The alternative aviation magazine
Hi, free tonight at 20.00 UK time?
Pop over to our YouTube channel for the Dassault Rafale versus Eurofighter Typhoon Part 2 premiere party with live interactive aviation quiz (tends to be VERY tough). Here’s a link to our YouTube channel:
See you there, Bring Your Own Bottle.
Hush-Kit
If you were in a dogfight, would you rather have a 25-ton Tupolev Tu-128 interceptor or a four-ton Northrop F-5 fighter? The first is the length of a bus, and not just any bus, but the world’s longest bus – the gargantuan Volvo Gran Artic 300 (capable of carrying 300 passengers); the second has a wingspan far smaller than even the diminutive Spitfire. Historically, fighters were supposed to be small, fast, and nimble. Things have changed somewhat in modern times—a Sukhoi Su-30, for instance, is less than one metre shorter than a B-17—but the existence of the likes of the Gripen and Tejas means that the lightweight fighter isn’t going away anytime soon. With this in mind, we’ve set out to find the smallest of the small in jet fighters. To qualify, an aircraft must (a) be a fighter, as in, designed or adapted to do battle with other aircraft in the air; (b) have pure jet propulsion (rocket fighters, mixed propulsion, etc. doesn’t count); (c) be flown by a human pilot in the cockpit; and (d) have been built and flown, at least in prototype form.
Here are eleven jet fighters that may have been delivered in a low-quality chocolate egg.
L: 13.2m, W: 8.2m
A full ostrich shorter than an F-16, India’s light combat aircraft is the smallest fighter currently in service, and India’s first indigenous supersonic aircraft. (The HAL Marut of 1961 was supposed to be supersonic, but couldn’t quite get there.) The development of the Tejas was as glacial as can be expected of a modern warplane, with the first examples inducted into service almost a decade and a half after its first flight and initial operational clearance achieved as recently as 2019.
Interview with a Tejas pilot here.
Roughly the length of a semi-trailer.
L: 9.37m, W: 12m
Advances in radar, avionics, powerplant, and weapons technology mean that modern fighters can be as hulking as they need to be, but in the early days of jet propulsion, thrust was in short supply, so the aircraft were naturally small. Such was the case of the Allies’ first mass-produced single-engine jet fighter, a deceptively cute little jet that the average person could look down upon while it’s parked and count every rivet without having to strain. Standing less than nine feet tall, the Vampire is so diminutive that Shaquille O’Neal could probably rest his hand on one of its vertical stabilizers without having to extend his arm all the way.
The Venom fighter-bomber, derived from the Vampire, is approximately two avocado fruits longer. (The Mexican Air Force nicknamed the Vampire ‘Aguacate’, meaning ‘avocado’)
About as long as two Volkswagen Beetles parked astride an avocado.
L: 9.75m, W: 10m
Ignoring the fact that it looks like some sort of parasitic fish with abnormally large pectoral fins, the MiG-9 started a trend of Soviet jets being somewhat smaller than their Western equivalents—a rare moment of Stalin not trying to prove that his accessories were bigger than everyone else’s. A modestly successful aircraft that was reportedly very easy to fly, the ‘Fargo’s engines had a pesky tendency to flame out every time it fired its guns (a recurring problem on early Soviet jets) due to combustion gases getting caught in the airflow.
Wingspan equal to the length of a late-Cretaceous period megaraptor.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAx47c0j49yEjgoKvIa588A
L: 11.68m, W: 6.8m
The sleek Taon (‘Horsefly’) was designed in response to a 1953 NATO requirement for a lightweight strike fighter, or LWSF—not to be confused with NSFW, though ogling at pictures of Taons is arguably very much inappropriate for the workplace. The concept of a common strike fighter was abandoned, with several countries developing their own—Italy’s Fiat G91 being an example—and the French preferring the much larger Dassault Étendard VI.
About the length of the Cavalier 39 sailing yacht that you can’t afford
L: 9.56m, W: 8.83m
The idea of a jet fighter with a shoulder-mounted swept wing and high tailplane was not uncommon in the late 1940s. Kurt Tank got the ball rolling with his proposed Focke-Wulf Ta 183, later bringing the concept to fruition in Argentina with the IAe 33 Pulqui II. The Soviets came to the same conclusion with the Lavochkin La-168, a derivative of the first Soviet fighter with swept wings. The slightly smaller production variant, the La-15, had the misfortune of going up against the MiG-15, which, though less manoeuvrable than the Lavochkin product, had a better rate of climb and was less complex and less expensive to produce.
Slightly longer than an adult male basking shark (but shorter than a female).
L: 12.4m, W: 5.84m
This sleek fighter may have been the last aircraft to be designed by Willy Messerschmitt, but it’s not German. What originally was supposed to be a Spanish aircraft that was cancelled for budgetary reasons was acquired by Egypt, and the aforementioned design’s HA-300 designator was simply adapted from ‘Hispano Aircraft’ to mean ‘Helwan Aircraft’ for the Egyptian city in which it was built.
In addition to the aircraft, Egypt embarked on the development of an indigenous engine, the Brandner E-300, to replace the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus used in the first two prototypes, citing national security concerns particularly in the wake of the Suez crisis. India helped to finance the engine, as they wanted to use it in their HF-24 Marut strike fighter.
Alas, a confluence of factors, including Mossad threats against the German and Austrian engineers in addition to the usual financial difficulties, meant that only seven were produced, and the Egyptians ended up settling for Soviet warplanes.
Wingspan roughly equal to the length of a Panzer VI.
L: 8.7m, W: 9.2m (Yak-15)
First flown less than a year after VE Day, the Yak-15 came into being by shoving a reverse-engineered Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet into the front end of a Yak-3 piston fighter. This aircraft, which along with the MiG-9 was one of the Soviet Union’s first jet fighters, would become the father of a line of diminutive fighters that look like hairdryers with wings. The related Yak-17, first flown in 1947, replaced the taildragger landing gear kept from the WWII fighter with a more appropriate tricycle undercarriage, while the improved Yak-23, also first flown in 1947, replaced the reverse-engineered German engine with a reverse-engineered British one.
About the length of Cousin Eddie’s RV in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation.
L: 9.6m, W: 7.5m
The Ariete (‘Ram’) was evaluated for the same ultimately abandoned programme as the Taon. A refinement of the Sagittario 2 light fighter prototype, the Ariete was unique in that its Rolls-Royce Derwent engine was augmented by an auxiliary turbojet for high-performance flight, featuring a retractable air intake on the rear fuselage and exhaust in the tail (the one for the main engine is under the midpoint of the fuselage, similar to the aforementioned Yakovlevs). Like its French competitor, the aircraft was cancelled after two prototypes, and a proposed rocket-augmented version, the Leone, was never built.
Slightly longer than the animatronic crocodile puppet used in the movie Lake Placid.
L: 9.05m, W: 7.02m
A desperation move if ever there was one, the Volksjäger was produced in kits using substandard materials and slave labour, quickly thrown together, and pawned off onto pilots fresh out of glider school to be flown in defence of the scant, putrefying remains of the Third Reich. Though the design itself was sound, earning praise from no less than Eric ‘Winkle’ Brown for its balanced controls, the rushed and shoddy construction combined with its pilots’ inexperience meant that the results were morbidly predictable.
Also, what MENSA candidate thought it’d be a good idea to stick a jet engine intake six inches behind the pilot’s head, canopy or no?
Wingspan roughly equivalent to the length of a 40-cubic-yard roll-off dumpster (a skip), which is probably where they got most of the parts to build the He 162.
L: 9.04, W: 6.73
While never used as a fighter by its country of origin, the Gnat most certainly was by other nations, India in particular, where it quickly gained a reputation for turning Pakistani F-86 Sabres into scrap metal, and thus proving every bit as annoying to its enemies as its namesake insect.
Interview with Gnat combat pilot here
The Indians liked it so much, in fact, that they adapted it as the Ajeet. Finland and Yugoslavia also used the Gnat, as did the RAF Red Arrows, and it masqueraded as the Oscar EW-5894 Phallus Tactical Fighter Bomber in the 1991 Top Gun parody Hot Shots!
Slightly longer than the height of the statue of Bahubali at Trimurti temple.
L: 4.52m, W: 6.53m
Surprise, surprise, the smallest fighter ever built is the one designed to be carried inside a B-36 bomber to act as a personal bodyguard for its mother ship. The ghoulishly ugly Goblin featured folding wings and no undercarriage, opting instead for a trapeze mechanism that looks like it was conjured up by Wile E. Coyote fitted inside the bomb bay of a Convair B-36.
Between the aircraft’s lackluster performance, the amount of space it took up in the bomber that could’ve otherwise been used for stores, a docking mechanism that was an accident waiting to happen and no alternative for the hapless fighter pilot but to attempt a belly landing (which was the result of five of the Goblin’s seven test flights), and improved air-to-air refueling capabilities for land-based fighters, the parasite fighter never got past the experimental phase.
Top 10 parasite fighters here.
As long as an Audi A4, or two average-size artificial Christmas trees.
– SEAN KELLY
Love aviation? Over 99.8% of our readers ignore our funding appeals. This site depends on your support. If you’ve enjoyed an article donate here. Recommended donation amount £13. Keep this site going.
From the 1960s until the 1990s the US spied on whoever it liked with impunity from the snapping cameras and greedy sensors of the fastest aeroplane ever to take off from a runway, the spectacular SR-71 Blackbird. We spoke to pilot BC Thomas about life in the most exciting seat in the world.
What was the closest they got to shooting down an SR-71?
“A few miles, maybe. The last known missile launch against the SR-71 was on August 25, 1981 when Maury Rosenberg (pilot) and Ed McKim (RSO) were flying against North Korea. Maury reported that he thought the explosion was a few miles away, but judging distances 15 miles above the earth is difficult because there is nothing with which to compare.
Although the SR-71 had been attacked many times, especially over Vietnam during that war, nothing ever hit an SR-71 aircraft.”
Was the MiG-31 a real threat? What were you most worried about in terms of air defences?
“On every operational mission, we were briefed on the latest threat assessments for both surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and potential enemy interceptors. I was more concerned about the later versions of the Soviet SA-5 SAM than any other threat. The SA-5 could reach Mach 6 (or more), so its time-to-target was relatively quick. Although our warning system would alert us of a missile launch, the time to react and maneuver our aircraft would be short.
Our defense, immediately after having a warning of a missile launch, was to electronically jam the missile’s guidance system, accelerate, climb, and perform a 45-degree banked turn away from the threat.
That procedure worked well against SA-2 missiles, which were launched many times against the SR-71 during the Vietnam War.
In addition to SAM threats, we were often briefed to expect interceptor activity, especially flying over the Baltic Sea or near Murmansk.
We had experience in the United States flying against some of our own Air Force and Navy interceptors and always, without knowing in advance our course, speed, and altitude, they could not be in-position and ready to fire a simulated anti-aircraft missile successfully.
We believed that without advanced knowledge of our flight path, the probably of a successful intercept was low. There was no procedure or requirement for us to identify or monitor potential interceptors in-flight, so almost all of the crew’s attention was directed to the normal mission responsibilities that we had for any reconnaissance mission. Often we would see contrails which we thought to be fighter aircraft practicing zoom maneuvers to reach our altitude, but I never saw an aircraft close enough to identify it.
I did not consider any Soviet interceptor aircraft to be a reliable threat. Our flying certainly was not hazard-free, because there is always that “lucky†shot. In general, when I was flying over a denied area, I was concentrating on flying the airplane and not concerned about interceptors.
Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit
Even with a “lucky†intercept, which would be very difficult at our speed and altitude, we were briefed that their missile capability and fusing had very low chance of success.
In any case, we were expected to fly our missions as directed, no matter what the perceived threats may have been. And we did.”
Interview with pilot of the Mach 2.8 Russian MiG-31 interceptor here.
What did the Blackbird offer that satellites could not?
“During the time that the SR-71 was operational, reconnaissance satellite coverage was not 100% over important, selective targets. We, and the Soviets, knew when certain satellites were overhead, so we could cover and/or hide classified equipment so that it could not be seen by the others’ satellite imagery. This gap in observation gave the US an advantage, because the SR-71 could be in position to take pictures (or image by radar) at any specified time; thus in the vernacular, we sneaked up on the Soviet Union or China, or North Korea, or Cuba, or any other target country in the world. We would image what we were assigned anytime, day or night, in good weather or bad. It was a very flexible reconnaissance tool.”
What is the highest and fastest you’ve flown?
“While at Beale AFB, I flew no faster than Mach 3.25. While testing new systems and equipment in the SR-71 at Edwards AFB, we flew almost all missions at Mach 3.2, which was the highest Mach that was attained on the vast majority of operational missions. For some test flights, like testing the Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System (DAFICS) we tested the full flight envelope to Mach 3.3, which is the fastest I flew the Blackbird.
The highest altitude I reached was 86,000 feet while flying a Murmansk mission. I had to fly that high so that I could keep the speed at or below Mach 3.2 (my target speed) while in minimum afterburner. We were never power-limited and most high-Mach cruise missions were flown with the throttles below half-travel within the afterburner range.”
Tell me something I don’t know about the aircraft.
“Perhaps the extent of the ground training we had before our first flight and for recurring training throughout our time flying the SR-71, but that is not airplane specific. For the airplane, I will tell you what two aspects of the aircraft most surprised me.
The astro-inertial navigation system (ANS), once aligned, could automatically track 61stars from a catalog, identifying their position, and through a complicated algorithm, quickly compute the aircraft’s altitude, attitude, speed, ground track, and continually update the aircraft’s position while directly controlling the aircraft’s ground track (if engaged by the pilot) and providing automatic pointing and control of the cameras and sensors. Even at maximum speed, the ANS could provide course guidance within a quarter of one mile. Unbelievable technology before the advent of the Global Positioning System (GPS).
I knew that the faster an aircraft flies, the warmer it becomes, relative to the outside air temperature, but I was quite surprised how hot the aircraft would be at Mach 3 and above. The temperature rise is due to air friction; i.e., each air molecule, when hit by an object traveling around 2,000+ mph, causes an immediate and dramatic heat rise, the rise being a function of the square of the velocity, like the kinetic energy formula KE = 1/2 (mass) times velocity-squared. Bottom line: the temperature of the windshield only 2.5 feet from my face would be 621 degrees F, which is approximately the temperature of an oven during the cleaning cycle. This was one of the greatest challenges to the designers of the SR-71: to keep the cockpit, mission bays, and tires, cool enough. Other problems: invent fuel, hydraulic fluid, sealants, and oil to withstand that kind of heat for hours at-a-time and remain functional.”
What is the greatest myth about the SR-71?
“There were so many. The most outlandish myth is that we could fly in space, or even orbit the earth.
Other myths include: crew members had to be married because we would be more prone to defect to the Soviet Union if we were not. That one really torqued my jaws! Crew members did not have to be married (some were not), and the notion that any pilot or RSO would ever defect to an enemy country for any reason was both ridiculous and insulting!
Or that we could outrun a missile. We could not outrun the SA-5 for instance, but we had a very reliable warning system which could tell us if a missile were launched against us. Our evasive actions were to immediately electronically jam the guidance system of the missile, accelerate to maximum speed, climb, and turn away from the attack using 45 degrees of bank. A missile traveling fast and having very limited control over its flight path could not out-turn us.”
What was your most memorable mission? And why?
“When the consequences of one particular flight might have started a war.
The background for this flight began on November 13, 1980 when Jay Reid (RSO) and I flew a reconnaissance mission against North Korea. This was just after President Reagan was elected, and North Korea was sending a message to the new, incoming administration that our flying reconnaissance near/over their territory was unacceptable. The Communists sent this message the next day specifically mentioning our flight:
Obviously the North Koreans were not happy about our persistent and repeated reconnaissance flights against them.
We, the SR-71 crew members, thought it was great to receive such a tirade from the North Koreans. We knew that we had negatively impressed them with our surveillance flights, that they knew we were there, and there was very little they could do about it except write such obvious and typical Communist propaganda screed. We had a few laughs and a round of cheer was in order.
Very little was heard from them until August 25, 1981. Maury Rosenberg (pilot) and Ed McKim (RSO) were flying a 2-loop (our moniker for a mission involving two refuelings) reconnaissance mission, first against Communist China and then North Korea. The pass across North Korea was along the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea, although North Korea claims sovereignty over South Korea as well. On the second pass, the North Koreans launched a surface-to-air (SAM) SA-2 missile in an attempt to shoot-down the SR-71. They missed by several miles.
Jay Reid and I were at RAF Mildenhall when this happened, and we pilots and RSOs were given a detailed briefing about the incident. Our reaction was not to be very concerned about their ability to hit us, but speculate what change it might portend for future missions. Perhaps we would fly deep into North Korea’s territory, fly more often at night, or increase our sortie rate. In any case, we figured that something would change as a result of their belligerence.
About a month later, on September 24, 1981, Jay and I arrived in Okinawa to start a regular 6-week deployment. Two days later, the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr Frank Carluci, came to our detachment (Det 1, 9SRW) to inspect our SR-71 operations. Since Jay and I had been on the island only 2 days (we were not allowed to fly until we had been jet-lagged-acclimated for 3 days), we were designated his briefing officers specifically to show him our airplanes and answer all questions he might have. Part of our briefing included showing him the SR-71, putting him in both cockpits, and giving him an overview of our mission procedures. We especially emphasized the unusual aspects of the aircraft, including the unique controls for the engine inlets, and the defensive and navigational systems. He expressly asked us about the pilots’ and RSOs’ attitude about flying operational missions, especially in light of the attempted shoot-down. We assured him that we were all dedicated to those missions and that the prospect of another missile attack did not particularly bother us because we had ultimate faith in our defensive equipment and our ability to maneuver.
Mr Carluci specifically stated that President Reagan was “furious†that the North Koreans fired on one of our aircraft and that something would be done about it. In the meantime, we were to fly our reconnaissance missions 30 miles south of our normal flight paths.
Ten days later, on October 3, 1981, the US Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, General Robert Mathis, came to Okinawa and briefed the SR-71 crews on the plan to resume normal operational flights.
He said that soon, we would fly a mission exactly like the one flown when the missile was launched at Maury and Ed. He said also that the timing would be critical and that we had to be over the North Korean missile-launch point within one minute, although we should be within 30 seconds if possible. He emphasized the timing was important because if the North Koreans fired another missile at us, US Air Force fighter aircraft would launch an air-to-ground missile attack on the North Korean launch site immediately.
Jay Reid and I flew that mission on October 26, 1981. We took off early, used “timing triangles†to refine our time-over-target, and passed over the launch site within 10 seconds of the critical time. We took a great deal of pride in successfully flying that mission as planned, and in making a very strong statement that we, and by extension, the United States, would not be deterred.
The North Koreans did not fire at us, and I’ll admit that I was a little disappointed, for our reaction would have certainly demonstrated our National resolve. And I don’t like Communist governments either!”
Obviously smitten by our flight and perhaps trying to bluster their way out of an embarrassing situation, the North Korean Communist government issued yet another propaganda blast. This is the message:
We didn’t follow the Communists’ advice and our reconnaissance missions against North Korea continued unabated.
Another significant mission for me and Jay Reid was the time we were forced, because of an aircraft emergency, to land unannounced in Continental Europe (Norway) with highly classified mission materials in the SR-71. “
In what way was flying it different from other aircraft?
“Basically all airplanes fly the same. That may sound strange, but the 3 – dimensional maneuvering of any airplane demands control of left-right, up – down, and fast-slow. Different aircraft have various ways to achieve these movements, but usually to the pilot, control of the aircraft simply comes down to the cockpit controls and how easy or difficult they are to effect the desired performance. The SR-71 had a ‘heavy’ control-stick gradient in pitch, and it was a delicate airplane because of its structural limitations. It weighed 60,000 pounds empty, but carried 80,000 pounds of fuel, which was distributed along its long fuselage length. Since fuel was carried in tanks fore-and-aft of the center-of- gravity (cg), The structural strength was relatively low and the weakest point was at the junction of the delta wing and the forward fuselage. In general, the SR-71 was limited to 1.5 g and 45 degrees of bank while flying Mach 3 and greater; 2 g between 64,000 and 80,000 pounds of fuel; 2.5 g below 64,000 pounds of fuel; and 3.5 g at low altitude (below 50,000 feet) and less than 30,000 pounds of fuel.
It was never power limited in its normal flying envelope because the engines were more powerful than needed at any normal flight condition: the flight envelope was limited by heat, dynamic pressure, and structural strength.”
What was it like to put on the suit and wear it for long periods?
“We wore pressure suits, which were the same “space suits†used by the Space Shuttle astronauts. It weighed about 30 pounds and was 5 layers of material. We also wore a helmet which attached to a neck ring on the pressure suit. It weighed about 12 pounds and could rotate on the neck ring through a system of ball bearings. The suit could be partially inflated while flying, and that would relieve some of the weight of the helmet on my shoulder. It was air-tight when fully inflated, but normally air could circulate throughout the interior of the suit to keep the pilot and Reconnaissance Systems Officer (RSO) somewhat comfortable. Some persons had difficulty getting used to wearing it, because it could engender a feeling of claustrophobia. I never had that problem. One large disadvantage however, is that a person wearing a pressure suit is isolated from his own body, and that was my first impression of a potential difficulty: as soon as I lowered my visor, which was never raised again until the aircraft was below 10,000 feet after the mission was completed, something on my face would itch. This happened on almost every flight. The only way to cope with that is to ignore it, and that took some discipline to become accustomed, so that it wouldn’t become a major bother. Another problem was taking sustenance in-flight. That was accomplished by consuming ‘tube food’, which was fed through a hard, plastic straw inserted into a valve at the bottom of the helmet. Awkward at best!”
Dear reader,
This site is in danger due to a lack of funding, if you enjoyed this article and wish to donate you may do it here. Your donations keep this going. Thank you.
Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit or YouTube
Were Soviet defences always aware of your presence?
“We knew that Soviet monitoring ships around Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, were taking note of our departures, but we conducted our operations to minimize that possibility. Our operational missions were classified, so we did not advertise when we would takeoff or where we were going, and some of our missions were conducted “radio silent†and un-refueled so we made no outside transmissions at all; we called such flights “rocket rides.â€
“At times, flying over the Barents Sea in the vicinity of Murmansk, which was one of our primary missions, we could, by seeing through our periscope, that we were laying down a contrail, because the outside air temperature was much colder than the standard -56 degrees C. Certainly in those cases, they could see that we were there. We also knew that they were electronically monitoring us sometimes, because our defensive systems indicated so. We never over-flew the Soviet Union or Communist China, although we would fly to within 12.5 miles of their land mass. After passing our target, anyone in the vicinity would hear the rather loud and distinctive “sonic boom,†which we called the “sound of freedom,†but by then, we were well on our way out of the area.â€
What were your first impressions of the SR-71?
“When I was a senior in college and in the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas in 1964, I saw a picture of the Blackbird (YF-12) shortly after it was announced by President Johnson. Being interested in aviation, wanting to be a military pilot, and anticipating being commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Air Force, I was very impressed, and thought how wonderful it would be to fly such an aircraft.
The first time I saw the Blackbird ‘in person’ was at an air show at Carswell Air Force Base (AFB) in Ft Worth,Texas in 1966. It was parked next to the XB-70 and it was the first time that either aircraft was on public display outside of Edwards AFB. Both airplanes made a deep impression on me as both were advertised to fly in excess of Mach 3, or 2,000 mph.â€
What was the best thing about it?
“The best aspect of being an SR-71 pilot was the mission, and I believe all who supported or flew the airplane operationally would agree. I was absolutely thrilled to be part of the strategic reconnaissance effort of the United States and by extension, the Free World, to survey our potential enemies and glean information that only we could provide, owing to our reconnaissance capability (sensors), and our stealth, flexibility, speed, and altitude. We advertised, that with 24-hour notification, we could be over any spot on earth, and capable to reveal what was there. That boast was successfully tested many times. And to a pilot who actively sought excitement paired with meaningful accomplishment, the notion of flying the fastest and highest-flying aircraft in the world while contributing to national security was unbeatable.”
…and the worst?
“The worst part of flying the SR-71 was the environment in which we flew. We flew fast and high, which complicated controllability and made over-controlling very dangerous because the SR-71 was delicate and not very maneuverable as compared to other high-performance fighter aircraft. At Mach 3 and above, which were our usual cruising speeds, our acceleration limit was only 1.5 g, or 45 degrees of bank because of structural heating. We also operated in near-vacuum, where the air pressure was about 0.4 pounds-per-square-inch (psi), and if we were unprotected, our blood would boil and death would be instantaneous.
To achieve enough dynamic air pressure to sustain lift, we had to fly fast, when air friction caused the average skin temperature of the aircraft to be 600 degrees F. The afterburner section was over 1,200 degrees F. We cruised at 15 miles above the earth so any cockpit environmental problem, such as high temperature, low pressure, or oxygen depletion, could be fatal, because slowing down and descending could not be achieved quickly.â€
What was a typical mission?
“Almost all flights, training or operational, followed this general schedule. We would meet for mission planning the day before the flight to study all of the parameters of the flight, which included its route, what sensors would be carried, when and how to operate them, identify all potential alternate landing sites, check weather and, for operational missions, any political and intelligence information affecting the mission. Detailed mission planning required advance knowledge, annotating exactly every “action point.†These points include where refueling would take place, the call signs of all tankers, the altitude and length of the air refueling track(s), any in-flight timing which must be met, when/where the supersonic acceleration would start, every turn while flying supersonic, the points at which specific alternate airfields would become primary, the time and position where sensors (cameras, radar imaging, other electronic devices) would be turned on. The fuel at each such point would be estimated for in-flight correlation and cross-check.”
“On the day of the flight, two hours before take off, we would pick up any classified material we would use in-flight, including our aircraft checklist and mission checklists. We would then report to Base Operations for a weather briefing to cover our entire route, and check the latest Notice to Airmen (NOTAMs) for each potential alternate airfield. Our next stop would be the Physiological Support Division (PSD) where we would meet with our backup crew, who were also the Mobile Crew, whose duty was to preflight our cockpit and coordinate everything for us since, being in pressure suits, our ability to travel and talk to other persons was limited . We also met the SR-71 maintenance crew chief who briefed us on the status of the airplane and signed the aircraft maintenance log book. We usually were given a high-protein, low-residue meal of steak and eggs. At Beale AFB, the same person would act as chef for us so our steaks were cooked to perfection, according to our individual taste.
We would next have a physical exam which always included pulse, blood pressure, sinus, and temperature. Then we would don our pressure suits, which required two persons each to help us into the suit, and two supervisors to assure that everything was properly connected and tested real-time. That process took about 20 minutes. With portable air-conditioning units, we would make our way to the PSD van and be driven to the SR-71, usually located in its own hangar. Last-minute cockpit checks, starting engines, performing more checks with the engines running, taxiing to the active runway and performing more engine checks at 100% rpm took about 30 minutes. The mobile crew would drive down the runway to check for any foreign objects which might either be ingested into the engines, or damage the tires.
Read ‘My fight with secret MiGs’ by an F-15 Eagle pilot here
We would then be cleared for takeoff at a pre-determined time. About 15 seconds prior to that time, I would smoothly, but deliberately advance the throttles to Military power (MIL) which is 100% rpm on both engines without afterburner (reheat). Brake release was done precisely at takeoff time and the throttles were immediately advanced to the minimum afterburner position. When both burners ignited, hardly ever at the same instant, I would advance the throttles to maximum thrust, which was about 68,000 pounds of thrust at sea-level. Acceleration was quick, takeoff distance was about 4,500-5,000 feet in 25 seconds. Rotation accomplished at 180 knots with takeoff at 210 knots. I would keep the aircraft low to the runway to gain climb speed as quickly as possible; however, approaching the gear-down limiting airspeed of 300 knots, I often would either increase pitch or retard the throttles slightly to avoid overspeed. By the departure end of the runway, we would attain climb speed of 400 knots, then raise the nose to about 23 degrees of pitch to continue the climb. Rate-of-climb would sustain about 12,500 feet-per- minute until reaching our intermediate altitude of 25,000 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Brake release to 400 knots was about 34 seconds; time to reach 25,000 feet was about two minutes.”
“On most missions, we would takeoff with about 40,000 pounds of fuel, which was half of the fuel-tank capacity. This was for safety because in the event of an engine loss immediately after liftoff at 210 knots, our single-engine minimum control speed would always be met, whereas if we were full, our minimum control speed would be closer to 330 knots.
After initial level-off I would hand-fly the airplane, checking its response, and testing its stability augmentation system in all three axes: yaw, pitch, and roll. I would also check all of the instruments for this first-look while flying. The RSO would start radio contact with the tanker aircraft by inserting a common frequency into a classified UHF radio. This special radio would provide us with secure voice, plus range and azimuth to the tanker. The RSO was busy checking out his sensors and navigational system. We would rendezvous with the tanker at approximately 320 knots indicated air speed (KIAS), with the SR-71 level at 1,000 feet below the tanker. I would maintain a 100 KIAS overtake until I was 1.5 miles from the lead tanker (we usually had 2 tankers in case one could not transfer fuel). After hookup and while receiving fuel, the tanker would accelerate as its gross weight was reduced and ours increased. Usually, the tanker’s maximum airspeed was 350 KIAS, but since the KC-135Q had special dispensation, we would often accelerate to 365 KIAS by the end of air refueling.
We would almost always refuel to full tanks (80,000 pounds of fuel) so that our gross weight would more than double during air refueling. The SR-71 had a problem staying in position near the latter portion of the refueling: as our gross weight increased toward maximum, we would become power limited without afterburner assistance because by that time, we were operating “behind the power curve,†where more power is required either to slow or speed-up while maintaining level flight. I found the best technique for maintaining position was to notify the boom operator that I was going to light an afterburner (I never wanted to alarm the boom operator), then place the left throttle in the minimum afterburner position, wait 3 seconds, then smoothly retard the right throttle about 4 inches. The SR-71 would hardly move relative to the tanker.
After receiving our full on-load of fuel, we would usually start to climb and accelerate to supersonic speeds immediately. Selecting maximum thrust (throttles in full afterburner), we would achieve .9 Mach while climbing to 35,000 feet, when I would slowly lower the nose to about -10 degrees of pitch to “punch through†the sound barrier, which was a region of high drag. After achieving supersonic speed at 450 knots, I would increase pitch to hold that speed. Once supersonic, we would monitor Knots Equivalent Airspeed (KEAS) as our primary instrument to determine overall dynamic pressure acting on the airplane. KEAS is a direct measurement of the amount of wind blast (dynamic pressure) the aircraft is experiencing. This is the air pressure which the aircraft needs to maintain flight (lift) and adequate controllability. During the climb/acceleration, there are numerous systems which must be controlled as the aircraft accelerates faster toward its cruising speed, which was usually Mach 3, or approximately 2,000 mph. Other cruise speeds used were Mach 2.4, 2.8, 3.1, 3.15, and 3.2.
After attaining our cruise Mach speed, we would initiate about a 200 foot-per-minute rate-of-climb to continually achieve the best altitude for maximum range through a cruise-climb schedule, as our fuel burned off and our gross weight decreased. We would often cross-check our gross weight, outside air temperature, Mach speed, center-of-gravity, and load factor (bank angle) with our checklist chart to verify and maintain the proper altitude for best fuel economy. Flying at best range speed (Mach 3.2) and maintaining optimum altitude continually throughout the flight, we could easily fly more than 2,000 miles and still have fuel to descend, fly subsonic for 25 minutes and land safely.
For all missions, we had to maintain our flight track as planned, and this was particularly important for operational missions where we sometimes had to fly within one-half mile of our planned track to satisfy our mission objectives. These restraints might include skirting the international border of a target country, or being in the correct position to obtain certain photographic targets.
Flying supersonic over the United States, we were constrained by where our “sonic boom†would touch the ground and be heard, and to minimize citizen complaints, we would fly over relatively unpopulated areas in the western United States, or over the Pacific Ocean.
Every training sortie was flown to operational-mission specifications. The pilot was busy monitoring all of the myriad instruments in the cockpit relating to the aircraft performance, course maintenance, and temperatures in the mission bays where the reconnaissance equipment was carried. Aircraft pitch-control was sensitive and necessary to maintain, because at Mach 3, one degree of pitch change would yield 3,000 feet-per-minute rate-of-climb or descent.
We had checklists to accomplish at various points along the track and would conduct crew coordination for any unusual event, such as an aircraft malfunction or emergency situation. In the “take area†or overflying “denied territory,†our attention (especially the RSO’s attention) would include sensor operation, HF radio transmissions from interested personnel who were monitoring our progress, and monitoring the defensive equipment, which included surface-to-air missile readiness, tracking ability, and electronic jamming, if a missile launch was detected. The jamming equipment is still classified information, but it was so powerful that we were forbidden to operate it over the United States or friendly countries.
When the airborne mission was complete and we were flying back to our base, we would start the supersonic descent about 200 miles from destination. The initial descent procedure was to bring both throttles to MIL power and wait for the Mach number to start deceasing. Since Mach 3+ is a relatively low drag region for the SR-71, it would take several seconds for the Mach number to indicate a decrease. As the speed slows, we would maintain a dynamic pressure equivalent of 350 KEAS and hold that parameter until subsonic. Our initial pitch attitude starting the descent was about 11 degrees nose-up, but by the time we were approaching Mach 1.0 in the descent, our pitch attitude would be -15 degrees nose-down. This dramatic change in pitch described our “reentry.†Once subsonic, the SR-71 flew like most other high-performance aircraft with a heavy flight-control feel.
Landing the SR-71 was somewhat unique, at least in my experience flying other high-performance jet aircraft. It had no speed brakes, no flaps, no leading-edge high-lift devices, no boundary-layer control, or any other auxiliary systems to augment the “clean†aircraft. However, since it had a very large delta wing and a forward extension of the wing called the “chine,†which acted as an additional lift producer, the SR-71 had great “ground effect†which markedly decreased drag when the aircraft was approximately 50 feet above the ground. For this reason, the pilot would typically retard the throttles to idle when the aircraft was nominally one-quarter of a mile from the overrun of the runway, no wind. The landing was accomplished in separate steps: when the main landing gear touched the runway, I would pull the drag chute handle while the nose is still about 10 degrees in the air. There would be no adverse pitch change (up or down) due to chute deployment, because the location of the drag chute attachment buckle was directly over the center-of-gravity. The deceleration was approximately one-quarter g, and it felt good when the object was to stop the airplane. Then gently lower the nose wheel to the runway and engage nose-wheel steering, then check brakes. Normally the drag chute would be jettisoned on the runway, but this had to be accomplished no slower than 55 knots because otherwise, the buckle would drag over the fuselage, causing damage. Actual stopping depended on the braking system. After landing, the brakes were almost always fairly hot, requiring that gasoline-powered fans be placed around the tire-brake assembly for about 20 minutes.
On most operational missions, we would taxi into the hangar, and while going through the post-flight checks, the mission materials were downloaded by specialists using carts and high-speed screwdrivers. They reminded me of a motorsport ‘pit-stop’ crew. The film and other recorded items were processed as quickly as possible.”
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes will feature the finest cuts from Hush-Kit along with exclusive new articles, explosive photography and gorgeous bespoke illustrations. Order The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes here
How good were its reconnaissance capabilities?
I was not part of that analysis; however, we were allowed to see the results of our missions: the resolution of the photographic cameras and the radar imagery. I am not a photo interpreter, but I knew what I was seeing with remarkable clarity, especially given the technical difficulties of producing useful imagery while flying 15 miles altitude at 2,000 mph and while maneuvering. They were crystal-clear.
Usually radar imagery is rather like reading code: to a trained interpreter, certain squiggles and shadows portray specific events. With the new-at-the-time Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System (ASARS), which was developed for the SR-71, even I could interpret what was there.
Enjoyed this Blackbird interview? Preorder your copy of The Hush-Kit book of Warplanes today here.
The first Blackbird variant, the A-12, flew reconnaissance missions for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 1967 to 1968. The SR-71 flew reconnaissance for the US Air Force from 1968 to 1990, operating for the Strategic Air Command (SAC), 9th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing (9SRW), and the 1st Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron (1SRS). It was the most expensive squadron to operate per number of air crews; there were only 10 operational crews assigned to the SR-71 at any one time. It required massive amounts of support, both personnel and materiel. I conclude that yes, the reconnaissance capabilities were superb and well worth the expense. After the SR-71 was retired, several leaders, including General Norman Schwarzkopf during the first Gulf War, asked that the program be restarted to fill a gap in reconnaissance capability. The US Navy in particular did not want the SR-71 to cease operations because of its importance, given the Murmansk missions.”
Describe the Blackbird in one word?
“Magnificent!”
Did you use any nicknames for it? “The name ‘Habu’ was also used for the SR-71 aircraft, the crews who flew her, the maintenance personnel who kept her flying, and any number of other people who worked with or for the SR-71 program. This name came into fashion early in the Blackbird’s history and was started by the citizens of Okinawa who thought the SR-71 resembled a black, venomous snake nicknamed “Habu,†which is native to Okinawa. The crews thought it appropriate, so the name stuck.
A tradition started early in the SR-71 program, that the Habu patch was worn only by SR-71 aircrew members after they had completed their first operational mission.
The other most common nickname is Blackbird. Obvious reason.”
How did you feel after your final SR-71 flight?
“I felt absolutely terrible that I was leaving the SR-71 and would never fly it again. I had the best job in the Air Force and did not have to leave when I did (in November 1987), but I was 45 years old, a graduate of the US Air Force Test Pilot School, and wanted to pursue a civilian career as a test pilot. I thought that I would have to retire from the Air Force before I would be un-marketable because of age, as most aerospace companies want to hire experienced, but somewhat young test pilots. I accepted a job with the Northrop Corporation in the B-2 program, which was anticipating the B-2 first flight within the year. It was indeed a tough choice!”
What should I have asked you?
“Perhaps you should ask about the culture of the SR-71 cadre of highly motivated, professional people who all came together to make that magnificent aircraft the super-star that it was. The talent and dedication that the maintenance crews exhibited in their everyday efforts, as they often worked in 12, 16, and on deployments, 24-hour shifts. The men and women who were directly responsible for maintaining, supplying, planning, and innovating various aspects of the SR-71 program were truly outstanding. We as pilots and RSOs knew that since we flew in the most dangerous and hostile environment of any aircraft, and we did it almost daily, our lives quite literally were saved and preserved by their professional pride, dedication, talent, and very hard work. They all knew they were producing a most complicated aircraft ready to meet the challenges of sustained ultra-hot, supersonic flight in an atmosphere almost a vacuum, for the security of the United States, and also that of the greater “Free World. Magnificent indeed!
And kudos also for the faithful tanker crews who were always there to refuel us when sometimes, they were our only salvation in a very low, critical fuel state. It is instructive and significant that there was never an operational mission canceled for lack of tanker support.
And no Blackbird ever ran out of fuel!â€
Enjoyed this Blackbird interview? Preorder your copy of The Hush-Kit book of Warplanes today here.
Weighing the same as a M60 main battle tank and capable of flying 600mph faster than an F-16, the Russian MiG-31 is an absolute beast of an interceptor. Cloaked in secrecy, few outsiders have flown in the cockpit of this monstrous defender. Air Marshal Anil Chopra PVSM AVSM VM VSM (Retd) was given privileged access to the world’s fastest armed aircraft, here he describes this incredible experience to Hush-Kit.
“The date was 28 May. Average daytime temperatures in May in Nizhnie Novgorad are around 22℃. Airfield elevation was 256 ft. The take-off and landing were done by the front pilot. The rear cockpit is used mostly as Weapon System Officer (WSO) station, though it has a control column to fly in case of an emergency requirement. There was nothing peculiar about the take-off. The frontal view through the periscope was good. I had used the periscope earlier on MiG-21UB (trainer) and on the MiG-23UB. So, I was quite comfortable. However the side view was minimal as the large front canopy left little place for Perspex for the second cockpit. I tried to visualise if the second pilot could easily land from the rear seat. Compared to a Su-30MKI it is surely more uncomfortable.”
Why did you try the MiG-31?
“I was the team leader of the Indian Air Force (IAF) MiG-21 Upgrade ‘Bison’ project in Russia from mid-1996 to the end of 2000. The design and development work was carried out at the Mikoyan Design Bureau in Moscow’s (OKB-155, Experimental Design Bureau 155). Our location was at RAC ‘MiG’, 6, Leningradskoye Shosse, Moscow. In 1995, Mikoyan OKB had merged with two production facilities to form the Moscow Aviation Production Association MiG (MAPO-MiG). Rostislav A. Belyakov, was still the father figure. I had an opportunity to meet him.”
“Two MiG-21Bis Aircraft had been sent from India for the design and development project. These aircraft were in positioned at the Sokol plant in Nizhnie Novgorod, where they were to be stripped and rebuilt after receiving the final design drawings from the Moscow Design Bureau. Sokol was also where the MiG-31 was being built. Our team used to visit the Sokol plant regularly from 1997, nearly once a month, for progressing the work on our two aircraft. Two of our officers were later permanently at Sokol for the flight testing of the Bison. The Director General of the plant, V Pankov mentioned to me about the MiG-31 and said that the Russians had been proposing the MiG 31 for sale to India. He said that they had given details to both the Government of India and to the Indian Air Force, but had not received any response or interest. I asked them to show us the aircraft, and if they had no problem, then I could get a chance to fly it. In Russian armament industry the general dynamics were still of the Soviet era. It took him some time to get approvals for me to fly in the rear seat of the MiG-31. They also told me that I was to be the first pilot from a foreign country to fly a MiG-31. They gave me a certificate to that effect, which is currently lying misplaced somewhere in my boxes. It was a demonstration flight and not a test flight. The basic aim was to show case the long range radar and to demonstrate high speed and acceleration. The date fixed was 28th May 1999. That was also the day the deputy head of India’s Mission in Moscow was on her first official visit to the Sokol plant. Ms Nirupama Rao was later India’s foreign secretary and India’s Ambassador to USA.”
Where did you fly it?
“The flight was made in the Sokol Aircraft Plant in Nizhniy Novgorod, which was formerly called Gorky. The plant was a manufacturer of MiG fighters. It was reportedly founded in 1932 and was once known as ‘Aviation Plant 21’, named after Sergo Ordzhonikidze. During 45 years of serial production the plant had manufactured about 13,500 combat aircraft. We were told that at its peak, they use to make close to 200 MiG-21s a year. But after the collapse of Soviet Union, and in the absence of significant orders from the Russian Air Force Voyenno-Vozdushnye Sily (VVS), the production had gone down. The Indian MiG-21 upgrade was a significant order. Also, the plant used to make around 10-12 MiG 29 two-seaters in a year. There were nearly 15,000 employees. Their salaries were very low in the mid 1990s. Most of the sales and money earned from armaments was controlled directly from Moscow. All foreign contracts were through Rosvooruzhenie (later Rosoboronexport), the sole state intermediary agency for Russia’s exports/imports of defence-related and dual use products, technologies and services. We were told that the entire plant, including salaries could be run through the sale of just two MiG-29s. It was clear that the aircraft sale price was very high and basic production costs and salaries were very low. The high mark-ups of defence equipment prices are true in all countries. For some exported components, the price mark-up could be a 100 times. Many smaller plants that were the real original equipment manufacturers (OEM) of the components or sub-systems, wanted to sell spares directly to India, but the Russian government control was never released and with the result that the bulk of the profits went to Moscow.”
Interview with Indian Air Force MiG-29 pilot here
Russian people take a little time to make friends, but once they become one, they are great friends. There were many very senior technicians in the plant who had been to India in 1960s to help set up the MiG plant at Nasik. They had fond memories and spoke about the great time they had in India, and how they loved Indians. They also remembered the great Indian Old Monk Rum. We arranged to get some from India for them.
The production facility was next to the airfield (also known as Sormovo airfield), which was also the civil airport. For a long time, the plant was considered the most important industrial enterprise and main employer of the region. In those hard days, the plant was making many aluminium and other alloy based products, like river boats, frames for doors and windows, and even metro coach shells. We have heard that in later years they even encouraged flight tourism for MiG-29 to generate additional income.”
General Capability Briefing by the Russian Designers
“The MiG-31BM that I was to fly was reportedly a multirole version with partially upgraded avionics, new multimode radar, HOTAS controls, LCD colour multi-function displays (MFDs) in front cockpit, and ability to carry the R-77 missile and other Russian air-to-ground missiles (AGMs) such as the Kh-31 anti-radiation missile (ARM). It also reportedly had a new and more powerful computer, and digital data links. The aircraft was called Prospective Air Complex for Long-Range Interception. The Zaslon phased-array PESA radar would allow firing long-range air-to-air missiles. Its maximum range against fighter-sized targets was claimed as 200 km. The radar could track up to 10 targets and simultaneously attack four of them with its Vympel R-33 missiles, they said. But eventually the radar would track 24 airborne targets at one time, and attack six simultaneously, they said. Actual development status of radar at that time was not known to us. An upgraded, larger Zaslon-M radar, would later have detection range of around 400 kilometres for AWACS class targets.
There was an infrared search and track (IRST) system in a retractable under nose fairing. Its tracking range was 56 kilometres. The eventual variants were to have various air-to-ground missiles integrated, that included six anti-radiation missiles, or anti-shipping missiles or six precision TV/Laser bombs like KAB-1500. Maximum external load mass was 9,000 kilograms. The MiG-31’s main armament was four R-33 air-to-air missiles. Fuselage could reportedly carry four R-33 or six R-37 missiles. Four underwing pylons could carry combinations of drop tanks and weapons. MiG-31BM could also carry the Kh-47M2 nuclear-capable air-launched ballistic missile with a claimed range of more than 2,000 km, and a Mach 10 speed.
The MiG-31 was equipped with digital secure data-links. Details were not told, but they mentioned that the aircraft radar picture could be transferred to Indian Su-30s and MiG-29s. Also the ground radar picture could be received by the MiG-31 and transferred electronically to other aircraft. Thus allowing radar-silent attacks. There was a choice to slew missiles and fire based on inputs from other aircraft through the data-link. The MiG-31 had radar ECMs. Details were not discussed. The onboard navigation and attack system had two inertial systems supported by digital computer.
A detailed briefing on the aircraft was carried out first by Russian designers, and then was the pre-flight briefing by the pilot. Designers told us that though evolved from the MiG-25, there were significant changes. The aircraft fuselage was longer to accommodate the radar operator’s cockpit and there were some other new design features. The wings and airframe of the MiG-31 were stronger than those of the MiG-25. The advanced radar, with look-up and look-down/shoot-down capability and multi target tracking and engagement was a significant improvement. The aircraft had advanced sensors and weapons. Radar they said was much better and worked well even during active radar jamming. They highlighted cooperative work, between a formation of four MiG-31 interceptors, using data-links, which could dominate a large front and airspace across a total length of up to 900 kilometres. The radar had maximum detection range of 200 kilometres. They claimed that the aircraft radar and weapons combination could intercept cruise missiles flying at low altitude, and also the launch aircraft. Similarly it could take on UAVs and helicopters. The automatic tracking range of the radar was 120 kilometres. The aircraft could act as air defence escorts to a long range strategic bombers. The MiG-31 was not designed for close combat or high-g turning.
They also mentioned that the Russian Air Force was already flying the MiG-31, and a few hundreds had been produced by the Sokol plant. The Kazakhstan Air Force had also retained some numbers after Soviet dissolution. They took pride in mentioning that the MiG-31 was among the fastest combat jets in the world. The aircraft had years of service ahead. Cash-strapped Russia was very keen for the IAF to buy the MiG 31.
What were your first impressions?
The blue and white painted huge aircraft with tail number 903 looked most impressive and overbearing as one walked towards it. To start with, the MiG-31 is big. You might say huge. This was the then under development MiG-31BM (air defence) variant. I had read up about the MiG-31. I had earlier seen the MiG-25 in India, though I had not flown it. This one was freshly painted aircraft and much better looking. This was the aircraft which was to be used for display during air shows. As one walks around the aircraft for external checks, one gets to see the huge nose cone that housed the RP-31 N007 ‘backstop’ (Russian: Zaslon) radar. Air intakes were side-mounted ramps. Looking into the huge intake was like looking into a tunnel, and one could see the first stage of the huge engine. With a high shoulder-mounted wing, one could comfortably walk under the aircraft. The undercarriage was peculiar. There were two main wheels in each side and these were in Tandem but not aligned with each other. We were told that the undercarriage had been strengthened to take greater weight, also the fuselage was clearly longer. One recalled that the MiG-25 had only one main wheel each side. Russians also demonstrated the peculiar way the wheels retracted into the fuselage. The wheel trolley did a full forward rotation before entering the wheel bay. The tail side was somewhat similar to MiG-25, though longer a little but difficult to make out.
On entering the cockpit, I was briefed by the pilot, Alexander Georgiyevich Konovalov. We were not allowed photography in the cockpit. The front cockpit was still like the other Russian cockpits with green colour and standard old instrumentation. There were two MFDs which had been introduced in the front cockpit. It looked like a cut and fit task as is the case in developmental aircraft cockpits. The rear cockpit had the old round CRT radar scope. The front cockpit had a standard Russian control column with autopilot and weapon controls. The rear seat had a control stick with no control buttons on the stick-head. This rear-stick could also be removed and stowed away for better radar work. Once the canopy was closed the outside view reduced considerable in the rear cockpit. One got a feeling as if one was seated in a submarine. There was a big periscope to see outside. The cockpit seemed more optimised for WSO role and less for flying.”
How does it compare with the MiG-25?
Both the MiG-25 and MiG-31 were designed as interceptors. The MiG-31 was greatly upgraded to house an advanced radar, digital data links and the more powerful engines. The aircraft had to be made longer. The gross weight of MiG-31 had gone up to 41,000 kg (90,390 lb) vis-Ã -vis the 36,720 kg (80,954 lb) of the MiG-25. The MiG-31 had two Soloviev D-30F6 engines with 93 kN (21,000 lbf) dry thrust each dry, and 152 kN (34,000 lbf) with afterburner, compared to two Tumansky R-15B-300 engines, with 73.5 kN (16,500 lbf) dry thrust, and 100.1 kN (22,500 lbf) with afterburner for MiG-25.
The MiG-31 was clearly an upgraded design, though it would be wrong to call it a totally new design. Strengthened wings allowed a small increase in max G from 4.5 to 5G, and better acceleration and low-level flight. The MiG-25 radar, was primarily optimised for high-flying targets, but the Zaslon radar of the MiG-31 could detect and track low flying aircraft (look-down/shoot-down capability). The same was demonstrated in flight by locking on to a low-flying MiG-21 that had taken off from same airbase. The rear cockpit in the MiG 31 has been optimised for the Weapon System Operator. The WSO was entirely dedicated to radar operations and weapons deployment. The MiG-31 radar was passive electronic scanned array (PESA) whereas the MiG-25 had older variants of vacuum tube or semiconductor radars. While the MiG-25 (generally) carried only air-to-air missiles, the MiG-31 also carried air-to-surface missiles that included up to four Kh-58UShKE anti-radiation missiles or one Kh-47M2 Kinzhal hypersonic air-launched ballistic missile.
Interview with Indian Air Force Su-30 pilot here
How well did it accelerate?
“The aircraft accelerated quickly, as if someone was pushing from behind with enormous brute force. Having flown the MiG-23MF whose Tumansky R-29 (R-29A) engine (123 kN (27,600 lbf) thrust) give it excellent acceleration, the MiG-31 was similar. During our sortie we climbed up to 15 kilometres, and accelerated to max M 2.7. The transition to supersonic and subsequent cruise was very smooth. We also flew at low-level to see the acceleration, but did not hit max speed or go supersonic, though the aircraft had the ability. The aircraft pushes ahead like a rocket.”
What was take-off and landing like?
Describe your flight
“The sortie was designed to demonstrate the radar interception performance, aircraft acceleration and general handling. The rear cockpit has only two small vision ports on the sides of the canopy. Fighter pilots are more used to having a great external view. I felt a little claustrophobic. But reconciled to it. There were side screens to make the cockpit darker for better viewing of the radar scope. After take-off the pilot kept the afterburner on for a little while to demonstrate a high rate of climb. We climbed initially to 6 km. Konovalov spoke decent English. He allowed me to handle the controls. The aircraft handling was somewhat sluggish, more like a bomber than a fighter. The rear control stick felt more like holding a rod rather than a control column.
Here we did some radar work. He kept instructing me on how to put on the radar and allow it to warm up and settle down. He also told me how to change range scale. The picture was more like the old time CRT displays of the raw blip type. He showed me an airliner at around 185 km. Since the airliner was not under our ATC control, we did further radar work with a MiG-21 that had taken off from the home base. We locked on to the MiG-21 around 85 km. Later the MiG-21 was asked to descend to a lower height of about 1 km. Then we saw the look-down mode. I do not recall at what range we locked on. I think it was certainly around 40 km. We then climbed to 15 km, where he accelerated the aircraft to M2.7. Acceleration was smooth and fairly quick. He allowed me to be on the controls during acceleration. There was no buffet on the aircraft or on control column. Subsequent deceleration was also fast. For quicker deceleration we initiated a turn (3G).
Once subsonic, I carried out a few turns pulling around 4G. Turns appeared sluggish. In any case the aircraft was cleared only for max 5G. Yes the aircraft was easy to handle, but appeared more like a weapon launch platform up in the sky than a fighter. We then descended to low-level. The MiG-25 was known to be difficult to fly at low-levels. The Russians had made some aerodynamic airframe modifications on the MiG-31 for better low altitude handling. We did an acceleration to around 1100 km/h. The acceleration was smooth. I did not notice any buffet or other aerodynamic effects.”
What was best about it?
“The best part of the aircraft were the acceleration and the long-range radar. I had been told that aircraft has some very long-range missiles. Also the aircraft had been used to launch satellites. The aircraft had significant weapon carrying capability. However, many modern smaller fighters can carry similar tonnage.”
What was worst about it?
“I think it is not appropriate to call anything ‘worst’. I would hardly call it a fighter aircraft. It was basically a weapons platform in the air. More like an atmospheric satellite, or an airborne cruise ship. I also thought that the aircraft still required more refinements in its avionics, displays and cockpit instrumentation. The WSO station in an Su-30 MKI or Phantom F-4 had an excellent external view, this did not. Essentially designed as an interceptor, one could not call it a fighter in conventional sense. I understand that subsequently, the rear cockpit also got an MFD, otherwise working on the old CRT type round scope was not good for situational awareness and information display. For a Mirage 2000 pilot like me, it was a little confusing initially.”
How comfortable is the cockpit?
“I sat in the front cockpit for a few minutes. It was like any Russian cockpit with its green panels and black instrument dials. Having flown the MiG-21, MiG-23BN and MF, and few sorties on the MiG-29 earlier, the cockpit looked very familiar. Some of the instruments were same, others had to change to cover a different range of flight parameters. Two MFDs had been brought in. One could see the cut and paste done to the old cockpit to introduce them. One could make out that more changes were still in the offing. The cockpit was spacious like all Russian aircraft, catering for the well-built and well-clad Ruskies. The ejection seat and strapping was also familiar. One thing I always liked about the Russian cockpits was that there was no need for pilot to wear leg restraining straps, as they were part of the cockpit and seat arrangement. The layout of the throttle, stick and positioning of switches appeared good as per flight usage requirements. This had obviously evolved over the years in all counties. Having interacted very closely with Russian designers, especially the cockpit specialists, in our upgrade project, one knew that they were very knowledgeable and real masters at their job. The rear cockpit was somewhat suffocating and tight. Holding the control column was like holding a round-headed walking stick. The stick could be removed from the base and stowed away. Instrumentation in the rear was awaiting an upgrade. Later pictures of the rear cockpit (on the internet) indicate that the MFDs had been introduced.”
How loud is it for the crew?
“The cockpit was well sealed. After all, the aircraft was meant to fly at very high altitude and at very high speeds. I flew with the normal Russian inner and outer helmet. Same as used on MiG-21. The noise level was reasonably low. Even at high supersonic speed it was quite comfortable and one could converse with other pilot comfortably.”
Why the IAF did not buy the MiG 31?
“Russians had made many attempts to try convince the Indian Government and IAF to go for this “multirole aircraftâ€. Their main USP was long-range missiles (carrier killer and anti-satellite) and a multi-role platform. India had good experience of the MiG-25, albeit mostly in the reconnaissance role. The IAF well understood the complexities of maintaining an aircraft of this type. The MiG-25 had been bought for high altitude reconnaissance. By now, India had its own satellite based reconnaissance capability. Also more and more UAVs were being used for ISR work. Notwithstanding the upgrade, the MiG-31 remained an old platform inherently designed for high-altitude, high-speed interception. It could not be compared to a modern multi-role aircraft. The IAF had already made up its mind with the Su-30MKI for which the contract was actually signed while we were in Russia. We were also interacting closely with the Indian Su-30MKI upgrade team in Moscow. India was also not keen to put the IAF more into the Russian basket. India had had a great experience with Mirage 2000, and was also looking at adding more upgraded variants of the Mirage 2000. Also India had done its threat perception study. It had seen how its own neighbourhood was evolving. India had no such threat from Pakistan. Yes, India needed long-range missile and interceptors for China. But the same could be achieved by putting a long-range missile on any other aircraft. Having a large radar with long-range was the main advantage with MiG-31 which was not possible on smaller aircraft. But technologies were evolving and later better radar performance was possible from smaller radars. In any case the Su-30MKI had a large area of real-estate in its nose. Interestingly the MiG-31A has been used to launch commercial satellites and MiG-31S have been used to train astronauts, to conduct research in the upper atmosphere and for space tourism by launching the aerospace rally system rocket-powered suborbital glider.
Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit
“Not many countries had shown interest in the MiG-31. India also not very sure about the MiG-31’s projected radar capability. Even the Chinese had chosen many Su-30 variants instead of the MiG-31 despite greater potential potency. Unlike the MiG-31, the Su-30 variants manoeuvre very well. The Sukhoi design bureau was also much more aggressive in its marketing. Even a MiG-35 from the Mikoyan stable was considered a better bet, but then India already had plans to upgrade the MiG-29. There was no need immediately for IAF at that time to have an AWACS killer missile. The MiG-31’s capability to launch anti-satellite (ASAT) was not of immediate interest to India. India was already building its own surface based ASAT capability. The IAF’s finite budget allocations could not afford too many platforms. Also buying just 10-12 MiG-31s would have added more logistics complexities to the IAF which already had a plethora of types. As per my knowledge, IAF never did a formal evaluation of the aircraft. The MiG-35 which Russians claim can shoot down almost all kind of reconnaissance drones and other platforms like AEW&Cs and the U-2 spyplane, is one of the contenders of the 114 new fighters India is going to evaluate in the near future.”
What are your feelings on Western versus Russian aircraft – do you have a personal preference and if so, why?
“I have flown a fair number of both Western and Russian aircraft. I have nearly 1,000 hours on MiG-21 variants (MiG-21FL, MiG-21M and MF and MiG-2Bis). I was an instructor on the MiG-21. The MiG was my initial year’s aircraft. I was a pioneer of the Mirage 2000 fleet and commanded a Mirage 2000 squadron, and have around 1200 hours on type. I also happened to have ejected from a Mirage 2000 at the ripe age of 59 years – and two months into the rank of Air Marshal, a sort of record of its own kind. I have also flown the MiG-29, Su-30 MKI, Jaguar and the Hunter, among others.”
I had earlier done a flight on the Su-27 on 6 December 1991 (my birthday) in Delhi with the famous Russian pilot Viktor Pugachev (of the Cobra manoeuvre fame). I had also flown the Su-30K at Zhukovsky flight test airfield in Moscow with Test Pilot Slava on 13 May 1997. Also flown the under development MiG AT at the same airbase, and the Yak-131D at Sokol. So I have no specific loyalties and can make an independent comment. I had had an occasion to be present at Zhukovsky airfield when the Mikoyan Project 1.44/1.42 aircraft (NATO name: Flatpack) technology demonstrator developed by the Mikoyan design bureau was revealed to the world. Later it had done its maiden flight in February 2000.
Both, the Russian and Western aircraft had their own strengths, weaknesses and idiosyncrasies. Russian aircraft were simpler in design, the cockpits were big, more mechanical than complex electronics, and had high standardisation and commonalty. Switching from one Russian aircraft to other was so much easier. I like the levelling mode of Russian autopilot that brought you to level flight by pressing this button on the control column. This was handy if one got disoriented. I know of someone owes his life to this device. I also liked the simplicity of Russian ejection seats. And they were as foolproof as any Western ones. Russian aircraft mostly had brute power, they were fuel-guzzlers, and some had high specific fuel consumption (SFC), and many passed out smoke through their exhaust. Russian aircraft were cheaper in their base price, but in the long run, their life cycle costs were higher. For example a MiG-29 would overtake a Mirage 2000 in around five years in life cycle costs.
The Western avionics, including electronic warfare systems were more sophisticated. Russians used brute power there too. Russian aircraft required greater stick displacement for any aircraft response, it was much lesser in Western aircraft. This was as per their concept. This had its own dynamics when one changed fleet from Russian to Western aircraft or vice-versa. Pilots had to be cautioned for this. Russian cockpit switches were much larger and easy to operate in the cockpit, the Western were smaller and one had to get used to them while operating with gloves on. The Russian and Western artificial horizon instrument display was quite different. In Russian aircraft the artificial horizon bar turned with the aircraft, thus remained parallel to the aircraft and not to the actual horizon. The aircraft symbol/bar moved twice the degrees to indicate the bank. This worked well when one was head-down. Most pilots really liked this instrument (AGD). In the Head Up Displays of initial Russian aircraft they replicated the same display. This was most confusing because the displayed horizon was different than the real one. We discussed this with the Russian test pilots who had flown some Western aircraft. They also tended to agree with us on this. It took us a great effort and pressure to convince the Russian designers to redo the software to make the MiG-21Bison HUD similar to the Western symbols and logic. Russian designers were not very happy about this. Russian inner helmets were standardised between pilots, tank crew, and even ship or submarine crew. Russian radio navigation system (RSBN) was quite different to the Western TACAN. I found the Russian system very complex and many ways less accurate. The fighter aircraft Air Speed Indicator (ASI) started from 200 km/h, unlike the Western aircraft.
Soviets/Russians remained more than a match for the Western world. They often achieved results with simpler and cheaper means. After all, they were the first to put a man in space and even today are moving ahead with hypersonic weapons. They are being accused by Americans of a cyber-war, so they are still generally demonstrating asymmetrical innovation. There were many more peculiarities of aircraft of both philosophies. Since I have been out of fighter cockpits for some years, I may not remember everything off the top of my head.”
How effective an interceptor do you think it is? How good are the sensors and weapon systems?
“For a successful interceptor, the key attributes are a good radar with long-range detection and tracking, good situational awareness with wider coverage, ability to handle multiple targets, and ECCM features. The MiG-31 radar was indeed powerful and had a good range. I was demonstrated a target at around 185 km range. Also I did see the look-down capability. Beyond that it was difficult for me to comment. In any case the radar and displays would have improved in manifold ways since then. Russian radar and missile combinations have generally done well in some wars including Vietnam and in the Iraq/Iran wars. Though there were other factors for success. Yes, the Americans were able to deceive or jam them with powerful electronic platforms, when they were introduced. Russians believed in brute power in the radar output. Undoubtedly Western avionics are generally better than the Russian ones. Russian missiles are indeed world-class.”
Tell me something I don’t know about the MiG-31
“Well, Hush-Kit is an alternative aviation magazine of international repute. There is little that you all do not know and I would know. I am a “ageing foggy aviatorâ€. If I was to summarise my flight, I felt I was sitting atop a missile-head in a high-speed interception. The aircraft looked good and was made of razor sharp nickel steel and other metal edges. I liked the white and blue colour scheme. As someone once wrote, I don’t recall who, that comparing the MiG-31 with Rafale is like comparing Bruce Lee with a Para Special Forces commando. Sure Bruce Lee was much faster with his arms & legs but he couldn’t operate 14 different kinds of guns, run 40 km with a 25 kg backpack, navigate through jungles, perform special recon behind enemy lines, kill anyone just with a kitchen knife & rescue hostages. The MiG-31’s cardinal flaw was lack of versatility, and it is too big and clumsy for use in dogfights. That is how the Sukhoi family of Su-27 variants over took from the Mikoyan designs. The MiG-31 is a formidable machine which had its time.”
Describe the aircraft in three words
“High speed brute.”
How many other Indians have flown the aircraft?
“I am not sure if anyone else has ever flown it. I was told that I was the first foreign pilot. As far as I know, no formal flight evaluation was ever done by IAF. Maybe some team went to have a look at the aircraft and had some formal discussions. But I may be wrong on this score. But India was never interested.”
| Neal Wharton was the first pilot to eject from a Harrier, a Red Arrow and the only RAF pilot credited for providing jet noise on a Pink Floyd album. Hush-Kit met him to find out more. |
What were your first impressions of the Harrier? “Amazing, amazing and amazing.”
What was your most memorable Harrier mission…what happened? “An 8hr 25min non-stop flight from RAF Wittering (Cambridgeshire) to Downsview Airport (Toronto) in 1972, for the Canadian International Air Tattoo. Some RAF high-ranker got a bit drunk at a Canadian embassy cocktail party and boasted that he would arrange for two Harriers to take part in this event. It resulted in highly complex planning involving two Harriers supported by three Victor tankers from RAF Marham in Norfolk and two from Gander in Canada to see us into the final stage of the flight. At the time, I was display pilot on No 1 (F) Squadron and was given pretty much carte blanche to present a two-ship display off Lake Shore Boulevard in Toronto. I actually got clearance to do a wheels-up hovering manoeuvre during the display over water (Lake Ontario). This was not generally permitted over land (because a loss of power might still lead to a survivable crash landing whereas over water it would be a straightforward ejection option) but it looked great, particularly when followed by an impressive climbing acceleration with the other Harrier coming in from the opposite direction very low and very fast. The display went down very well and was witnessed by a crowd of over 300,000.
Describe the Harrier in three words: “Outstanding British development.”
What were the best and worst things about the Harrier? “Best thing: Versatility and a joy to fly. Worst thing: A tendency to roll uncontrollably and crash if travelling near the ground at low speed with excessive side-slip. Something to do with intake momentum drag!”
What do you remember of your ejection and the flight which led to it? “I remember my ejection experience as clearly now as when it happened just over 50 years ago (October 1970). This was in the early days of the Harrier and we were operating out of RAF Ouston, a disused World War II airfield near Newcastle, practicing for off-base deployments. I took off, leading a pair of aircraft to carry out a live weapons sortie at Tain Range on the Dornoch Firth in Scotland. We were armed with 28lb practice bombs and 30-mm cannon. The sortie was going normally and after completing our mission we left the range to return to Ouston. I radioed the tower as we approached and they cleared us to make an approach for a conventional landing on the runway. As I was leading, I carried out a circuit at around 1000 ft with my wing man a short distance behind me (he had a good view of the whole thing). I turned onto finals and commenced my approach. At this stage my speed would have been around 170 knots and I would have lowered the landing gear, deployed some flap and rotated the nozzles to reduce speed. As I descended through about 700 ft the engine, without warning, suddenly shut down (or ‘flamed out’ as we would have called it). My initial instinct was to check my fuel state (it wouldn’t have helped but that might have been one explanation for the sudden loss of power) at the same time I operated the relight button on the throttle. The aircraft was now descending more rapidly and I made a quick radio call:
‘Mayday, Mayday, I’ve flamed out, I may have to eject’.
I was still desperately trying to relight the engine to no avail and I was now descending very fast (the Harrier has the gliding performance of a brick, as we used to say) and I can remember very clearly that the trees I was going towards were rapidly getting bigger; I was certain I’d left it too late but I grabbed the ejection seat handle and pulled … “
The Harrier has a rocket assisted ejection seat which when activated fires the seat (plus pilot) out of the aircraft with an explosive charge and a split second later the rocket ignites, firing the seat up to a height of 400 feet in less than half a second. Just before the seat leaves the aircraft, a small strip of plastic explosive shatters the cockpit perspex canopy rather than the seat breaking through a solid canopy, which used to happen. I was fortunate in that the aircraft I was flying was almost brand new and was one of only two on the Squadron which had this device.”
Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.
“. . . . my immediate memory on pulling the handle was a huge kick in the backside as the seat was banged out of the aircraft. At the same time I was aware of going up through something like confetti, but which was, in fact, hundreds of pieces of perspex as the canopy exploded. I was now aware of tumbling through the air until suddenly it stopped, as the drogue chute deployed to stabilise the seat before pulling out the main parachute. At this stage I remember looking upwards (which was in fact downwards as I was now inverted) and saw a huge swathe of orange fire as the Harrier struck the ground. (I had been in that aeroplane approximately one second earlier!) I didn’t bother to look up and check whether the parachute had deployed properly (as most people tend to do) because I suddenly realised that I was going to survive, which is a feeling quite difficult to describe. I didn’t have long in the chute but I managed to unclip and lower my personal survival pack (PSP) which contains, among other things, your dinghy – useful if ejecting over water. I hit the ground hard, going backwards and with a wind gusting to 30knots… the sort of conditions which might well have caused a broken leg but not if you were as relaxed as me – I was alive!
I lay on the ground, cautiously examining arms and legs to see if they were still there and was pleased to see that all seemed well and that the chute had collapsed on landing rather than dragging me along the ground in the strong wind. I stood up, unbuckled myself from the chute, and surveyed the scene. I was in a large grassy field with my aircraft blazing furiously a hundred feet or so away, belching out black smoke into the autumn sky. The metal skin round the cockpit was white hot. A lady, the farmer’s wife I discovered later, was cautiously approaching. Her face was ashen and she was very shaken. As she got close to where I was standing she managed to ask, in a quavering voice, ‘Would you like a cup of tea?”
Epilogue:
The engine failure was found to have been due to a worn bearing in the engine driven gear box which powered the main fuel pump. I ejected at about 100ft and the aircraft hit the ground 1.1 seconds later. I received minor neck injuries due to whiplash during the initial part of the ejection sequence but I was flying again two weeks later. I never did get that cup of tea but I did sink quite a few beers with the guys when I got back from the hospital!”
What was your collaboration with Pink Floyd? “Yes, that was me on their album ‘The Final Cut’. It referred to some sound effects that I helped with, using a Hawk and a very low pass at 480 kts!”
Special thanks to Phil Rowles & Martin Baker
Flying and dining, will our relationship to these things ever be fully restored? While we’re waiting for the pandemic to abate, let’s whet our appetites by fondly recalling some of the finest gourmet flying machines in the world. Remember your table manners and pack the Pepto Bismol as we chart, and order, a course for the heights of aero-culinary culture. Some of these places are long gone. A couple of them are truly happy instances of aeronautical conservation, even if they are going to be off limits for a bit longer. For others, well, pass the salt. As with everything else in this life, all is temporary, kids. Stephen Caulfield is out to lunch.
Considering some of the monstrosities produced in the first decades of aviation this plywood box could easily be mistaken for an actual aircraft in 1927. Best feature is the light bulb poking out of each cylinder of that radial engine. Cute for sure and with an aspirational gap between the ground and the ‘fuselage’ representing flight. Sadly, even the exact location of The Airplane Cafe is no longer remembered.
Cockpit access: no.
First date prospects: likelihood of success estimated to be high.
A brick-and-mortar tribute to the airships of the 1920s and 1930s. How gracefully the Zep Diner glides onto this top list. Picture yourself in Howard Hughes’ Italian loafers walking up those front steps in a natty double-breasted suit. An adoring Hollywood star or starlet on your arm. You both might have ordered well-done Hinden Burgers from the menu. Rather aptly destroyed in a gas main explosion in 1999, the Zep Diner is sorely missed by three generations of Angelenos. Her old corner at Figueroa Blvd and West Florence Ave today hosts only the usual drive-up dreck North Americans have endured for the last hundred years.
Cockpit access: not applicable.
First date prospects: fantastically high likelihood of success associated with the Zep in newspaper accounts and contemporary diaries.
Attention span too short for reading? Subscribe to our YouTube channel here.
Aviation history is social and cultural history as well. Can this mash-up of a city bus and a Douglas DC-3 be a depressing metaphor for the decline of a once serious nation and its global hegemony? Is it up for sale online every couple of years? Yes, both.
Cockpit access: driver only.
First date prospects: looks shaky, all depends.
Before 1945 it was a quirky world of independent, owner-operated aero-dining establishments. While rich in character and diversity that world was eventually replaced by a handful of all-powerful chains. This ex-Australian Airways DC-3 bridges both worlds. Some day this airframe will be a five star opportunity for restoration and museum display. One day we will even see it flying again. We feel that in our bones. And in our lower intestines.
Cockpit access: yes.
First date prospects: low-to-moderate likelihood of success expected.
Eye-catching roadside novelty buildings were features of the great heyday of North American consumerism and automobile tourist culture. Aviation and later space travel themes abounded in built structures from the 1930s into the 1970s. The Unidentified Flying Object also entered the popular culture and architecture starting with the Foo Fighters of the 1940s and the flying saucers of the 1950s. A few tired survivors of that era still dot the continent’s biways, stubbornly holding onto the better times. Those were romantic and prosperous days built on hard work, cigarettes, depression, cheap gas and coronary-artery disease. Oh Canada, if only they could have lasted forever.
Cockpit access: not applicable.
First date prospects: very good (especially by local standards).
A handsome vintage airliner from less viral times. A time of optimism and rapid economic growth. A great place for a Lysander Chicken Pot Pie a generation later. This conversion is apparently part of a minor pre-lockdown boom in aeroplane restaurants in the UK. It serves up a brace of meaty dishes that are, wait for it, named after aeroplanes. The UK’s beef-loving geeks and spotters also have a destination now in Lancashire. Post Covid-19 this trend will hopefully grow and grow. Imagine brunching with your love interest in the back of a retired Antonov An-225 Mriya next Valentine’s Day without a mask in sight.
Cockpit access: yes.
First date prospects: moderate-to-high expectations of success.
Aeroplane bars and restaurants are often accessories to hotels. So it was at Toronto’s Regal Constellation, briefly the largest convention and hotel site in Canada’s business capital. The Globe and Mail looked back in 2011 and said that it ”…was once the hippest hotel in town, with the city’s coolest cats sipping martinis on giant red leather couches while conventioneers from across North America rubbed shoulders in its Arabian Nights-themed bar.” Plunking an ex-Trans Canada Airlines Super Constellation down in the parking lot as a cocktail bar was a 1980s attempt to reenergise the hotel’s fading mid-century glory. Ahead of its time perhaps. The full lust for such things would have to wait for the age of Mad Men. Toronto’s blazing commercial real estate market refuses to tolerate anything but high intensity usage of property between the downtown core and the airport. The ageing hotel buildings were demolished. Luckily, the Constellation was restored for static display. It reposes with the dignity befitting such a beautiful machine.
Cockpit access: yes.
First date prospects: universal reports of absolutely massive success.
How spoiled we were before the lockdown. So many choices. Eating outside the home tempted us daily. In equal measure, familiarity, quality and tastiness brought us out in the first place. The setting and atmosphere inside our favourite establishments kept us coming back. Local foodies and tourists with an enthusiasm for Cold War airplanes loved to sit where the A-1 jet fuel tankage used to be. Advanced reservations and big lineups were a small price to pay to see this rare 1950s bird based on the Boeing B-29 Superfortress. No smoking within 500 feet, please.
Cockpit access: yes.
First date prospects: moderately successful on most days after 11:00 am.
A happy retirement for one example of a good design that never escaped notoriety for a series of crashes early its career. Indeed, a joyfulness surrounds this conversion of a wide-bodied, trimotor airliner from the early 1970s.
Regional dishes pique one’s curiosity about this cheerful-looking establishment. Would we rather pass the time here or in any post-9/11 airport terminal anywhere on the face of the Earth? Yes, and we’ll have the fish.
Cockpit access: yes (with virtual reality feature!).
First date prospects: enormously high.
Here’s a new thing! An exclusive Hush-Kit newsletter delivered straight to your inbox. Hot aviation gossip, opinion, warplane technology updates, madcap history and other insights from the world of aviation by @Hush_Kit Sign up here:
Airplane-to-restaurant conversions can be interpreted as artefacts of peak economic power. No less than three airliner conversions from the high-growth cities of Asia have made it to this list. The Optics Valley New Technology Development Zone in Wuhan checks in with this fine-dining showpiece. Your table is reached by an airport-style loading bridge connecting to a large commercial development done up in the style of a small European capital city in the nineteenth century. Avoid the bat sushi buffet.*
*Editor: you’re doing that joke, seriously?
Cockpit access: yes.
First date prospects: data is controversial but expectations cautiously positive.
Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit
The solid well-researched information about aeroplanes is brilliantly combined with an irreverent attitude and real insight into the dangerous romantic world of combat aircraft.
The book will be a stunning object: an essential addition to the library of anyone with even a passing interest in the high-flying world of warplanes, and featuring first-rate photography and a wealth of new world-class illustrations.
The 737 remains one of the most successful aircraft of all time. It was the DC-3 of its day and so restaurant conversion is a natural second career for them. The 737 is small enough not to be excessive and they are common in the airliner aftermarket. Tuck in to your Nasi Lemak like it was 1970 all over again!
Cockpit access: yes.
First date prospects: moderate-to-good levels of success expected.
Fasten your eat belt, people. Shahi paneer, aloo ghobi, palak paneer with pilau rice and coriander naan: that is what we would stuff our faces with if we went here. Then we’d stroll out on that port wing deck with a water view for a drink or six. Wide-bodied airliners offer serious opportunities for restaurant conversion. They have proper entrys and exit points, reasonable head room and extra compartments for modern HVAC and safety equipment, washrooms and so forth. Pass the samosas.
Cockpit access: yes.
First date prospects: always strong.
Some things shouldn’t need explaining. This twin Bretagne could have probably flown if it hadn’t been destroyed by a blaze that began in the starboard grease trap during this one totally crazy New Year’s Eve party. What a way to ring in 1989!
Cockpit access: two for the price of one.
First date prospects: good-to-outstanding level of success guaranteed.
Has there ever been a better time to live in the past? Now your retro escape to the near past when the future was still something to welcome can be taken to boutique levels. Right in the grounds of the original mid-century Aerotropolis itself. Constellation conversions seem to have made sense over the years given the size and initial supply of them at low cost when jetliners were taking over. Few other objects say ‘cool’ and mean it as much today as they did sixty-five years ago quite like a Constellation does. Small wonder this model of airliner makes a double appearance here and has at least nineteen cocktails we know of named after it.
Cockpit access: yes.
First date prospects: honey, it’s never ever gonna get any better than this.
The Japanese have taken many Western concepts and improved on them. Trains, home electronics, and vending machines for used underwear are just some of the items that spring to mind. [1] Popular opinion in the author’s twitter feed is that this includes raids on harbours by carrier air power. The logical line being drawn that the attack by the Fleet Air Arm on Taranto on 11 November 1940 inspired the 6 December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor by the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service.
The Royal Navy had been considering how to attack a fleet in harbour for the two decades preceding the Second World War, after the frustrating experience of only having one go at the German High Seas Fleet in the First when they refused to come out for a second round after the Battle of Jutland. They’d also carried out the first carrier-based air raid on 19 July 1918 on the airship base at Tondern. [2] Putting the two ideas together was in fact on the to-do list when the armistice got in the way.
The Taranto raid was no spur of the moment thing, planning for an attack had started in 1935 onboard HMS Glorious during the Abyssinian Crisis and was updated and rehearsed in Malta during the Munich Crisis of 1938. RN intelligence had established the depth of the nets surrounding the Italian battleships and it was determined that they’d allow a torpedo to pass underneath. The trick would be stopping them hitting the 40’ deep seabed, achieved by attaching a wire to the front. They wouldn’t hit the hull but handily the British had developed the Duplex torpedo pistol that was set off by the magnetic influence of the ship passing overhead. Or not, which is helpful if you’re HMS Sheffield being attacked by Swordfish that have mistaken you for Bismarck. In the week preceding the raid multiple convoys were routed across the Mediterranean while the Fulmars from Ark Royal and Illustrious ensured no Italian aircraft observed the latter’s task group approaching Taranto. [3] Consequently, the raid came as a complete surprise to the Italians who’d thought they knew where all the RN’s ships were, and that they’d see any naval attack coming. Despite this contrary to stereotypes of Italian martial prowess their anti-aircraft guns were manned and managed to down two of the 21 attackers, as close as you can get to the 10% losses predicted in 1938. In exchange the RN had put 3 battleships on the harbour bottom, although as it was fairly shallow two were back in service within a year, the third still being worked on when Italy surrendered in 1943. The fleet was also moved to Naples to make any further attacks more challenging. Although Taranto briefly altered the balance of power in the Mediterranean and gave the RN more freedom of manoeuvre it would still be contested until 1943, being the biggest navy in the world only gets you so far when you’re also the busiest.
Pearl Harbor clearly had a lot of similarities, a hidden approach to ensure the attack was a surprise, torpedoes used in waters previously thought to be too shallow, [4] and most of the sunk ships re-entering the war. Another similarity was the gestation period of the idea. War games at the Japanese Navy War College had modelled a carrier strike on Pearl Harbor in 1927, with a lecture on the subject by one Captain Yamamoto the next year. Fast forward to April 1940 and now Admiral Yamamoto was discussing a raid on Pearl Harbor with the Chief of Staff of the Combined Fleet. Which unless Yamamoto also had access to a time machine means it was impossible for him to have been inspired by Taranto as it hadn’t happened yet.
It is true Japanese naval officers had visited Italy in June of 1941 and one of the 83 topics they discussed with the Regina Marina was the raid on Taranto. [5] However, as the First Air Fleet under Captain Genda started detailed planning for attacking Pearl Harbor in April of that year even this would have provided limited value.
At best then Taranto may have given the IJN some encouragement that their plan could work, but the plan itself was an entirely Japanese concept. Like Kabuki theatre, or convincing Gaijin you can buy used underwear from a vending machine.
[1] The last isn’t a complete urban myth. Yes, yes I did research this. https://www.techinasia.com/japan-used-panty-vending-machines-fact-fiction
[2] Regrettably by this stage the RAF had been formed so were also involved although the majority of the personnel involved had previously been in the RNAS.
[3] This also disproves myth 5b that the RN didn’t use deck parks until operating with the USN in the Pacific. With Eagle out of action Illustrious had to use one to carry the extra Swordfish along with her usual compliment of aircraft. As did any of her class that carried Sea Hurricanes, because making folding wings is hard.
[4] Unless you were the US observer onboard Illustrious during Taranto who spent a frustrating 13 months trying to convince the USN it was possible. Still at least he got to say ‘I told you so’.
[5] 83 is a precise number but the Italians appear to have kept notes. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2016/december/taranto-pearl-harbor-connection
Bing Chandler is a former Lynx Observer and current Wildcat Air Safety Officer. If you want a Sea Vixen t-shirt he can fix you up.
I’ve heard it said that you have to be a little bit mad to take an interest in military aircraft. As much as the more conscientious of us might try to ignore their intended functions, the fact remains that these are machines designed and built to kill people and break stuff.
But we can take solace in the fact that not all is so macabre about the technological wonders over which we salivate. Here are ten warplanes that beat their swords into ploughshares, renouncing their martial lives—even if only fleetingly—for decidedly more humane ones.
11. Lockheed C-130 Hercules ‘The Herky Farmer’
If averting a localised ecological disaster seems a contradictory task for a military aircraft, how about a role that could potentially help to combat the climate crisis?
The C-130 Hercules is best known as a madly successful tactical transport, that also happens to excel at almost every noncombat role its operators can think of; the proverbial jack of all trades, master of…all of them, really. It’s also got some serious teeth, whether as the AC-130 gunship or the MC-130 special operations variants used among other things as the launch platform for the GBU-43/B MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast, a.k.a. Mother of All Bombs).
But the heroic Herc has also been used to drop decidedly more life-giving stores. Seed bombing—or, more diplomatically, aerial reforestation—has been around since the 1930s, but came into its own when a former RAF pilot, Jack Walters, came up with an idea to convert equipment used for laying landmines for dropping seed canisters. The concept, which now consists of placing a seed, fertilizer, and insecticide inside a biodegradable capsule that looks a bit like the bastard lovechild of a household plant pot and a howitzer shell, was adopted by Lockheed Martin. New technology like GPS, high-resolution cameras (sometimes attached to remotely piloted airships), and timed ejection devices not unlike the ones used by the likes of RAF Tornado fighter-bombers to crater runways during the Gulf War has made the method extremely efficient and cost-effective. Seed bombing has been used in places like Africa, Haiti, Scotland, and Mexico.
10. McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II ‘Phantom Organ’
The F-4 Phantom II is best known for wreaking devastation from Southeast Asia to the Middle East, for being the tip of NATO’s spear at the height of the Cold War, and for generally being an obnoxiously noisy, smoky, brutish behemoth of a multirole fighter. But, just a few days before Christmas in 1986, one USAF pilot used his Phantom not to take a life but to save one.
The passing of four-month-old Michael McCann in North Dakota was certainly a heart-wrenching tragedy for the poor child’s family, but his death would not be in vain, as his heart was resuscitated and packed onto a Learjet with a team of doctors at Fargo’s Hector International Airport to be flown to San Francisco, where a five-month-old boy, Andrew de la Pena, desperately awaited a transplant. But disaster had seemingly struck when the Learjet’s engines failed to start in the cold weather. Time and options were running out. So, North Dakota’s governor put in a call to the Air National Guard.
Within minutes, an F-4D of the ND ANG’s 178th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, the “Happy Hooligans,†who happened to be based at Hector, was scrambled. Because the F-4 was intended to be pretty much the polar opposite of an air ambulance, its cockpit isn’t climate controlled, so the organ—which had been out of the donor body at least eight hours, an eternity relative to the medical technology of the time—was placed in an ice-filled plastic cooler and strapped into the Phantom’s back seat, then flown by then Lieutenant (now Brigadier General) Bob Becklund the 1,446 miles (2,327 km) from North Dakota to California at just below supersonic speeds. De la Pena, who seems to be living a quite remarkable life, still has a special place in his heart (pun somewhat intended) for Becklund and the Air National Guard.
As for the Phantom, it promptly resumed its decidedly less humanitarian duties, which, in the case of the Happy Hooligans, primarily involved air defense of the North American continent. This instance wasn’t the only occurrence of a fast jet being used to carry an organ transplant; I’m sure I read that the Royal Norwegian Air Force did something similar with an F-16, but I can’t find the article.
9. Polikarpov Po-2 ‘Night witch of the harvest’
One of the ten most widely produced aircraft in history, this seemingly unassuming biplane had always lived a double life. Sometimes known as the U-2 (“U†for uchebnyy, “trainerâ€), to be confused with neither the American spy plane nor the disappointing Irish rock band, the sturdy and brilliantly uncomplicated Polikarpov’s value extended far beyond training pilots. The type was used for light bombing, reconnaissance, liaison, and propaganda duties, as well as psychological warfare, where Soviet pilots would fly low over German encampments using their mount’s five-cylinder Shvetsov M-11 engine, with its stentorian popping sound, to deprive their enemies of sleep and fray their nerves with simulated bombing runs. The Luftwaffe found engaging the biplanes particularly difficult, as they flew at treetop level and too slow for the German fighters to manoeuvre into position on. The all-female 588th Night Bomber Regiment used the Po-2 to great effect against the German rearguard. It would see service again in the Korean War, where it was used in night raids on UN bases, which the Americans came to call ‘Bedcheck Charlie.’ The Po-2’s wooden construction gave it an (relatively) infinitesimal radar cross section, rendering it almost immune to night fighters, and its slow speed earned it at least one ‘kill’ when an F-94 Starfire stalled and crashed trying to shoot one down.
But this was just one persona. The other, known as Kukuruznik, was, as its nickname (which translates roughly as ‘corn-sprayer’) suggests, a crop duster. The ethics surrounding the Soviet Union’s agricultural programmes and practices are dubious at best—this is the state, after all, that managed to dry up the Aral Sea—but the harvests were in good hands (wings?) for whoever the state decided was worthy of providing for, with variants of the Po-2 able to deliver up to 250 kg of pesticides. The Po-2 was also built under license in Poland and used as an air ambulance.
8. Avro Shackleton ‘The contra-rotating Nissen hut’
Aircraft are usually associated more with environmental degradation than environmental protection, but on one rather controversial occasion in 1971, the Avro Shackleton was credited with averting an ecological catastrophe.
The South African Air Force was the sole export customer for the Shackleton maritime patrol bomber, with 35 Squadron acquiring eight MR3 variants beginning in 1957 to replace the Short Sunderland. Fourteen years after its introduction, a SAAF Shack found itself called upon to deploy its armament—not against Soviet submarines, but an oil tanker. On 27 February of that year, the SS Wafra suffered a steam turbine failure while en route to Cape Town, causing the engine room to flood. An attempt was made to tow the stricken vessel into port, but the tow cable snapped, and Wafra ran aground on a reef near Cape Agulhas, rupturing eight of the tanks and spilling at least 26,000 tons of crude oil (some accounts say far more), swamping beaches and polluting a penguin colony.
While efforts were made to mitigate the extent of the spill, the ship itself remained on the reef, still leaking oil. The decision was made to sink the vessel before any more damage could be done. In early March, Wafra was refloated and towed off the reef, where she promptly broke apart. The larger portion was towed 200 miles out to sea (leaking oil all the way), at which time the SAAF was called into action. First on scene were Buccaneer strike bombers of 24 Squadron, which fired AS-30L laser-guided air-to-ground missiles at the hulk, succeeding only in starting a fire. (If only they’d taken note of the British debacle following their similar attempt four years earlier in the disaster of the tanker Torrey Canyon.)
Clearly, a change in tactics was needed. On 12 March, the SAAF deployed its Shackletons, dropping a total of nine depth charges on the tanker, which quickly broke apart in 6,000 feet of water, a depth where the remaining oil would pose no further threat to the coastline.
Like the F-4, the Shackleton went right back to its military duties, but for that moment, it got to play the saviour to human, avian, and marine life alike.
7. Curtiss C-46 Commando ‘Ol’ Dumbo to the rescue’
I was going to try to avoid listing transport aircraft, as cargo haulers don’t (usually) participate directly in the killing, and almost every transport type has been used in some form of humanitarian role such as disaster relief. But the vital work that the C-46—once the poster child for flying the ‘Hump’ in the China-Burma-India Theatre of World War II—continues to perform in the far north makes it worthy of a mention.
Transportation in the northern reaches of North America is a logistical nightmare. Road infrastructure is spartan at best, and frozen ports and rivers preclude seaborne shipments in some places for large portions of the year. Aviation isn’t just a luxury—it’s many communities’ lifeblood. The C-46, together with former war veterans such as the C-47, C-54, and C-118, flies with operators like Buffalo Airways in Canada and Everts Air in Alaska to deliver much needed supplies and especially fuel, providing a year-round link for isolated communities.
6. Bell AH-1 Cobra ‘Snakes on a plain’
It’s no rarity for military helicopters to have second lives in the civilian sector. Types ranging from the Bell Huey (and its myriad variants) to the Boeing Chinook and Mil Mi-8 have been employed in tasks like construction, logging, passenger carrying, search and rescue, policing, and giving television watchers an eagle-eyed view of the latest horrible event in their hometown on the evening news.
You’ll note that none of those aircraft are attack helicopters, which are generally designed with a singular, macabre purpose in mind. But with the right creativity, even these killing machines can be repurposed for the good of humankind. In the early 2000s, the U.S. Forest Service acquired a number of Army-surplus AH-1Fs, ditching the guns and hardpoints for additional cameras and sensors, creating the Firewatch Cobra. While the USFS Firewatch aircraft don’t directly fight fires, a handful of surplus AH-1Ps acquired by the Florida Department of Forestry and renamed Bell 209 Firesnake are equipped to carry water and retardant systems. Instead, the Firewatch Cobra is used to relay information to ground crews and fixed-wing air tankers to facilitate a more accurate and effective attack. Its infrared sensors can detect flames through heavy smoke, and it can transmit high-resolution images of the fire from its low-light cameras to ground teams up to thirty miles away.
5. Rockwell OV-10 Bronco ‘Broncosaurus Flex’
Apropos of aerial firefighting, the Bronco, better known as the slower, uglier, more American Pucará, is essentially the fixed-wing version of the aforementioned Cobra. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection—CAL FIRE—acquired a number of these former counterinsurgency aircraft to replace the O-2 Skymaster to provide airborne command and control, a set of eyes in the sky for the incident commander on the ground. Crewed by a pilot and an air tactical group supervisor, the Bronco provides a manoeuvrable platform with excellent cockpit visibility for observing a fire’s dynamics and directing fixed- and rotary-wing tanker assets.
4. Airco DH.4 ‘A letter from the flaming coffin‘
The end of World War I saw a flood of surplus military aircraft into the civilian market, many of them finding new lives carrying mail. Airmail was one of the earliest large-scale non-military applications of aircraft; after all, in an era long before email and robocalls and social media, the fastest way to get your spam to fools in other parts of the world was to stick it in a stamped envelope and send it on its way. Then, just as today, speed was a priority, and as such, companies such as United Airlines, today one of the largest air carriers in the world, got their start hauling letters and parcels.
Several ex-Army types were employed on mail runs and limited passenger-carrying services, but Geoffrey de Havilland’s light bomber stands out, finding success on mail runs on both sides of the world, with Qantas and the U.S. Post Office making extensive use of the aircraft, the latter modifying it into the DH.4B variant with an enlarged rudder. The DH.4B was used to establish the first transcontinental airmail service in North America, between San Francisco and New York, operating from 1924 until the privatization of airmail in 1927. The DH.4 also saw extensive postwar use in Canada, where it was used for forestry patrol.
3. Avro Lancaster ‘Lanc-danke’
There’s an old Japanese proverb that ends with “the sword that kills is the sword that gives life.†While in its full context that statement refers to something entirely different, taken in isolation, it’s a fitting aphorism for the role of the Lancaster over Berlin: the bomber that once rained death and destruction down on the city would be aiding in the effort to keep its citizens alive just a few short years later.
During the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, the Allies scrambled to scrounge together as many aircraft as they could to maintain the air bridge into besieged Berlin. While the C-54 Skymaster and C-47 Skytrain are the aircraft everyone thinks of when they hear Berlin Airlift, a number of types were called upon to carry rations to the city’s inhabitants, the Lancaster bomber (together with the Lancastrian, an airliner and transport derived from the Lanc) among them. One can only imagine the thoughts going through the head of any Berliner with a knack for aircraft identification, seeing the aircraft that had been used to raze vast swathes of their city now bringing in the goods to rebuild it.
Want to see more stories like this: Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit
The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes is a beautifully designed, highly visual, collection of the best articles from the fascinating world of military aviation, hand-picked from the highly acclaimed Hush-Kit online magazine (and mixed with a heavy punch of new exclusive material)
2. Lockheed P-2 Neptune ‘The Truculent Fire Turtle’
Large ex-military aircraft often find retirement jobs fighting wildfires—those air tankers that the Cobra and Bronco we talked about get to guide to their targets. Former naval types such as the PBY Catalina, CS2F Tracker, AF-2S Guardian, and PB4Y Privateer have been particularly attractive for this role. The P2V (later P-2) Neptune had arguably the most successful career of them all, with its 2,000-gallon water/retardant capacity and the power boost from its underwing J34 turbojets that came in handy when operating at low level in mountainous terrain.
The Neptune’s potential as an air tanker was realized in the late 1980s, and it flew with numerous operators including Aero Union, Minden Air, and the aptly named Neptune Aviation. Air tanker P-2s featured a sophisticated (for the time) digital metering system featuring computer-controlled, electro-hydraulically actuated doors for a continuous water or retardant release from 50 to 700 US gallons per second, allowing for a uniform dispersal pattern eliminating gaps or overages.
Alas, aerial firefighting is no walk in the park, and at least nine tankers were destroyed in accidents over the type’s thirty-year firefighting career, with several more experiencing landing gear failures toward the end of its service life. A high-profile crash in 2012 precipitated the end of the Neptune in air tanker service, and the last user, Neptune Aviation, retired theirs in 2017, replacing them with modified BAe 146s.
1. Lockheed P-3 Orion ‘Friggerock ‘n’ Roll’
Not to be outdone by its predecessor, the P-3 Orion continues to perform sterling work nearly sixty years after it entered service. From dubious roots in the troubled L-188 Electra airliner, the Orion has evolved into an aircraft that, in addition to being one of the most successful maritime patrol aircraft in history, has been indispensable in ancillary roles like long range search and rescue, fisheries patrol, and ice monitoring. And that’s just the ones still in military service.
Like the Neptune before it, some Orions were converted into air tankers. But putting the wet stuff on the red stuff isn’t all the P-3 has been up to in its new life. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center operates a P-3B from its Wallops Flight Facility in coastal Virginia as an aerial science laboratory. But perhaps the best-known civvie Orions are the WP-3Ds of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—the Hurricane Hunters. Together with some USAF WC-130Js, these aircraft and their crews brave some of the most treacherous weather on earth to acquire real-time storm data to save countless lives.
Â-Sean Kelly is an operations supervisor at Pittsburgh International Airport who spends most of the time he isn’t being paid to do things related to aircraft doing things related to aircraft (and occasionally writing science fiction).
