Trust you to show up when the CIA get a mention ;) Looking forward to this year with DCS, send the team a big pat on the back for the work they are doing. Then tell them to get on with the Phantom! :)
@@10percenttrue Back then (1984) I was an operational F-111 WSO at Cannon. We didn't pay that much attention to EM diagrams, because we knew better than to turn with anyone. But it was eyeopening to know that a Flogger could chase you down!
Yeah, must be pretty scary for a 1-11 guy to find out that he can't outrun the bad guys like he thought he could! Curious to know whether the PAD report was part of your standard intelligence library at that point, or whether you had some kind of special access privileges.
@@rsuminsby you should share your experiences some time with the podcast. The mid 80s would have been a wild time to be an Aardvark dude especially during Dorado, as well as what was learned afterwards
Very interesting! My Dad was in the Red Hats (about 1978-1984). I still have a couple of his patches, just like the one in the video. He doesn't talk about it much. All I knew was he was in the Air Force, went to work on Mondays and came home Thursday or Friday, he was never in a uniform, had flight gear and sometimes went to the Middle East for a month or so. Were the Red Hats the Crew Chiefs and the Red Eagles the pilots?
They weren't worried about it's agility when they designed it, it was meant to take off and intercept incoming bombers as quickly as possible by speeding to their location, launching missile's at them and then speeding away, it was never meant to dogfight anything in a maneuvering fight. Guess what's even less agile than the MIG-23, the SR71, because like it everything about it's design was geared to other things that sacrifice maneuverability to obtain them. There's no such thing as an aircraft that's the fastest and the most maneuverable, one feature takes from the other when designing an aircraft. And as far as the MIG-23's engine's goes the Russian's never really worried about long lasting engine's in jets, their philosophy with jet engine's was always to build more of lower grade than less higher grade one's, that's why their aircraft are designed to swap engine's like a NASCAR pit crew can change tires, at the first sign of any wear they simply drop the whole thing along with any associated gear like pumps, stuff in a new one and send the old one to a rebuild depot, doesn't mean it's a better way it's just that it's their design philosophy.
Thanks! I like doing the documentary type stuff. I wonder whether it might be of interest to anyone if I did an audio book of Red Eagles as a series of weekly installments? www.amazon.com/Red-Eagles-Americas-General-Aviation/dp/1846039703
Yea, he should have taken a couple minutes to read the owners manual, if he did he'd have known what to do when the engine ran away even after pulling the throttle back to idle.
@@dukecraig2402They gave him 2 days of accelerated ground school from what I recall from interviews. I remember when it happened. We were at Edwards then, and there was lots of buzz in the press with a delayed mention of what he was flying.
@@LRRPFco52 An old Army buddy of mine bought a MIG-23 a couple years ago, not needing good excuses for a motorcycle road trip I jumped on my bike and two days later had gone from Pa to Amarillo Tx to see it. He told me the story about Bond and how he didn't know that the MIG23's engine's could run away from full throttle even after pulling the throttle back because of their crappy fuel management system, he told me standard procedure when it happens after pulling back the throttle was to execute a maneuver like a sharp turn to interrupt the airflow into the intakes and that starts the engine slowing down, I guess the guy didn't know what to do from not being trained up enough and it got away from him resulting in the crash.
They got their hands on an F4 sometime in the 60's, that's how they reverse engineered the intakes that are used on the MIG-23. Now before anyone goes popping off about the MIG-23 and F4 intakes having different dimensions being proof that the MIG-23 intakes weren't reverse engineered from the F4 the term reverse engineered does not mean exact copy, I'm sure the Soviets were certainly smart enough to adjust the size of the intakes to be optimal for their single engine's needs compared to the F4's twin engine, and no I didn't learn about it from a UA-cam video, I learned about it from an old Army buddy of mine that bought a MIG-23 and his information about that came from the pilots and aircraft crews of the former Eastern Bloc country that the MIG-23 he obtained came from that he spoke directly with, out of both sides of the debate about it that's the most reliable source for information concerning the MIG-23's intakes I've heard so far, aside from that the fact that it's known that the Soviets got their hands on an F4 in the 60's and just looking at the intakes of the MIG-23 is pretty much a no brainer, but what really seals it for me is the net cutting blades in the narrow gap between the intake plates and the fuselage that were put on the F4 to cut the barrier net on an aircraft carrier in the event of a barrier net being used during emergency landing, they cut the net so the backseaters canopy can open, since the MIG-23 was never intended to be used in carrier service why else would it have those except for the Soviets not knowing exactly what they were for but figured since they were on the F4 they must be there for a reason so they copied them, out of everyone who claims that the MIG-23's intakes weren't reverse engineered from the F4 none have been able to explain that one to me.
Great video Steve. Very much enjoyed it.
Trust you to show up when the CIA get a mention ;)
Looking forward to this year with DCS, send the team a big pat on the back for the work they are doing.
Then tell them to get on with the Phantom! :)
Probably my favorite aircraft channel right now. Stray episodes are always playing in my man cave and other episodes on random. Thanks Steve
HAVE watched.
Only just. Another excellent upload and story Steve 👍
Just reading your book re-issue and it’s superb.
I’ve watched this for the third time just now and still glean new tidbits of info each time. Congrats on yet another stellar production. Z
The unsung heroes coming to light! Awesome!
Very, very interesting, especially having read the book Red Eagles when it came out. Hope there is more like this to come in the future. Thanks.
Cheers, George.
I remember reading the HAVE PAD report as a young Lt. Exciting stuff.
What was your job, Rob?
@@10percenttrue Back then (1984) I was an operational F-111 WSO at Cannon. We didn't pay that much attention to EM diagrams, because we knew better than to turn with anyone. But it was eyeopening to know that a Flogger could chase you down!
Yeah, must be pretty scary for a 1-11 guy to find out that he can't outrun the bad guys like he thought he could!
Curious to know whether the PAD report was part of your standard intelligence library at that point, or whether you had some kind of special access privileges.
@@10percenttrue - standard stuff in that time frame (1983-1986)...a collateral Secret document.
@@rsuminsby you should share your experiences some time with the podcast. The mid 80s would have been a wild time to be an Aardvark dude especially during Dorado, as well as what was learned afterwards
Fascinating as always, and great music!
Many thanks, Robert.
Great insight on the back story of the American Migs
I really really really enjoyed this style and progression, brilliant! =)
I like the story format, Steve!
Very interesting! My Dad was in the Red Hats (about 1978-1984). I still have a couple of his patches, just like the one in the video.
He doesn't talk about it much. All I knew was he was in the Air Force, went to work on Mondays and came home Thursday or Friday, he was never in a uniform, had flight gear and sometimes went to the Middle East for a month or so.
Were the Red Hats the Crew Chiefs and the Red Eagles the pilots?
23 was a colossal pos. fast as hell but agile as a fkng school bus. engine time between overhauls was anywhere from 5min to maybe 20hrs.
They weren't worried about it's agility when they designed it, it was meant to take off and intercept incoming bombers as quickly as possible by speeding to their location, launching missile's at them and then speeding away, it was never meant to dogfight anything in a maneuvering fight.
Guess what's even less agile than the MIG-23, the SR71, because like it everything about it's design was geared to other things that sacrifice maneuverability to obtain them.
There's no such thing as an aircraft that's the fastest and the most maneuverable, one feature takes from the other when designing an aircraft.
And as far as the MIG-23's engine's goes the Russian's never really worried about long lasting engine's in jets, their philosophy with jet engine's was always to build more of lower grade than less higher grade one's, that's why their aircraft are designed to swap engine's like a NASCAR pit crew can change tires, at the first sign of any wear they simply drop the whole thing along with any associated gear like pumps, stuff in a new one and send the old one to a rebuild depot, doesn't mean it's a better way it's just that it's their design philosophy.
Fascinating, Steve. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it, Tim.
Great video thanks!
this video is such a treat!
So much detail, really great 👍🏻
Thanks a lot!
Nice work, Steve. Enjoyed that.
Excellent piece, many thanks
Fantastic video. Well written and well produced. Almost as spectacular as the toupee on Mr Drebant. Man, what a bold look from that guy
This is fantastic, good work.
great video.
Ah ha, was wondering where they came from
Great history
Holy cow! What’s scoop! Looking forward to listening to this one b
Wow! It’s great to hear the story of how they got the Floggers into the country, and great to hear the names involved!
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it.
A little different from your usual episodes, steve, but a nice change of pace. Great stuff!
Thanks! I like doing the documentary type stuff. I wonder whether it might be of interest to anyone if I did an audio book of Red Eagles as a series of weekly installments? www.amazon.com/Red-Eagles-Americas-General-Aviation/dp/1846039703
@@10percenttrue I’d be up for that
Then General Bond crashed one whilst joy riding......
Yea, he should have taken a couple minutes to read the owners manual, if he did he'd have known what to do when the engine ran away even after pulling the throttle back to idle.
@@dukecraig2402They gave him 2 days of accelerated ground school from what I recall from interviews.
I remember when it happened. We were at Edwards then, and there was lots of buzz in the press with a delayed mention of what he was flying.
@@LRRPFco52
An old Army buddy of mine bought a MIG-23 a couple years ago, not needing good excuses for a motorcycle road trip I jumped on my bike and two days later had gone from Pa to Amarillo Tx to see it.
He told me the story about Bond and how he didn't know that the MIG23's engine's could run away from full throttle even after pulling the throttle back because of their crappy fuel management system, he told me standard procedure when it happens after pulling back the throttle was to execute a maneuver like a sharp turn to interrupt the airflow into the intakes and that starts the engine slowing down, I guess the guy didn't know what to do from not being trained up enough and it got away from him resulting in the crash.
did the USSR (or russia) ever get its hands on a flyable american built fighter that we know of? or any western built fighters?
@Max that explains the mig-28!!! :s
@@gerrya4818 theres a famous photo of a Soviet Airbase where there is a mirage III and a RF-4 behind a M-4 Bomber
Iran has given the Russians full access to their F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s as well as access to all weapons and technical data
China received an F-16 from a pilot defecting from Pakistan. It is also assumed an Iran turned over an F-14 to the USSR, it may not have been flyable.
They got their hands on an F4 sometime in the 60's, that's how they reverse engineered the intakes that are used on the MIG-23.
Now before anyone goes popping off about the MIG-23 and F4 intakes having different dimensions being proof that the MIG-23 intakes weren't reverse engineered from the F4 the term reverse engineered does not mean exact copy, I'm sure the Soviets were certainly smart enough to adjust the size of the intakes to be optimal for their single engine's needs compared to the F4's twin engine, and no I didn't learn about it from a UA-cam video, I learned about it from an old Army buddy of mine that bought a MIG-23 and his information about that came from the pilots and aircraft crews of the former Eastern Bloc country that the MIG-23 he obtained came from that he spoke directly with, out of both sides of the debate about it that's the most reliable source for information concerning the MIG-23's intakes I've heard so far, aside from that the fact that it's known that the Soviets got their hands on an F4 in the 60's and just looking at the intakes of the MIG-23 is pretty much a no brainer, but what really seals it for me is the net cutting blades in the narrow gap between the intake plates and the fuselage that were put on the F4 to cut the barrier net on an aircraft carrier in the event of a barrier net being used during emergency landing, they cut the net so the backseaters canopy can open, since the MIG-23 was never intended to be used in carrier service why else would it have those except for the Soviets not knowing exactly what they were for but figured since they were on the F4 they must be there for a reason so they copied them, out of everyone who claims that the MIG-23's intakes weren't reverse engineered from the F4 none have been able to explain that one to me.
Are you a adio book narrator by any chance
No, but I am available for hire!
Things you see or hear 35 years ago still are the same ,,,,,,,nothing to say or hear.
Excellent video, but what a waste of taxpayer money, gosh!