Found this in my local scandal rag, the Daily Telegraph. For 30 grand you can go for a half hour ride in this thing. If I had money to waste I could be tempted. :bg
(http:///www.masm32.com/private/mig31.jpg)
30 grand is a bit steep - lol
but, that thing eats fuel like a dog eats biscuits
would be a fun ride, though
you might find a ride in an old Stearman nearly as exhilarating and much more affordable
the open canopy will bring it home - with the wind in your face, and everything :P
they still use them around here for crop-dusting
(http://www.westernairmuseum.org/images/stearman.jpg)
Those Stearmans are supposed to be the best stunt planes ever made so if you wanted to fly under bridges and between trees it would be the one. I think the MIG would be a lot of fun with the amount of grunt though, I really like fast things. :bg
Stearman's are actually a little slow - 105 MPH cruising speed with a stock engine
i suppose, with no canopy, it seems faster :bg
a lot of modern competition stunt pilots fly Pitts Specials
i am adventurous, but these things are suicide for anyone but the best pilots - lol
(http://yellowairplane.com/Pitts/Jim_Klick_2PittsSpecialAirplane.jpg)
notice the very short distance between the wings and the tail
this makes the elevator behave very abruptly
one little tweak when you are near the ground, and you become one with the runway
I think I have seen footage of Pitt Specials used for stunt work but they look like they would be very hard to fly. I take your point that the Stearman would be more fun to fly at low altitude in and would probably be a lot better suited to the things that the old barnstormers were doing just after ww1 in the US.
I am seduced by sheer speed and one of the things that would have been fun was the old F111s that our air force kept going for so long. They were nearly ideally suited for the conditions here in OZ, very long range, easily fast enough and were a large reliable weapons platform. The problem ended up that they were so old even with multiple refits that they were starting to cost far too much to maintain. With their ground tracking radar they could fly at very low altitude and maintain a very low radar profile so they were capable of penetrating air defence systems where necessary. Interesting part was they were the only thing we had that was capable of taking on a Sukhoi 30 III that some of our northern neighbors had available because of their stealth, speed and size as a weapons platform. The FA18s we had were not up to the task as the Sukhoi was a superior aircraft.
The fun part was their practice. They had the habit of flying these things at just under supersonic at a height just above the treetops in the coastal ranges up and down the east coast of OZ which apparently used to really piss off the farmers who had cattle in these environments.
Quote from: dedndave on May 14, 2011, 06:08:32 PM
Stearman's are actually a little slow - 105 MPH cruising speed with a stock engine
Reminds me of my childhood. I spent my weekends on a local airfield for gliders only. One day a Grumman crop-whatever showed up. If I remember well, the pilot had mistaken our airstrip for a nearby "real" airport and was somewhat surprised about the, ehm, odd topography of the hill. So that thingie approached... it looked like a big fat radial engine with small add-ons called "wings". When the pilot realised that the strip was not even but rather descending, he tried a shearing manoeuvre that went bad. He touched ground with the tip of the wing and turned a cartwheel. We started running :bg
Finally, he "landed" somehow on his ass, and was not even injured, but the engine was a few hundred yards away, and other parts were distributed all over the place. The kids had some fun that day ::)
:bg
those things are supposed to be worse to land than the Stearman - lol
from what i understand, they both want to nose over (loop) when near the ground
if your airstrip was on a hill - that complicated matters even further
here in Arizona, about a years ago...
http://www.velozia.com/agricultural-plane-crashes-in-arizona
(http://www.velozia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Grumman-AgCat-1024x685.jpg)
We had ThunderCity (Now closed) offering rides in many old jets for around ZAR 6000 (many years ago) upwards for 30 minutes
(http://www.saairforce.co.za/seed/public/files/article_images/710/48f2e1973a948_large.jpg)
(http://www.key.aero/central/images/news/1086.jpg)
(http://thundercity.com/tc_images/paul_marits1.jpg)
The owner was a bit of a contraversial character. Not sure why it closed but it was going for years.
I think he was becoming AIR-Marshal as he probably had more airworthy military aircraft than the ANC gov (they 'destroyed' most of the stuff they took over :bdg ), so they didn't like it :bg
Van,
I recently saw a BBC documentary where the announcer went to SA for a ride in an English Electric to investigate high altitude atmospheric conditions. What impressed me is it had so much grunt that after it took off it just went into vertical climb and was flown up to 60000 feet. Apparently it will go higher but they will not tell you how much higher. It would have to be a ton of fun to fly in if you were fit enough to do it. They look like your second photo.
I'd rather have a ride in an F-15. Unlike the MiG-31, an F-15 is capable of accelerating in a vertical climb.
This is the thing I would like a ride in but I have not heard of any rides on offer. They are the wildest looking gadget and with a new paint job could be auditioned for a Batman movie (Flying Batmobile).
(http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3270/Sukhoi%20Su-30MK.JPG)
They say this baby makes the F22 raptor timid in comparison. I'm sure it must be a wild ride!!
The complex creator... :bg
(http://www.vostokstation.com.au/aircraft/images/Sukhoi_T_50_PAK_FA_by_nellenmellen.jpg)
QuoteFlying Batmobile
lemme see - that would be, ummmm.....
the bat-plane ? :P
I wonder, why the commercial jet did not make their plane VTOL? It will reduce the accident chance, 1 crash each 1 million is still a problem.
A few days ago, an indonesia aircraft created by china factory down. I dont trust the China goods quality, except their management is from western people.
The airline with the worst reputation used to be Aeroflot. They usually got there but you had to make sure the pilot did not have his son on board playing with the controls.
Van, the new Sukhoi looks like a great gadget but the old one has more sex appeal.
I believe the Lockheed SR-71 is still the fastest air-breathing, manned aircraft in the world. It holds the current record speed of 2,242 mph set in 1990 and a service ceiling of over 85,000 feet. Now that would be one hell of a ride!
(http://www.quickersoft.com/pictures/sr71lockheed.jpg)
That's for sure... I vaguely remember the SAM missiles having a problem keeping up with this one. :U
Quote from: vanjast on May 16, 2011, 05:36:39 PM
I vaguely remember the SAM missiles having a problem keeping up with this one. :U
Yes, the throttle provided a very effective anti-missile defense. What is most amazing to me is that the initial design of the SR-71 was done in the early 1960's.
Ja.. I think that type of 'collective' thinking has moved over to the Russian side of late, The stuff coming out of there is innovative, and a lot of lessons can be learnt by the west, as always.. :wink
Quote from: hutch-- on May 16, 2011, 11:51:28 AM
Van, the new Sukhoi looks like a great gadget but the old one has more sex appeal.
Sex is always better with the older models :green2
The SR 71 is a clever number. I have seen photos of it on the tarmac and it leaks like a seive as it must cater for expansion while flying at very high speed and at high altitude. I gather they are specialisd for very high altitude and not suitable for much under about 60000 feet but at their working altitude and at the speed they travel there is not much that can touch them. I gather they are mainly used for intelligence gathering at a world level as they have very long range as well.
The SR-71 was in service with the U.S. Air Force from 1964 to 1998. The plane was permanently retired in 1998. The Air Force quickly disposed of their SR-71s, leaving NASA with the two last flyable Blackbirds until 1999. All other Blackbirds have been moved to museums except for the two SR-71s and a few D-21 drones retained by the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. I think the main reason it was retired is high altitude spying is done by satellites with high definition cameras these days.
Quote from: Bill Cravener on May 17, 2011, 09:26:11 AM
I think the main reason it was retired is high altitude spying is done by satellites with high definition cameras these days.
I think the reason also included the very high cost of maintenance and support. At the end of service the aircraft were 30 to 34 years old, and at least one of them had logged ~1000 flights. And in addition to the stress cycles that would be expected for a very high-performance aircraft going very fast, there were the stress cycles caused by the "unstarts", and for most of the structure the stress cycles induced by what were for an aircraft very large thermal cycles. And each mission required at least two in-flight refuelings, involving a bunch of infrastructure and people.
Much the same problems with our F111s, they are just about perfectly suited for the distances they have to work over, are fast and have low radar profiles but they are near 50 years old and even with multiple refits and some very high tech stress and fatigue analysis the costs are getting too high to keep them going.
We have a guy in town here with a former Polish MIG 22, he's been trying to sell it for a while, but you certainly know when it's up and screaming around overhead.
http://northernstar.info/city/dekalb/article_54f27046-af44-11df-a4db-00127992bc8b.html
(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/northernstar.info/content/tncms/assets/editorial/4/e8/74c/4e874ccc-af44-11df-ae37-00127992bc8b-revisions/4c735f01bd33c.image.jpg)