here. Of cause I did not miss the opportunity to visit the first Open Day there, like that at some other places too. The Russians did use former German airbases from 1945, so nothing to hide about that. Of main intrest was the air-activity, followed by the unit, type and weaponary.

But the 2 pictures you posted are definitely post "Wende"... (See the cars, and the roadside poles)

[Sens]

But the 2 pictures you posted are definitely post "Wende"... (See the cars, and the roadside poles)

Correct, but that is still the same road 198 like decades before, when the same regiment did operate MiG-23 and MiG-21 with a similar approach to runway 27.

[sainz]

Your problem is, that I did visit the GDR several times from the 70s, when the main part of my family was and is still there. My scans were taken from the Lutz Freundt books to give a visual impression for the other members here. Of cause I did not miss the opportunity to visit the first Open Day there, like that at some other places too. The Russians did use former German airbases from 1945, so nothing to hide about that. Of main intrest was the air-activity, followed by the unit, type and weaponary.

Well....

My problem is - now your reply is going in Travel-Channel-style:
" Your problem is, that I did visit the GDR several times from the 70s "

There were a lot of more people who liked travelling in those times....

If I tell for the guys here - I was travelling to many military airbases in the 70s & 80s to USSR, WP countries, Syria, Lybia, Ethiopia, Yemen, Mongolia, etc....and I had constant difficultys to take photos of mil. objects, planes there > it is a foggy, empty banality .
If I post some rare images from my personal archive - nothing but bonus:


http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4634


http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/ind...,17498.30.html


http://forums.airforce.ru/showthread.php?t=773&page=11

Syrian SAM 1979

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2648652...7605005159035/
"historyfun" = "sainz" = "RobertS"





These are not evidences....maybe I was there, maybe not. It is not relevant...
Maybe I am a senile, old retired man who likes to check the garbage of his neighbors for old slides & negs

And if I visited the flight-lines of few Soviet airbases in GDR in the 70s, took photos - I do not think > I know everything about how it was in 16.VA. in 1945-94.
Especially unit-rearmings with newer subtypes...

" Of cause I did not miss the opportunity to visit the first Open Day there, like that at some other places too. "
Open Days at Soviet airbases in the 70s in 16.VA. ???
It is great news.
We will see hundreds of interesting photos from you and many more pics from the lot of other guests who were there too

I was participate on Open-Days in the 70s:
(sorry about the quality)








Damgarten, early 70s too:


For me it looks like a MiG-21bis - again.
The average Soviet AF pilot, who served in the 16.VA. in the 70s do not have any same photos of his planes, only pics from the flight-school, family events....
The photographing of the aircrafts at "front-line" units was absolutely prohibited.
There were very few exceptions.
I will surprised, if East-German civilians could take same photos of 16.VA. MiG-21s in the 70s....

So, my problem is:

You told:
" 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. "

Uncomplicated: I would like to see some photos from those private sources, especially MiG-21s at Damgarten in the 70s.


Mr. Davies,

Sorry !
Too much offtopic posts from me here.
I am going to read-only mode.
Your book and the guys who was in that business and the guys who maintained the MiG-23 in WP are much more interesting for me than this meaningless conversation.
I think it is better for everybody here....

[Sens]

To ease the temper a little bit. None do question the personal risc to take picture of his own in the 70s f.e.. I never got the idea as most people for several good reasons, despite some situation it came to my mind. The intel people and their GDR contacts were trained and payed to take the related riscs.
From 1945 till 1990 they had a lot of time to built the big picture including the related details. It was not before 1961 the GDR borders were sealed and even than the traveling and family bounds were kept. None will be surprised to learn, that those people were the least willing to do intel work, when the being suspected to do so at first.
The R-25 variant of the R-11/13 design is overrated to stay polite. Within regular flying the use of the 'Sonderregime' = special-regime was not permitted.
By similar dry thrust the MiG-21bis was heavier than the MF and the fuel consumption of the R-25 was higher. In AB the R-25 had a higher thrust, but a higher sfc too.
The limitations of the 'Sonderregime' [second burner stage = extra fuel injection] were no more than 4 minutes in total and below 4000 m or 13000 feet.
Under low level conditions the limited fuel load of the MiG-21bis did prevent even the 4 minutes allowed in some distance from the home base.
When the MiG-21F13 was the most agile, the MiG-21SM/MF was the best compromise of fire-power and agility. The main advantage of the MiG-21bis was the higher initial climb-rate or accelleration. Even that MiG-21bis did not reach the F-104G level.
I am still impressed by trained people, which can distinguish the correct variant of a fighter by small external details on the first glimpse. At least when the year of the photo is known to avoid beeing fooled by later hybrids or upgrades, when the other way around it does allow the time-scale or year of that photo. There is still a huge gap between the claimed captions, when look-alikes were used to proof something or were reworked by digital tools.

[milmascaras]

Is that view through the cockpit rear vision mirror/persicope?

It is, the visibility was limited but not as it has been claimed

[Steve Davies]

Well....
Mr. Davies,

Your book and the guys who was in that business and the guys who maintained the MiG-23 in WP are much more interesting for me than this meaningless conversation.

Thanks, Robert.

Please do let me know if you have any feedback, as I would be interested in hearing the views of someone who was sat on the other side of the fence.

Also, if you get the chance, I would be very interested in seeing or hearing about some of the intel reports you mentioned that the WP had on US equipment and operations.

Cheers

Steve

[STRATOSAURUS]

Just received my copy. First impression : Good, recommended.
I notted one error on page 19. "...One Mig had the original syrian serial number 055 and the other had 002 in red..."

This is incorrect. The real serials are black 1041 and 1033 in arabic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7NhZ61S5dM

Regards from Spain.

[Bandit 42]

Guys,

Sorry it took me so long to make a post here but I had some trouble with my registration process. My name is Ted Drake. I was Bandit 42 in the Constant Peg program. Between 1984 and 1987, I had the privilege to fly 147 missions in the MiG-21 and 294 in the MiG-23. I do not claim to be the world’s leading expert in either of these aircraft but I did fly them enough to make some assessments. I couldn’t possibly respond to every post on the previous 7 pages but I will make a few. There has been a lot of discussion about “what we knew and when we knew it”. Some documentation came with the aircraft. The MiG-23 had better documents than the MiG-21. The documents were translated (by computer). Upon first getting the aircraft, a thorough “exploitation” was accomplished. All systems were evaluated (engine, fuel, electrical, pneumatic, weapons, radar, etc.). We did understand the aircraft we had pretty well. Did we know how the MiG-23 engine fire warning system worked? Yes, we did. We had one MiG-23BN that had a problem with giving us false fire warning indications in flight. Every aircraft type I have ever flown has had one airplane that was a “problem child”. Things would go wrong in flight and maintenance could not duplicate it on the ground. This happened 3-4 times with this particular plane and we finally said “to hell with it”. We had already spend more sorties flying FCFs trying to find and fix the problem than we wanted (remember, every FCF sortie flown was 1 sortie not available to train our guys), so we decided to just put one of our warning systems in it and be done with it. Would the engine be damaged if the aircraft entered a spin? Yes, in the MS. The engine was braced quite well for + or – G, but not for lateral G so when it spun, the engine would hit the side of the case and compressor/turbine blades would snap. We had first hand experience with this. The BN engine was braced better for lateral G and was not damaged during a spin (I have personal first hand knowledge of this one). Would either the MS or BN depart controlled flight and spin with little or no warning at high AOA? Yes. The AOA system lagged too much. I had flown the airplane at high AOA many times with no problem but one day it was “cranky” (a BM model) and it spun on me. That happened 1 time in 294 sorties. About one in three of our guys that flew the 23 departed and spun it. Almost all in the BN because it wasn’t designed for the high AOA air-to-air mission. The MS was better. Did we know that the later models of the 23 were better? Yes. Remember, we all flew F-4s. The Air Force guys saw the progression from F-4C to F-4D, to F-4E, to F-4E LES; each with better capabilities than the preceding models (the Navy and Marine guys flew F-4B, F-4J and F-4S as I recall). Some of us also flew F-15A/B and then F-15 C/D. I flew F-16A/B and F-16 C/D, block 1,5,10,15,20,25,and 30 (I now think they are up to around block 60) each model better than the one before. So we knew that later model MiG-23s would have better capabilities than the MS. And we would have loved to have had later models like the ML with the High Lark radar but for some reason that I still cannot fully understand, Russia wouldn’t let us have them. Can you believe that? Why didn’t we operate them like the WP did? We didn’t want to. If that was what we wanted (tight GCI control, hit and run, intercept but little or no “dog fighting) we would have simulated the MiG-21 with an F-5 and the MiG-23 with an F-111 and been done with it. Our mission was different. We wanted to make sure that the first time our guys fought a MiG in combat was not the first time he had fought a MiG. And we wanted to make sure there would be “no surprises”. We wanted to present our guys with a “worst case scenario”. We wanted to show our guys what the “aircraft” was capable of doing when flown by a well trained, aggressive pilot who was very knowledgeable of both US aircraft capabilities and tactics. Hence, “Constant Peg”. Finally, some quotes from individual pilots have been pulled out of the book and discussed. Please remember, our memories of these events are 25-35 years old. We have no notes to refer to (at least most of us don’t). When I left the squadron in 1987, the only thing relating to the squadron I took with me was the patch on the sleeve of my flight suit and a “going away plaque”. Nothing else. The program was very highly classified and compartmentalized (everyone didn’t know everything that everyone else knew). I was the Ops Officer for almost a year and neither I (nor the Squadron Commander, I believe) knew what some of the guys did when they went TDY. (Other agencies could get their fingers in our pie.) I did not get to talk with Steve Davies for the book but I have spoken with him since. Many of the questions he asked I just could not remember. It’s been 25 years for me and most (but not all) of my MiG-21 and MiG-23 facts have been replaced with facts about Boeing 757 and 767. That’s just the way the brain works. So I wouldn’t take what any one person said and treat it as “gospel” or assume it was everyone’s opinion. Read the book and look for the “big picture” and don’t necessarily try to break out the individual pixels that make up that picture. Steve’s book has gotten me back in touch with some friends from that time that I had lost track of and for that alone, I am grateful. I think Steve did a good job with the book. All of the guys that I have spoken with feel the same. I never thought I’d enjoy reading anything about that program but I did, and I learned some things I didn't know before. The bottom line is that in the roughly 10 years the program was in existence, we flew over 15,000 MiG sorties and trained almost 6000 US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corp pilots. I know of no other country that accomplished anything remotely similar.

Sincerely,

Ted Drake
Bandit 42

[Steve Davies]

Ted

Thanks for the mature, balanced and enlightening response.

I hope that it gives some of the nay sayers here some points of reference when referring to the book.

Cheers

Steve

[Sintra]

This is one of the finest threads in this forum for years...

Simon Davies, Ted Drake and Robert "Sainz", THANKS.

[donno21]

Glad to see Bandit 42's post and sure hope it clears up some issues. I find it clear cut and honest, no BS. All though we were there at different times and he was flying MiG's that I had helped rebuild, I appreciate his input and hope others do as well. Oh yeah, don't know if it's ever been mentioned, but our motto was "The Ultimate in Air Combat". MX wise, we called ourselves the Hallmark Gang". (When you care enough to send the very best).

[Bandit 42]

I did want to make one more post listing some of the things I personally liked about the MiG-23. First, if your objective is to go fast (like very fast), then the MiG-23 is the plane for you. When those wings started sweeping from 45 to 72 degrees, you could just feel the drag coming off the aircraft and the acceleration was really impressive. The MiG-23MS is the fastest aircraft I have ever flown (faster than either the F-4 or F-16). That leads to the engine. I personally liked the 23 engine, especially the R-29 (I believe that is the correct nomenclature) in the MS. It was big and powerful. The burner plume and the shock diamonds (that’s what I called them anyway) were really beautiful especially right at sunrise when it was just starting to get light. I liked the throttle quadrant. It didn’t look like much (certainly when compared with the F-16) but the series of finger lifts and detents worked great. The aft visibility was not good due mostly to the relatively high canopy rails and the ejection seat but I learned to lean forward before turning my head to look aft to keep from hitting my helmet on the side of the seat. I did like the periscope. The optics were very good (no stencil on it that said “Objects in the Mirror are Closer Than they Appear” like in many of our cars). When attempting to extend out of a fight, it became fairly easy to roll the aircraft to pick up the adversary in the periscope and watch him from there. If they were within 3000 feet, I could usually tell within 200-300 feet how far back they were. If they were between 3000 feet and 12,000 feet, I could tell within about 1000 feet; and if they were over 12,000 feet back (2 nm), they were just a dot. I could see them but couldn’t tell anymore how far back they were. The ergonomics in the MiG-23 cockpit was not good but as I said previously, it was a third generation fighter. The F-4 was also a third generation fighter and although I think its cockpit was better, it was not all that much better. Before I flew the MiG-23, whenever Intel would brief us about the “knuckle rapper” being the AOA warning, we all laughed. After flying it, I didn’t laugh anymore. I liked the knuckle rapper. First the initial AOA warning in the F-4 was an aural warning in the headset. But that competed with incoming radio calls. It wasn’t bad but it was a little distracting at times. But nothing else was competing with your knuckles for warning. We use to just “play” the rapper (pull until it started lightly, ease up until it stopped, pull a little more until it started again, etc.). That way we were sure we were getting everything we could out of it performance wise. So there were a number of things about the MiG-23MS that I liked. The biggest thing I disliked (as I mentioned previously) was its intolerance of exceeding its AOA limit even by a little bit and the inadequate warning it gave before things got real ugly real fast. The MS was obviously better than the BN at higher AOA since the BN was designed for ground attack and not high AOA maneuvering. The F-4 gave much more warning. It would buffet, followed by wing rock (up to 30 degrees or more), followed by pedal shaker, and then the directional stability would start to break down (nose moving slightly side to side) followed by a departure from controlled flight (usually opposite the intended direction of turn). It very very rarely spun. The Mig-23 gave little warning before it departed and then it (especially the BN) almost always spun. The good news was, in my case at least, it came out of the spin fairly easily (even though I did manage to put it back into another spin during the recovery from the first one, but that’s another story). I just wanted you all to know there were some things about the airplane that some of us liked. That being said, after flying the F-16, I really didn't enjoy flying it very much and I certainly wouldn’t want to take the MiG-23 (or any third generation fighter for that matter) into combat against fourth generation fighters. The combat record of those encounters speak for themselves.

Ted

[flex297]

Bandit 42, these were some great comments, welcome to the forum.

[TEEJ]

Welcome, Bandit 42. Thanks for posting!

TJ

[martinez]

Hello Ted,

Welcome and thanks for clearing a few things up. It is a pity that Mr.Davies book has not been written with that level of details you showed in those few sentences here. I`m really enjoying reading you. English is a great language, wish all people on this planet have learnt it in the past, we would have been discussing things much easier. I regret that I can not bring my older colleagues (Flogger pilots) over here as they do not read and write a word in English. You asking why? Well, we learnt only one foreign language for the most part of our lives, guess which one.. Some of the Flogger pilots I know retired in nineties with roughly several hundred flight hours more in the cockpit than you, some continued and retrained for another type like the Su-25 or ended careers in the military flight school on the L-39 jet trainers. Please do not be angry with me when I doubted "Red Eagles" experience with the Flogger recently, but that`s what I thought about Mr. Davies book and his endless bitching and giving readers a wrong impression of what you remember when you`ve been flying it. Well, if that is your experience, no one can change that....In general I feel nothing but admiration for Red Eagles, all military pilots, no matter what side they have flown for, bcs once when I was a little boy ( I`m not alone here) I have dreamed to be one as well. Nevermind, I`m working for years in the aircraft MRO service once overhauling the Migs-23BN/UB, currently me being assigned to the type Mig-29.

Would the engine be damaged if the aircraft entered a spin? Yes, in the MS. The engine was braced quite well for + or – G, but not for lateral G so when it spun, the engine would hit the side of the case and compressor/turbine blades would snap. We had first hand experience with this. The BN engine was braced better for lateral G and was not damaged during a spin (I have personal first hand knowledge of this one).

That`s an unique experience pointing to a serious engine design fault. I wonder whether the designer/test pilots would have confirmed this finding that engines installed in the Mig-23M, MS, MF were about to be destroyed in an aircraft spin. Do you remember what facts led you to believe the R29-300 engine was not braced to engine casing sufficiently when experiencing lateral Gs or by any chance is there a possibility that you might be mistaken in that conclusion?
From engine design standpoint, beginning with engine to fuselage attachments, engine casing and suspension system, type of bearings, rotor and stator assembly of the eleven stage twin-spool compressor and turbine section, front and rear engine supporting struts,........ the engine R29-300 used with the Mig-23M, MS, MF is almost identical to the R29B-300 used with the BN. The difference between them, the R29B-300 is having a slighty smaller combustion chamber and shortened nozzle optimalized (no laval type, supersonic converging/diverging nozzle) for subsonic regimes and low altitudes only. All what it meant was less thrust but a bit better SFC value. There were also changes to the engine fuel-regulation system, but by any means the R29B-300 can`t be seen as an improved version of the R29-300, but rather, a modification to suit subsonic operations of the Mig-23BN.
I`m not trying to underestimate the situation during the spin, but would like to point out the importance of another reason that may explain the damage of the R29-300 engine in your case. When entering a spin the R29-300 engine (most of) is going to stall very hard as a result of disrupted air flow to the air intakes and engine power settings. You may remember hearing an extremely loud pulsating noise and bangs like swiping metal on metal.
This was not the sign of engine hitting the side of the case or compressor/turbine blades snaping each other, but the sound of inlet duct panels and auxialiary louvers deforming caused by high vibrations and pressure unbalance inside the intake/engine section. Flogger pilots whether unintentionally or intentionally entering spin with arising compressor surge were instructed to immediately shut down the engine to reduce risk of burning/destroying turbine blades caused by engine overheating (red warning light). The turbine outlet temp gauge "TOT" gauge ITG-1(placed next to Fuel meter) might get crazy within several seconds bcs the turbine blade cooling was insufficient, not to mention fuel still flowing, even worse if burning. The point I want to make here is that the compressor surge was a very common phenomenon for pilots with the Mig-23/R29-300 and we lost a plane that way as well, overheating engine not able to restart, at low altitude, but pilot ejected safely. I remember to read in the past aviation history that a compressor surge might be able to completely destroy an engine (blades snaping each other due to violent vibrations), but we doubt the R29-300 was that case, not to mention the engine being damaged by an aircraft spin movements.....for sure most unlikely.

The problem with the Mig-23 suddenly departing from controlled flight and entering spin at high AOA with less warning has been known from the begining. When flown at high AOA and not carefully watching your yaw rate the Mig-23 could enter spin at considerably lower AOA compared to initially evaluated 35-36 degrees. This issue has been addressed in east block Air forces during late seventies on all previously delivered Floggers (except the Mi-23BN) by installing a cross-coupling system between the rudder and lateral control channel of the Mig-23. The DPR-23 (btw. Mig-29 is using the same) probe "Datchik Polozhenja Ruchky" was attached to the control column sensing its lateral movements. According to airspeed, altitude, lateral stick movements and the actual AOA the SAU-23 autopilot was adjusting the rudder to counteract unwanted yaw motions when turning on high AOA ensuring better directional stability. You know the system probably under another name, e.g. ARI - Aileron Rudder Interconnect. I wonder if anyone of Red Eagles has test flown F-14 Tomcat, aircraft badly known to be prone to spin and compressor surge. Why wasn`t this system installed on the Mig-23BN? It is obvious, because the BN hasn’t been designed for the high AOA air-to-air missions even if the "duckbill" shaped nose was making the situation even worse. Meaning the asymmetrical flow pertubations around aircraft forebody creating yawing moments. By the way, there are numerous memoirs written by former Mig test pilots or better say "spin doctors" like S.A. Mikoyan, A.V. Fedotov, V.A. Orlov, A.A. Scherbakov or V.E. Menitskyj evaluating the Flogger for the most part of their lives confirming your findings about spin characteristics of the Mig-23.

If I understood it correctly, some of you have flown both the Mig-21 and the Mig-23 together. The chapter describing Red Eagles experience with Mig-23 landing characteristics was the most terrifying one. Actually, true is that during the landing with the Flogger, pilot should have paid more attention to both the airspeed and AOA in relation to landing weight before touching the runway, bcs when a little surplus of speed or improper AOA was set you bounced back into the air or ending up on the runway jumping like a crazy goat. All it required was a bit more practicing with the Flogger high-lift landing configuration. No one was complaining, but hell are you saying the landing with the Mig-21 was ever better at 170-180knots? Not sure you were flying the Fishbed version with the blowing flap system. Anyway, have you ever noticed that Flogger main landing gear was extended a bit asymmetrically causing negligible yawing effect you`re complaning about when landing? Thanks


Best regards
Martinez

[Bandit 42]

Martinez,

First, please forgive me for taking so long to respond to your post. I go out of town often and I also am having some computer problems right now. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
I wouldn’t be too hard on Steve Davies. He merely reported what he had been told. The reports he was given were from several of our pilots based on their recollections from 25-35 years ago. While I agree with some and disagree with others, they are what they are and Steve’s book just reports them.
On the subject of engine damage during a spin in the MS; as I recall, after the event, the Accident Investigation Board did a “post mortem” on the plane. Their investigation revealed that the engine had hit the side of the casing caused by yaw during the entry to the spin and during the spin. Some of the turbine blades had broken and been thrown through the fuel cells resulting in fire. Could it have been something else? Of course anything is possible. I was not there at the time but that is the way I remember it being told to me.
I agree the R29B-300 was not an improvement over the R29-300 but rather optimized for its surface attack mission. As I recall, there were some other changes from the R29-300. One that seems to stick in my mind was the number of first stage compressor blades with the R29-300 having 21 and the R29B-300 having only 19. Again, as I recall, that and some other changes were made to allow the BN engine to sustain some battle damage and still keep running.
My spin was not with the R29-300 but rather with the R29B-300. It did not stall during the spin. The inlet duct panels/auxiliary louvers you mention were what we referred to as “suck in doors” because that is what they did when the pressure was uneven. In my experience, this usually occurred when coming out of afterburner at high speed and they had a very distinctive sound. Once you heard them, you never confused them with anything else. Again, as I recall, the finding of the engine hitting the side of the case was not based on sound during the event but rather on the investigation of the engine that occurred after the event. Our “books” did not call for the engine to be shutdown during a spin but rather to bring the throttle to idle. This would limit damage to the engine but still have it available to produce thrust after the recovery from the spin without having to restart it. Again, my knowledge of R29-300 during a spin is based on what I and others were told. My knowledge of R29B-300 during a spin is what I experienced on the one mission. We knew the MiG-23 departing controlled flight at high AOA was a problem but remember our mission – “fly the airplane to its limits, show our pilots what the plane is capable of doing, make sure there are no surprises”.
All of our guys who flew the MiG-23 flew the MiG-21 first (actually there was 1 guy who didn’t but he flew the MiG-17 first). We were quite aware of the airspeed/AOA required for landing. I’m not sure exactly what statements on landing got your attention but in my experience the main problem with landing the MiG-23 were two fold. First, the straight wing at 16 degrees sweep and the fact that the landing gear were so close together made to some directional control problems after landing. Second, at typical landing weights, the center of gravity and the center of lift were getting pretty close together. That reduced the static margin to something approaching neutral stability and made it more difficult to control than what one would expect. The MiG-21 landed much more predictably mostly due to its swept wing and the fact that its landing gear were quite far apart. In fact, in a crosswind, I preferred either the MiG-21 or F-4 over the MiG-23 (or even the F-16) for that reason.
I do not recall the MiG-23 landing gear extending asymmetrically. I do recall the flaps extending asymmetrically which caused a noticeable roll (about 20 degrees or so) when the flaps were extended for about 1-2 seconds until the other flap “caught up” and reached its position.
Best wishes.

Ted

[Steve Davies]

Martinez,
On the subject of engine damage during a spin in the MS; as I recall, after the event, the Accident Investigation Board did a “post mortem” on the plane. Their investigation revealed that the engine had hit the side of the casing caused by yaw during the entry to the spin and during the spin. Some of the turbine blades had broken and been thrown through the fuel cells resulting in fire. Could it have been something else? Of course anything is possible. I was not there at the time but that is the way I remember it being told to me.
Ted

Ted

Since Martinez queried the validity of the claim that engine damage could occur during a spin, I have emailed an Intel analyst who made contact with me after the book was published. Obviously, he will remain nameless and is not going to post here, but here is what he has said in private correspondence.

He has explained that the aircraft could be spun without any engine damage at all *if recovered quickly*. He hasn't quantified what quickly is.

He also says that the aircraft could be spun intentionally with the engine throttled back to minimize damage caused by increased EGT effects on the turbine, and that it could be held in a spin in this state with no damage to the engine. So, as you said, no absolute need to shut it down.

Interestingly, he also mentions the Flogger's coffin corner (he says the Indian Flogger pilots first applied the term), and I don't recall any of my interviewees mentioning this. The coffin corner related to a departure from controlled flight at high-g and high AoA, but one that *did not result in spin entry*. He says that the addition of the ARI (which Martinez says was to remedy departures to the spin) was instigated to address the coffin corner problem.

The one other time was a trip to take a look at some MiG-23s. All three of the ones I examined showed the result of a compressor stall and verified to me the reasons for several reports I had gotten earlier about the FLOGGER having a “Coffin Corner” problem. All three aircraft had fragmentation penetrations of their inside and outside intake surfaces with one exhibiting entry and exit holes all the way through the equipment and avionics bay just aft of the cockpit. What was happening with the FLOGGER air-to-air birds, both the export FLOGGER E and the indigenously flown FLOGGER B, was a vertical stabilizer washout. This came from the vortex flows off of the wing glove leading edge extensions at high angles of attack and high dynamic pressures when any sideslip was introduced. When you got all of these conditions together at one time you were usually in a high-G nose high turn at low to medium altitudes. The vortices would suddenly stop traveling to the sides of the wing glove and cross over the top of it. The inboard vortex would then wrap itself around the tail and you immediately lost all directional stability. The plane would snap roll in the opposite direction of the turn and the aircraft would swap ends at the same time. This motion was so violent that the engine would deform enough for the front fan blades to gouge into the casing treatment at their tips and start stripping off chunks of metal that were then ingested into the low and then high parts of the compressor, stripping off compressor blades and stators all the way down into the core. Portions of the compressor lost any semblance of an aft directed pressure gradient and the higher pressure air and burning fuel from the annular combustor had a new direction to travel and that was back forward through the already damaged compressor. A huge explosion out of both forward facing intakes then occurred accompanied by a lot of high velocity shrapnel. Then the whole mess got swallowed again and that was the end of the engine and a lot of structure around it and forward of it. If he was still conscious, the pilot found himself about 1,500 feet lower than where he started, already at stall speed, with no engine. If he started all of this at less than about 7-10,000 feet above local ground level he didn’t have a chance to recover the aircraft. If he was higher, he had a chance to use his accumulator pressure to drive the wings forward to their best glide configuration and look for a place to set the thing down. Some guys just ejected immediately, but I was looking at three ships that some line pilot on the other side had recovered in one piece. I just stood there amazed at the physical reality of what I had been reading about and the guts and flying skill that had apparently gotten these things back on the ground in one piece.

[crossiathh]

The problem with the Mig-23 suddenly departing from controlled flight and entering spin at high AOA with less warning has been known from the begining. When flown at high AOA and not carefully watching your yaw rate the Mig-23 could enter spin at considerably lower AOA compared to initially evaluated 35-36 degrees. This issue has been addressed in east block Air forces during late seventies on all previously delivered Floggers (except the Mi-23BN) by installing a cross-coupling system between the rudder and lateral control channel of the Mig-23. The DPR-23 (btw. Mig-29 is using the same) probe "Datchik Polozhenja Ruchky" was attached to the control column sensing its lateral movements. According to airspeed, altitude, lateral stick movements and the actual AOA the SAU-23 autopilot was adjusting the rudder to counteract unwanted yaw motions when turning on high AOA ensuring better directional stability. You know the system probably under another name, e.g. ARI - Aileron Rudder Interconnect.

What was happening with the FLOGGER air-to-air birds, both the export FLOGGER E and the indigenously flown FLOGGER B, was a vertical stabilizer washout. This came from the vortex flows off of the wing glove leading edge extensions at high angles of attack and high dynamic pressures when any sideslip was introduced. When you got all of these conditions together at one time you were usually in a high-G nose high turn at low to medium altitudes. The vortices would suddenly stop traveling to the sides of the wing glove and cross over the top of it. The inboard vortex would then wrap itself around the tail and you immediately lost all directional stability. The plane would snap roll in the opposite direction of the turn and the aircraft would swap ends at the same time.

Correct. Sideslip at high AoA leads to departing from controlled flight. With the MiG-23 this happens very suddenly, with none or minimal warning (buffet or wing rock). Even worse at a certain sideslip angle the vortex flow crosses the MiG-23's back, washout the vertical stabilizer (picture attached). This and the resulting action is correctly described by this intel guy. Avoiding any sideslip the MiG-23 gets up to about 36° AoA, limited to about 30° AoA with the MiG-23MF/ML and late model UB by a stick stop device (at 30°-72° wing sweep). The device is called SOUA and succeeded the “knuckle rapper”.

However, early MiG-23 versions (like the BN and the MS) had a very unpleasant feature to suddenly departe already at non-critical AoA way before the 26° AoA limit, which was set to the early MiG-23 versions.
This happens while rolling the aircraft during a high AoA excursion.
The reason are the huge differential-working stabilators used for the first time with MiG aircrafts. They induce a strong yaw moment while rolling at higher AoA, with the result already described. They brought down the allowed AoA to 24° (22° in vertical plane), which is still valid for the MiG-23BN model today.
They fixed it for MiG-23MF/ML/P/MLD by introducing the cross-coupling device BPS-23 (БПС-23 - Блок Перекрестной Связи), already mentioned by Martinez.
The MiG-29, with its ailerons and differential stabs, even cuts of the differential mechanism at higher AoA to avoid the yawing moment by the stabs.

Still not comparable to a fourth generation fighter the late models MiG-23 improved a lot in AoA handling.

So, while former BN pilots will agree with the difficult high AoA handling MiG-23MF/ML pilots wouldn't.