There’s a good reason that the 1942 Miles M.30 reminds you of the later McDonnell XP-67 ‘Moon Bat’, as both were based based on the blended-wing body principles patented by the Russian aerodynamicist Nicolas Woyevodsky. Miles were embracing these futuristic ideas to create a radical new type of aircraft. Miles Aircraft was run by two aero engineers married to each other and was based in Berkshire in England. Maxine ‘Blossom’ Miles, as well as being an aviation engineer, was a socialite, and businesswoman. She became fascinated by aviation in the 1920s, and married her flight instructor, Frederick George Miles. Together they founded Miles Aircraft Ltd. The company specialised in innovative clever designs, such as the M.20.
Miles M.20 – The ‘F-20 Tigershark’ of the 1940s
The chunky, cheap and cheerful Miles M.20 would likely have proved a most useful aircraft in the early/mid war period.
The M.20 was a thoroughly sensible design, cleverly engineered to be easy to produce with minimal delay at its nation’s time of greatest need, whilst still capable of excellent performance. As it turned out its nation’s need never turned out to be quite great enough for the M.20 to go into production. First flying a mere 65 days after being commissioned by the Air Ministry, the M.20’s structure was of wood throughout to minimise its use of potentially scarce aluminium and the whole nose, airscrew and Merlin engine were already being produced as an all-in-one ‘power egg’ unit for the Bristol Beaufighter II. To maintain simplicity the M.20 dispensed with a hydraulic system and as a result the landing gear was not retractable. The weight saved as a consequence allowed for a large internal fuel capacity and the unusually heavy armament of 12 machine guns with twice as much ammunition as either Hurricane or Spitfire. Tests revealed that the M.20 was slower than the Spitfire but faster than the Hurricane and its operating range was roughly double that of either. It also sported the first clear view bubble canopy to be fitted to a military aircraft.
In its final form as a potential Naval aircraft, the M.20 sported smaller undercarriage fairings and a lengthened rear fuselage.
Because it was viewed as a ‘panic’ fighter, an emergency back-up if Hurricanes or Spitfires could not be produced in sufficient numbers, production of the M.20 was deemed unnecessary since no serious shortage occurred of either. However, given that much of the development of the Spitfire immediately after the Battle of Britain was concerned with extending its short range, as the RAF went onto the offensive over Europe, the cancellation of a quickly available, long-ranged fighter with decent performance looks like a serious error. Exactly the same thing happened with the Boulton Paul P.94, which was essentially a Defiant without the turret, offering performance in the Spitfire class but with heavier armament and a considerably longer range. The only difference being that this aircraft was even more available than the M.20 as it was a relatively simple modification to an aircraft already in production.
Oh dear. The M.20 looking rather sorry for itself after overshooting on landing and ending up in a gravel pit.
The M.20 popped up again in 1941 as a contender for a Fleet Air Arm catapult fighter requirement, where its relative simplicity would have been valuable. Unfortunately for Miles, there were literally thousands of obsolete Hawker Hurricanes around by this time and with suitable modifications they did the job perfectly well.
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.
Blended Wing Body Designs
Westland Dreadnaught
From 1938, Miles considered various size and roles of aircraft that could be better performed by a far ‘cleaner’ type of aeroplane, with buried engines and additional lift from an aerofoil cross-section fuselage. These aircraft promised unprecedented performance for their relatively modest installed power, hinting at low-cost flight.
These varied designs were studied under the designation M.26, with each having an individual X number. They ranged from small feeder-liners to vast 8-engined transatlantic transports.
Addressing much the same need as the Bristol Brabazon, the 55-seat Miles X-9 airliner was planned to feature eight engines buried in the wings, driving four sets of contra-rotating props. Range was calculated at a very impressive 3,450 miles. To investigate the blended wing/body Miles built a sub-scale flying model of the X.9 design, the M.30 X-Minor. The gorgeous M.30 first flew in February 1942 which provided useful data but Miles’ ambitious plans never came to fruition.
The radical aerodynamics of the Moonbat gave this US fighter prototype the look of flying stingray. The design emphasised low drag and the harvesting of a high amount of fuselage lift through a blended wing/body design. The fuselage, like the wing, had an aerofoil cross-section. This idea had been seen earlier on the Westland Dreadnought based on the blended fuselage-wing ideas of Russian inventor N. Woyevodsky, a Russian emigre scientist who lived in England.
The first two manifestations of this design failed to arouse the USAAF, but promises of a 472mph top speed tantalised the authorities and funding was granted. McDonnell considered serious armament options including a 75-mm gun.
The resultant aircraft flew in 1944 and proved the unknown adage ‘if it looks like a stingray it will fly like one’. It was underpowered, with poor handling, a long take-off run, terrible fuel consumption and stall characteristics even a 1940s test pilot didn’t have the bottle to explore. A prototype crashed and the project was deemed too dangerous to continue.
The blended wing body concept however has not died. It was later used with great success, among other, the SR-71 Blackbird. It is also, in its purest form, being studied for a number of future airliners concepts.
Former US Marine Corps Hornet pilot Louis Gundlach takes an in-depth look at the ‘Night Killer’ of the Korean War, the Douglas F3D Skyknight.
In 1945, the U.S. Navy was alarmed that the Japanese air force was building jet-powered bombers and kamikaze aircraft. The Navy’s contemporary and planned propeller-driven fighters would be unable to intercept these extremely fast aircraft, especially at night. In response, the Navy put out a tender for a jet night-fighter that was to be equipped with an airborne intercept radar that could detect enemy aircraft out to 125 miles, an astonishingly demanding distance considering the then state-of-the-art. To put this into perspective, the detection of a small fighter out at 125 miles remains respectable in 2020! The Douglas Aircraft Company began work on a design built around the Westinghouse APQ-35 radar, which was actually a system made up of three radars. The main search radar, the APS-21, was equipped with a very large parabolic dish. This dish dictated that the nose of the aircraft would be very large. As well as being huge, the APQ-35 was also exceptionally complex and user intensive, so would require a dedicated Radio Operator. With these two design necessities in place, Douglas engineers designed a twin–engine aircraft with side-by-side seating. The aircraft became known as the F3D Skyknight.
The F3D-1 was equipped with two Westinghouse J-34 engines that each produced 3,400 pounds of thrust for a combined total of 6,800. While this was fairly good performance for a jet engine at that time, it wasn’t much grunt for an aircraft with a take-off weight of 25,414 pounds. The engines were also canted down, away from the aircraft, which further reduced the effective thrust of the engines. With the added drag of a large nose, two-place canopy, and large straight wings, the F3D was easily outperformed by the day fighters of the time. It first flew in 23 March 1948 and was in service by 1951.
It could climb to over 40,000 feet and reach a true airspeed of 500 knots at that altitude (around sixty knots slower than its day fighter contemporaries). The aircraft had combat radius of 500 nautical miles and with drop tanks added it had a radius of 590 nautical miles. It was armed with four 20mm cannon. The aircraft’s performance was less than ideal, but it was purposely built to be a night airborne interceptor
Like the Corsair in World War II and the Tigercat after the war, the Marine Corps came into possession of the Skyknight because of the type’s inability to operate from aircraft carriers. Though the F3D was found suitable for carrier operations, it would require a whole host of modifications to ensure safe operation onboard a carrier. Additionally, since the Navy had given the Marine Corps almost all of the radar-equipped Tigercats, the Navy did not have Radar Operators or a programme in place to train ROs. The APQ-35 was found difficult to operate and maintain, especially on the cramped confines of an aircraft carrier. The Navy also had not adopted new procedures for jet aircraft to operate from straight-deck carriers at night. Lastly, the F3D was a night interceptor only. It could not carry any bombs during its early years and the Navy was pushing for multi-role aircraft even back then. In the end, the U.S. Navy did not have the expertise to operate the radar, fix the radar, and ..
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:
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.
11. HAL Tejas ‘Pocket fire’
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.
de Havilland Vampire T.55 SE-DXT/A Swedish Air Force
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.
9. Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9 ‘Fargo’
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.
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
7. Lavochkin La-15
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).
6. Helwan HA-300 ‘Helwan is other people’
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.
5. Early Yakovlev jets (Yak-15, Yak-17, Yak-23)
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.
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
4. Aerfer Ariete
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.
Heinkel He 162
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.
2. Folland Gnat/HAL Ajeet
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.
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.
1. McDonnell XF-85 Goblin
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.
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.
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.
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.”
“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.”
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.”
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.”
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
NOW AVAILABLE: The Hush-Kit Book of Warplanes, a gorgeous heavily illustrated – and often irreverent- coffee-table book covering the history of aviation 1914 – the present.
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!”
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.
“I felt I was sitting atop a missile-head in a high-speed interception.”
“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.”
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-à-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.
“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.”
“Comparing the MiG-31 with Rafale is like comparing Bruce Lee with a Para Special Forces Commando.”
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 aircraft”. 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.
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.
“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.”
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
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 aviator”. 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.”
Interview with Indian Air Force MiG-25 pilot here.
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!”
