Question for the Fighter Pilots/Naval Aviators

[john_pifer]

Here are 2 clips of a couple of my favorite Cold War era jet fighters - the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, and the English Electric Lightning:





Mike Beachy-Head and his Lightning:



My question is this - For you fighter pilot types, what would it take for you to get into one of these and fly it? Could you talk with an instructor pilot, ask some basic questions about stall speeds, takeoff speeds, landing speeds, etc, and jump in and take off, with certainty of handling it with no trouble, or would you need something more like a few hours of classroom training, along with a ride in the "trainer" version, in order to feel confident in flying it? (I understand that some of these types are single-seat only.)

I understand that a fellow called Mike Beachy-Head, a South African entrepreneur, owned a fleet of high-performance Cold War-era jet fighters and bombers. Unfortunately a heart attack got him a couple of years ago. But, let's say one of you fighter pilots visited him and he said, "Here, take this Lightning for a spin", and it was all legal according to their local regulatory authority...would you do it? Why or why not?

 

[IndyFan]

That Lightning in the second video is a 2 seater, so I'd bet he went with the fighter pilot, even if he flew right seat.

What a couple of awesome aircraft, btw!

 

[john_pifer]

Originally Posted by IndyFan
That Lightning in the second video is a 2 seater, so I'd bet he went with the fighter pilot, even if he flew right seat.

What a couple of awesome aircraft, btw!


Think about this, though - that Lightning is an aircraft that, if you dare to fly it, you had better be sure you're on your game. I would think that things happen very fast.

If I rode in that thing, I'd want to be sure the guy flying really knows what he's doing!

 

[Astro14]

I wouldn't be comfortable taking a single seat airplane "for a spin" unless I knew it well.

By that, I mean that I know the normal procedures and the systems configuration as well as the emergency procedures.

When things go wrong in a single seat fighter, they go wrong in a hurry. Often, there isn't time to look up emergency procedures. Approach speed stalls and other hidden handling flaws can quickly kill.

I would want the opportunity to study the airplane, to learn its ins and outs, and to talk with someone that has flown it. If there were a simulator for that airplane, even better. I would want at least a few hours in the simulator before getting in the airplane.

I've flown over 30 different airplanes. I'm (or once was) familiar with how they all handle, all their systems, all their procedures.

As an example, when I first flew the F/A-18, I was an experienced pilot, and I had a couple of weeks to study everything (ground school), then 10 simulator periods (of 2.0 hours each, I think, plus brief and debrief) and then I got in a dual (two seat) airplane for three flights (5.0 hours or so) before I took the airplane out single seat.

While the airplane was new to me, with that background behind me, I was comfortable flying it.

If the dual wasn't available, I still would have been comfortable with the ground school and simulator.

With less preparation than that, I would've flown it, but I wouldn't have felt OK doing it.

With zero prep, even an experienced fighter pilot in an unfamiliar jet is a crash waiting to happen. Might work out OK, but probably won't.

 

[john_pifer]

Originally Posted by Astro14
I wouldn't be comfortable taking a single seat airplane "for a spin" unless I knew it well.

By that, I mean that I know the normal procedures and the systems configuration as well as the emergency procedures.

When things go wrong in a single seat fighter, they go wrong in a hurry. Often, there isn't time to look up emergency procedures. Approach speed stalls and other hidden handling flaws can quickly kill.

I would want the opportunity to study the airplane, to learn its ins and outs, and to talk with someone that has flown it. If there were a simulator for that airplane, even better. I would want at least a few hours in the simulator before getting in the airplane.

I've flown over 30 different airplanes. I'm (or once was) familiar with how they all handle, all their systems, all their procedures.

As an example, when I first flew the F/A-18, I was an experienced pilot, and I had a couple of weeks to study everything (ground school), then 10 simulator periods (of 2.0 hours each, I think, plus brief and debrief) and then I got in a dual (two seat) airplane for three flights (5.0 hours or so) before I took the airplane out single seat.

While the airplane was new to me, with that background behind me, I was comfortable flying it.

If the dual wasn't available, I still would have been comfortable with the ground school and simulator.

With less preparation than that, I would've flown it, but I wouldn't have felt OK doing it.

With zero prep, even an experienced fighter pilot in an unfamiliar jet is a crash waiting to happen. Might work out OK, but probably won't.


As always, great information! Thanks for contributing.

If the story relayed in the account on this site is to be believed, an engineer with no jet experience "accidentally" took off in a Lightning that didn't even have its canopy installed, and he was able to bring it back in for a safe landing!

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/70000160

 

[AZjeff]

Possible.

That crazy guy in Washington state with no flight time took off in the commuter plane flew it around and did some acrobatic moves before he intentionally lawn darted it. He did have sims on his computer.

 

[Berto]

Originally Posted by Astro14
... With zero prep, even an experienced fighter pilot in an unfamiliar jet is a crash waiting to happen. Might work out OK, but probably won't ...


This sad story comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bond#Death

"... Bond insisted on flying the MiG-23 BN fighter-bomber after a cursory briefing over the cockpit rail, even though it was considered a difficult aircraft and pilots usually received several hours of ground instruction before flying it ..."

 

[john_pifer]

Originally Posted by Berto
Originally Posted by Astro14
... With zero prep, even an experienced fighter pilot in an unfamiliar jet is a crash waiting to happen. Might work out OK, but probably won't ...


This sad story comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bond#Death

"... Bond insisted on flying the MiG-23 BN fighter-bomber after a cursory briefing over the cockpit rail, even though it was considered a difficult aircraft and pilots usually received several hours of ground instruction before flying it ..."


Hadn't heard that one!

Very interesting story!

RIP General.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by Berto
Originally Posted by Astro14
... With zero prep, even an experienced fighter pilot in an unfamiliar jet is a crash waiting to happen. Might work out OK, but probably won't ...


This sad story comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bond#Death

"... Bond insisted on flying the MiG-23 BN fighter-bomber after a cursory briefing over the cockpit rail, even though it was considered a difficult aircraft and pilots usually received several hours of ground instruction before flying it ..."



Very interesting story, thanks for posting that. It brings to mind my recent heli crash thread, as there are some mechanical failures that one simply can't recover from, regardless of training or experience.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by Berto
Originally Posted by Astro14
... With zero prep, even an experienced fighter pilot in an unfamiliar jet is a crash waiting to happen. Might work out OK, but probably won't ...


This sad story comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bond#Death

"... Bond insisted on flying the MiG-23 BN fighter-bomber after a cursory briefing over the cockpit rail, even though it was considered a difficult aircraft and pilots usually received several hours of ground instruction before flying it ..."



Very interesting story, thanks for posting that. It brings to mind my recent heli crash thread, as there are some mechanical failures that one simply can't recover from, regardless of training or experience.


I think that in this case, the MiG-23, that the situation was relatively simple (an idle lock-up, similar devices exist on all supersonic airplanes, prevented a power reduction) but he handled it completely wrong*. It wasn't a mechanical failure, per se, but an aircraft response to the flight regime in which the pilot chose to operate.

His lack of preparation was fatal.

He proves the point that when things go wrong in a fighter, they go wrong in a hurry...


*The theory on his crash: He was flying at high supersonic speed. The hydraulic lock that prevented a thrust reduction engaged. The airplane was functioning as designed....reducing engine power below 100% RPM at supersonic speeds causes compressor stalls, so the design team installed a lock to prevent a power reduction above a certain speed.

He struggled to reduce power, not knowing how the lock worked or how to correct the situation. Had he pitched up (and decelerated), the lock would have disengaged (as designed) and he could have reduced power. Instead, his speed continued to increase, causing the airplane to reach an airspeed where it was difficult to control (things go wrong in a hurry), and he attempted a high speed/supersonic ejection. Supersonic ejections have nearly always been fatal.

So was his.

He died of a broken neck from the force of the wind at that speed. Additionally, his parachute was shredded, so even if his body could've survived the wind blast, he would've died. In the several supersonic ejections that happened in the F-14, none were successful.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted by Berto
Originally Posted by Astro14
... With zero prep, even an experienced fighter pilot in an unfamiliar jet is a crash waiting to happen. Might work out OK, but probably won't ...


This sad story comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Bond#Death

"... Bond insisted on flying the MiG-23 BN fighter-bomber after a cursory briefing over the cockpit rail, even though it was considered a difficult aircraft and pilots usually received several hours of ground instruction before flying it ..."



"Hurry-Up-Itus" can be a fatal.

 

[pilottravis]

The only surviving supersonic ejection I'm aware of is Brian Udell in an F-15. Guy does speaking events now that he is out of the USAF, great listen if you have the opportunity sometime.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/insaddle/insaddle.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJAwHdb1BQ

 

[The_Eric]

Don't forget the one survivor from an SR71. Probably not the same gear but still extremely dangerous and it was from presumably higher and faster

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Astro14
He died of a broken neck from the force of the wind at that speed. Additionally, his parachute was shredded, so even if his body could've survived the wind blast, he would've died. In the several supersonic ejections that happened in the F-14, none were successful.


If he was at 40K ft he should have had some time to try and recover. But could be he couldn't have ever corrected his out of control situation at that speed to make a safe ejection, so he just went for it knowing it would be better than making a smoking hole 8 ft deep on the ground.

 

[Berto]

George F. Smith survived ejection @ Mach 1.05 from an F-100A in 1955

(* Bonus story: The day an F-100 shot down a B-52)



Jon "Jughead" Counsell survived ejection @ Mach 1.13 from an F-15C in 1994. He talks about his ordeal in this video:

 

[Astro14]

People have survived supersonic ejection.

People have survived hitting a bridge abutment head on at 80 MPH.

Both were scenarios in which survival was very unlikely.

I recommend avoiding both.

This discussion in question: General loses control of a MiG and chooses to eject, isn't about the wisdom of choosing to eject at supersonic speeds, or the survivability.

It IS about the result of a pilot's lack of familiarity with an airplane, and his loss of control as a result of his unfamiliarity. He crashed, and died, in a perfectly good airplane that was working AS DESIGNED.

Had he known more about the airplane, he would have realized what was going on, slowed the airplane by climbing, disengaging the hydraulic lock, and flown back to base.

Ejection would not have been among his choices.

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

The answer to "What aircraft do 3-star generals fly?" is much like the answer to "Where do 500 lb. gorillas sleep?". That general should not have been allowed in any single seat fighter, regardless of his past experience or ability. There is nothing to be gained from it, and it carries a lot of risk. Trouble is, nobody wants to destroy their own career by telling a general "No". IMO, Congress should outlaw anybody with more than one star from piloting a military aircraft.

 

[john_pifer]

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
The answer to "What aircraft do 3-star generals fly?" is much like the answer to "Where do 500 lb. gorillas sleep?". That general should not have been allowed in any single seat fighter, regardless of his past experience or ability. There is nothing to be gained from it, and it carries a lot of risk. Trouble is, nobody wants to destroy their own career by telling a general "No". IMO, Congress should outlaw anybody with more than one star from piloting a military aircraft.


Not sure why you say that. Not all generals are idiots like the guy who crashed that MiG.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by Astro14
People have survived supersonic ejection.

Just a general question on that, Astro: Some of the Soviet fighters claimed an "any speed" ejection capability, like the Mig-31. Would this "any speed" specifically exclude supersonic, or simply just recommend against it?

 

[ArrestMeRedZ]

I've run into a lot of generals and I wouldn't classify any of them as idiots. Far from it. Also, the General under discussion in this thread was brilliant and a very skilled pilot from everything I've heard.
Fighter pilots who are lieutenants, captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels usually have their primary job as flying when in a flying slot. They often have other duties, but they must maintain qualification. Once the rank of colonel is reached, flying can become secondary. Wing commanders, vice wing commanders and Directors of Operations can get away with things nobody else can because of their rank. Shortcuts in training, flight preparation and briefing are commonplace. There are some very good colonel fighter pilots, but they are the exception and at this rank flying skills start to fall off rapidly.
There are very few general officer flying slots in fighters, and none that I am aware of past brigadier general. IMO, generals in a cockpit simply waste very expensive resources that should be used to train the lower ranks that actually go to war.