MIG-15 arrives @ Edwards

[sparky]

FYI: MIG-15 arrived yesterday at Edwards AFB for test pilot training...

yes I'm aware it's a 1951 aircraft, so you might like to know it's used in training because of it's unique handling and extreme rate of climb, combined with it's adverse flying qualities... This aircraft will test your piloting skills...

Have a great weekend...

 

[ryan1234]

This aircraft will test your piloting skills...

Landing with no aileron authority

 

[Hacker15e]

FYI: MIG-15 arrived yesterday at Edwards AFB for test pilot training...

yes I'm aware it's a 1951 aircraft, so you might like to know it's used in training because of it's unique handling and extreme rate of climb, combined with it's adverse flying qualities... This aircraft will test your piloting skills...

Have a great weekend...

Are you at TPS?

 

[Orange Anchor]

FYI: MIG-15 arrived yesterday at Edwards AFB for test pilot training...

yes I'm aware it's a 1951 aircraft, so you might like to know it's used in training because of it's unique handling and extreme rate of climb, combined with it's adverse flying qualities... This aircraft will test your piloting skills...

All aircraft will test your skills when you fly them to their limits. From what I have read, the -15 had great climb performance as well as turn performance but poor handling and 'snaking' at high speed. it was not the best gun platform and had a poor gun sight until the Russians got an F-86 and figured out the computing gun sight. Rear visibility was not good. Good things were climb, turn and hard hitting BIG cannon (23 and 37MM) which could really dis-assemble things quickly. Slow spooling engine that took a LONG time from idle to good thrust so one had to be very aware of the engine. All this soaks up brain matter outside putting the pipper on the other guy.

It sure got everyone's attention even in Korea and over Vietnam.

 

[Roger, Roger]

As I recall, the test pilot training school has quite a collection of oddball aircraft. I seem to remember reading that part of the school has the student being essentially thrown into an airplane they've never seen before and being told, "here, don't crash it!".

 

[bunk22]

FYI: MIG-15 arrived yesterday at Edwards AFB for test pilot training...

yes I'm aware it's a 1951 aircraft, so you might like to know it's used in training because of it's unique handling and extreme rate of climb, combined with it's adverse flying qualities... This aircraft will test your piloting skills...

Have a great weekend...

So :dunno: This thread is pretty lame thus far, really no point to it. This just in, an old jet landed at an airfield, it's hard to fly and will test you as pilot, even though you're not flying it, most likely never will and you're probably not even a pilot :clap:

 

[ryan1234]

As I recall, the test pilot training school has quite a collection of oddball aircraft. I seem to remember reading that part of the school has the student being essentially thrown into an airplane they've never seen before and being told, "here, don't crash it!".

I think the qual-evals are basically a brief intro into flying qualities with a safety pilot/instructor through a civilian contract for a week or two... not too sure about Edwards, but Pax had Dave's MiG as well as a T-28, B-25, and other unique civilian owned aircraft.

 

[hook_dupin]

I think the qual-evals are basically a brief intro into flying qualities with a safety pilot/instructor through a civilian contract for a week or two... not too sure about Edwards, but Pax had Dave's MiG as well as a T-28, B-25, and other unique civilian owned aircraft.

Its not just flying qualites. Qual evals at Test Pilot Schools are a good way to look at flying qualities, performance, and systems on some pretty unique aircraft. Which aircraft TPS uses all varies based on money available and what's available that can be put under contract (most of these aircraft are on the airshow circuit). For military aircraft, TPS horse trades qual eval sorties with flight test organizations around the world to get the students to fly unique military aircraft. The idea is that you're handed the POH/dash one/NATOPS/other aircraft manual, you then build test cards to test certain aspects of the vehicle. Finally, you report on your flight noting the good / bad items you found and translating that into how the vehicle can / cannot accomplish its mission. It certainly is not "here, don't crash it!" Every sortie I flew was with an IP/CFI. Each qual eval represented at least 10 hours of prep and report writing for every hour flown. For all the taxpayers in the forum: Its a good deal, but its definately not "Hop in! Let's go fly!" on the government's dime.

Here's a list of the aircraft I got to fly at TPS:
Trainers:
C-172 G-1000
T-6A (new one)
T-6 (old one)
T-37
T-38 A/B/C
T-43 (737-300)
T-1
SK-60 (Swedish T-37-like primary trainer)

Fighters:
F-15 D/E
F-16
NF-16 (TPS-owned variable stability F-16)
F/A-18F

Utility:
HU-16
AN-2
C-12 (King Air 350)
NASA G-III
U-6 (DHC-2 Beaver)
LJ-23

Helos:
UH-60

Gliders / Airships:
Good Year Blimp
L-13
ASK-21
Grob 103

 

[Zondaracer]

Hook dupin... That's it??? No powered lift category? Just kidding, that is quite the repertoire.

 

[Orange Anchor]

So :dunno: This thread is pretty lame thus far, really no point to it. This just in, an old jet landed at an airfield, it's hard to fly and will test you as pilot, even though you're not flying it, most likely never will and you're probably not even a pilot :clap:

So absolutely no reason to bring in airplanes with different handling characteristics and learn?

Friend of mine used to occasionally take his T-6 out to Edwards and put TPS pilots in the front seat for a few rides. The old saying was the P-51 made a decent trainer for the T-6. John said it was often interesting to see the mistakes the jetjocks made with the old lumbering beast. But hey... useless knowledge no doubt.

Personally, I look forward to getting into an airplane I have never flown with a competent instructor and touring the envelope.

 

[falconvalley]

So :dunno: This thread is pretty lame thus far, really no point to it. This just in, an old jet landed at an airfield, it's hard to fly and will test you as pilot, even though you're not flying it, most likely never will and you're probably not even a pilot :clap:

I'm way more impressed with his enthusiasm than what I see here.

 

[///AMG]

Jealous of Hook Dupin right now! I saw some pics recently of a Grippen they brought out to Edwards.....that would have been quite a ride. I'd love to do TPS if it weren't for all the hours of reports that I hear go along with these fam/qual eval rides.

 

[hook_dupin]

I forgot to the one that started this: the MiG-15.

 

[Hacker15e]

Jealous of Hook Dupin right now!

Hook will be the first one to tell you that he worked his ass off to get to TPS, and worked his ass off to get through all that training which the flights in those sorties supported.

Any fun he may have had while in those aircraft is most deserved.

 

[bunk22]

So absolutely no reason to bring in airplanes with different handling characteristics and learn?

Friend of mine used to occasionally take his T-6 out to Edwards and put TPS pilots in the front seat for a few rides. The old saying was the P-51 made a decent trainer for the T-6. John said it was often interesting to see the mistakes the jetjocks made with the old lumbering beast. But hey... useless knowledge no doubt.

Personally, I look forward to getting into an airplane I have never flown with a competent instructor and touring the envelope.

My point is, there is really no point to his thread or he really seemed to have no point. Attention, there's a Mig-15 now at Edwards or wherever and it's hard to fly. Okay, good luck with that. It's probably just me but I don't get it. Is the point to discuss the flying qualities of different aircraft? The Mig-15? Discuss TPS? Seems to me hook_dupin would be the SME on the TPS thing.

If the goal is to discuss the handling of the Mig-15, I've read that like the F-86, it was easy to fly. Most jets are easy to fly. The difficult part comes in deploying them as a weapon system, flying them at the edge.

 

[bunk22]

I'm way more impressed with his enthusiasm than what I see here.

Well that's good as maybe you see the purpose of it as I don't. But in honor of his enthusiam :yup: I will help him out...ATTENTION: There is now a Mig-15 at Edwards, it is difficult to fly. That is all.

 

[///AMG]

Hook will be the first one to tell you that he worked his ass off to get to TPS, and worked his ass off to get through all that training which the flights in those sorties supported.

Any fun he may have had while in those aircraft is most deserved.

Fully agree.....all the NTPS guys I've talked to readily admit how much work is involved in the process.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Its not just flying qualites. Qual evals at Test Pilot Schools are a good way to look at flying qualities, performance, and systems on some pretty unique aircraft. Which aircraft TPS uses all varies based on money available and what's available that can be put under contract (most of these aircraft are on the airshow circuit). For military aircraft, TPS horse trades qual eval sorties with flight test organizations around the world to get the students to fly unique military aircraft. The idea is that you're handed the POH/dash one/NATOPS/other aircraft manual, you then build test cards to test certain aspects of the vehicle. Finally, you report on your flight noting the good / bad items you found and translating that into how the vehicle can / cannot accomplish its mission. It certainly is not "here, don't crash it!" Every sortie I flew was with an IP/CFI. Each qual eval represented at least 10 hours of prep and report writing for every hour flown. For all the taxpayers in the forum: Its a good deal, but its definately not "Hop in! Let's go fly!" on the government's dime.

Here's a list of the aircraft I got to fly at TPS:
Trainers:
C-172 G-1000
T-6A (new one)
T-6 (old one)
T-37
T-38 A/B/C
T-43 (737-300)
T-1
SK-60 (Swedish T-37-like primary trainer)

Fighters:
F-15 D/E
F-16
NF-16 (TPS-owned variable stability F-16)
F/A-18F

Utility:
HU-16
AN-2
C-12 (King Air 350)
NASA G-III
U-6 (DHC-2 Beaver)
LJ-23

Helos:
UH-60

Gliders / Airships:
Good Year Blimp
L-13
ASK-21
Grob 103

Thank you for the writeup. I was using a bit of hyperbole when I said "here, don't crash". Is the NASA GIII on that list the Shuttle Simulator one by chance?

 

[Orange Anchor]

If the goal is to discuss the handling of the Mig-15, I've read that like the F-86, it was easy to fly. Most jets are easy to fly. The difficult part comes in deploying them as a weapon system, flying them at the edge.

I would not call 'snaking' or very stiff controls at high speed easy to fly. It reportedly had a nasty departure at high AOA. The engine was very slow to spool up. Yeager's comments were dismissive but then that was not out of character for him.

Possibly you should say 'modern' jets are easy to fly and that I agree with. earlier ones were not so easy. The vaunted Crusader was not an easy airplane to bring on the boat and the Vigilante was notorious. The early F-86s without the all moving tail were not wonder-machines. The -100 was also a demanding machine and woe to the stud you failed to use rudder with it. The -101 also had some nasty habits when near high AOA. And we are not even going to address odd ducks like the Demon and the "Gutless".

As for deploying them as a weapons system, true. And generally the old rule applies (never fly the A model of anything). A friend who was commander at Pax River for a while noted that it was good to fly all the bad handling stuff so one knew what to look for. Bob also said that it was up to the line units to MAKE they system work as often the system did not work as advertised.

I talked with Sean Roberts a while back about the NTPS and their SAAB Drakens, another good machine with a double delta wing. A mach 2 machine, it too had some habits that demanded respect.

My point. Even in this age of super-sims it is still good to visit the old killers and learn.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Thank you for the writeup. I was using a bit of hyperbole when I said "here, don't crash". Is the NASA GIII on that list the Shuttle Simulator one by chance?

Shuttle Training Aircraft is a G-II, so I doubt they are the same.