MiGs in Sydney/NSW - was it worth it?
Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:16 pm
When i was younger, i assisted with a company who was restoring a MiG-17 and a MiG-21.
After many years since i did this work, it is interesting to still see both these types of warbirds not flying. Very few of the frontline Russian jets do fly. Mainly trainers that do.
I have wondered over the years, all the money spent on these 2 planes by the owners has it gone to waste perhaps?, as both now still sit very quietly in museums i recall.
So all up importing, restoration, limited flying and then static.
Was it worth it and was there enjoyment from it?
Only the owners can know that i guess.
After many years since i did this work, it is interesting to still see both these types of warbirds not flying. Very few of the frontline Russian jets do fly. Mainly trainers that do.
I have wondered over the years, all the money spent on these 2 planes by the owners has it gone to waste perhaps?, as both now still sit very quietly in museums i recall.
So all up importing, restoration, limited flying and then static.
Was it worth it and was there enjoyment from it?
Only the owners can know that i guess.
Re: MiGs in Sydney/NSW - was it worth it?
Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:06 pm
Not so sure about more modern stuff, but I've read that the Soviet mindset was ANYTHING beyond flight line maintenance (tires, brakes, etc) required at least a depot level visit and systems as well as the aircraft were designed to last around 100 hours in combat, not like Western designs where, because of the horrendous expenses involved, they were supposed to last decades, if true then keeping a former front line fighter in the air would require an awful lot of expensive spares and no handy place to get them overhauled (if that were even possible). 
I saw a segment on a program years ago about a guy in Connecticut who had a Mig-21UTI and he would remind the tower when filing his flight plan that, even with an external fuel tank when he pushed the 'start' button, he was critical on fuel and he would really appreciate it if the tower would give him preferential treatment when he called in for landing.
I saw a segment on a program years ago about a guy in Connecticut who had a Mig-21UTI and he would remind the tower when filing his flight plan that, even with an external fuel tank when he pushed the 'start' button, he was critical on fuel and he would really appreciate it if the tower would give him preferential treatment when he called in for landing.
Re: MiGs in Sydney/NSW - was it worth it?
Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:21 pm
From what I've learned from the guys at the Cold War Air Museum, the biggest problem with the Soviet fighters is the endurance and runway needs. Too little endurance, and too much runway. And when I say "too much runway" I mean that they have to operate from a runway with at least 6,000 feet, peferably 8,000 feet, and being experimental, that means they can't get to a lot of those runways due to the rules about where you can operate them from without a lot of written clearances (in the US at least). I think if there were sufficient runways at non-restricted airports and the demand for them on the airshow circuit was a bit higher, you'd see more of them, but until then, the expense and restrictions on operation make them somewhat impractical for most to operate.
As for the maintenance issue, you're right that most everything was designed to be repaired or serviced at depot level, but the difficulty of servicing them at depot is no more than any other airplane. The idea with the Soviet aircraft was that you build everything so tough that each depot visit, you simply replace them and let the shop inspect and/or overhaul the part independent of the airplane. The trainers are built on the same maintenance philosophy as the fighters, so that's not why the trainers are more prevalent. It's simply that they're built with more endurance, are easier on fuel consumption, and have fewer "gotchas" than the fighters, making them much more economical to operate. Plus, they can all carry at least one passenger so you can share the fun.
As for the maintenance issue, you're right that most everything was designed to be repaired or serviced at depot level, but the difficulty of servicing them at depot is no more than any other airplane. The idea with the Soviet aircraft was that you build everything so tough that each depot visit, you simply replace them and let the shop inspect and/or overhaul the part independent of the airplane. The trainers are built on the same maintenance philosophy as the fighters, so that's not why the trainers are more prevalent. It's simply that they're built with more endurance, are easier on fuel consumption, and have fewer "gotchas" than the fighters, making them much more economical to operate. Plus, they can all carry at least one passenger so you can share the fun.
Re: MiGs in Sydney/NSW - was it worth it?
Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:14 pm
Pretty much!
The Mig-29 that John Sessions sold to P. Allen/FHC flew once or twice after getting approval from the Feds, I witnessed it's second flight from my front yard. Since then it's been tucked away in a hanger on KPAE and has been towed out and ground run a very few times (less than 5 times) in almost three years.
It may be on display after the new wing is opened @ FHC but that is purely a SWAG on my part.
And I haven't seen any update info on those two Su-27's in some time-
The Mig-29 that John Sessions sold to P. Allen/FHC flew once or twice after getting approval from the Feds, I witnessed it's second flight from my front yard. Since then it's been tucked away in a hanger on KPAE and has been towed out and ground run a very few times (less than 5 times) in almost three years.
It may be on display after the new wing is opened @ FHC but that is purely a SWAG on my part.
And I haven't seen any update info on those two Su-27's in some time-