My late father-in-law was an engineering manager in ASC. He and his engineers were involved in the engineering required to keep the foreign aircraft flying, so he knew about Gen. Bond’s misadventure right after it happened. He was appalled that the general took this flight and at the waste of a lot of work to maintain these jets for the training of pilots on active flight status.
My buddies and I used to crew F-16s at Eglin so we got to meet him a few times. He was still current in that jet, and a pretty decent guy to deal with. He would come out on the weekends once a month or so and go cross country for meetings. Always seamed pretty layed back, would visit for a bit, small talk, and ask if the jet was ready, hop in and haul butt. We launched him out that weekend obviously not knowing he wouldn't return.
@@Jimmythefish577 excuse you. Every serviceman is part of a larger machine and mission. some of them go oversears to fight, while others are stateside helping the military's various elements prepare others for combat, or test future weapons for combat. A drill sergeant may have never seen combat, but prepares new recruits who one day will. So he and they are both to be thanked for their service.
@@Jimmythefish577 Didn't really think that through did you? I served at Eglin (and yes, knew Gen Bond) and I also served in the First Gulf War. You see... you can have numerous postings during a career. Some safe, some not so much. Since you have no idea where ELSE the gentleman above served, your comment is pure bullshit. Go puke somewhere else.
I was a 1st Lieutenant Aircraft Maintenance Officer at Eglin AFB in the late 1970's. I recall General Bond coming out to fly the F-4s and T-38s. I was standing by at the aircraft one day when the van pulled up and out stepped a two star general. I saluted not knowing who he was. He saluted back and walked up to me shook my hand and introduced himself as Bobby Bond. he was quite a personable guy. it is sad that he went out that way but it was doing what he probably enjoyed the most, Flying.
@@AviationHorrors it’s not like some guy right out a flight school jumped in that thing and took it without daddy‘s permission. He was more than qualified to fly it he was fully briefed on the plane strength’s and weaknesses. He went hard An maxed that thing out and it started to get silly on him. I could only imagine flipping inverted in a millisecond and diving towards the ground .8 g’s. what is that six seconds till Impacting the deck at that speed? I would’ve ejected too and they didn’t find out about that buffering and engine loading till later
@@Reggiestreet Sorry, once you have stated, "He had the right to be reckless," as you did 9 minutes before this comment, it's too late to offer your "insight" into how perfectly qualified Bond was for this flight.
@@Reggiestreet Overconfidence. Soviet planes are very sturdy and most of them very reliable - sort of "fuel and go" machines, but they´ve had special aerodynamics characteristics pilot should be trained to cope with. That is reason why our pilots had to fly first in MiG 23 UB version with experienced instructor in the back seat... Once pilot understood how to handle these aerodynamic characterictics he was safe. BTW there ware series of mishaps with MiG 23 planes in Czecho-Slovak and Czech Airforces in 90-ies due to civilians taking over management of Army with resulting sharp drop in flying hours and consequences were lost airplanes and pilot´s too. Pilot has to fly to keep his skills. This is what caused that general to die - lack of practice in particular plane and lack of flying in general (I guess this from from panick ejection at nonsurvivable speed).
My grandpa was an F4 phantom pilot in Vietnam, and him and Bobby Bond were in the same flying group (I’m not in the military, so I don’t know the proper terms) and they flew a lot of combat missions together. They would go out and fly their missions as a team of 4 jets and Bond was the highest ranking and would be calling the shots and then my grandpa was just below him as Lt. Colonel. My grandpa was just telling me a crazy story the other day about how he was dropping some bombs in Vietnam and there was an accident and one of his fellow pilots nearly flew into the bombs he was dropping. I asked him if he remembered the pilots name, and he said “hell yes, it was Bobby Bond.” My grandpa is a hard ass and dislikes nearly everybody, especially hot shot, flashy type guys, and he says that Bobby Bond was the most charming and likable guy you could ever meet, which says a lot about him. I think my grandpa has a lot of stories of him with Bond in Vietnam that he is probably the only person alive who knows about them. I’ll have to try to get more stories out of him. My grandpa is 92, still hanging in there and living on his own out on his 20 acre property just outside the Fairchild Air Force Base near Spokane.
MiG-23 was a complex plane to fly, pilots graduated to it by learning in the MiG-21, and then by achieving enough flying hours and seniority, were given the 23. The pilot had to adjust the wing sweep manually, to match the engine speed and maneuver, and poor pilots could make a fatal mistake easily. The Mig-23 did not produce a lot of lift, it was not designed for dogfight, especially daring maneuvers at low speed could prove deadly when, the plane fell quickly and took time to recover. The electronics were very sophisticated, especially the autopilot was state-of-the-art that could execute complex routes and even land the plane, which happened in the 1980-s when a runaway MiG-23 in Poland flew across Germany, and when running out of fuel, the autopilot landed the plane in Belgium, but unfortunately there was a house in the field and it ran into it and a young boy died inside.
In the early 90's, I got real close to an Ex-Syrian Mig-23. It was " being taken care of " in a maintenance facility, along with F-15, F-16, F-4, CH53 and other types. I was told it had cracks in engine blades, tires were balled, brakes didn't work well, and some other stuff I can't recall. At the time I was training to be a structural technician. The riveting workmanship on the Mig was terrible. As a supersonic jet, it's supposed to have countersunk rivits. The solid aluminium rivits on the fuselage were of countersunk type but about 50 to 60% were all over the place. You would cut your hand if you ran in along the fuselage. It was quite a shock.
That's probably a testimony to the corruption on the assembly and QA side of the Russian aerospace industry. You'd expect the panels to have all sorts of excessive stresses in them around the offset rivet heads and consequent risk of cracking of the fastened aluminium sheet.
@@F_Tim1961 Exactly, there are a hwole set of regulations regarding rivit spacing and positioning, deburring et al.. I would have failed my certification if I had presented just a few wonky rivits. It was drilled into us, only the best workmanship is acceptable. And here I was face to face with an enemy jet. Even as a rank novice, the Mig looked like crap. By comparison, the F-16's were perfection down to the millimeter. Even the pannel fit on old Phantoms looked amazing by comparison.
@@trespire If you could get cut from the edges of the countersunk rivets that suggests that the rivets jammed so badly during insertion prior to setting that they did not pull up properly. That suggests that the chord rib holes don't line up with the drillings on the sheet metal wing surfaces. Once you have half set a rivet like that you' d have to use a specialised tool to mill the top of the external part down with out scarring the sheet metal surrounding them and then with another tool, hydraulically press the tail of the rivet back into the wing section (and catch it). After that you'd have to redrill the hole for clearance while the sheetmetal is now on the wing and fit a custom rivet. I had to look up how solid ac rivets are in fact set. I suspect for aircraft there is a massive wing jig (at Boeing and similar places) and that backs up the rivets as the are set on the wing chord profiles. Possibly the underside rivets are done using countersunk pop rivets . If not there have to be special jigs that can be set inside the partly metal covered wing to back up the riveting gun. You can see why light a/craft manufacturers try to use pop rivets wherever possible - these solid rivets come with a mess of problems in installation. The Rivet spacing is set by the manufacturer's design bureau. Maintenance can't set that. you might be referring to small internal changes that are not structural like fittings for seats and tables and equipment where maintenance can make decisions. It's an interesting fact that on the fuselage tail end of commercial aircraft where the airflow has separated from the body, the rivets are often dome head types. These must be much simpler to drive and the hole preparation is not nearly as critical - there's no chamfer.
I flew with a former Navy pilot attached to this AF unit. He was super irritated 20 years later that Bond had crashed their "best" example of the Mig 23. His account of the accident was very similar to this video except he added that the General's neck was "four feet long" after the supersonic ejection. His take was that Bond panicked himself into a non- survivable ejection.
@@decimated550 once as a kid I saw a cat who somehow had been squeezed by a parking car, from his tail up, like a toothpaste tube. His eyeballs protruded some two inches out. I know it sounds horrible, but as young kids we found that incredibly funny. Shame on us...
This channel showed up in my feed and I was hesitant to watch any videos, due to the somewhat sensationalist name. Yet, I am extremely impressed with your calm reporting style, the excellent animation and editing and the deep research you clearly do. Subscribed! Keep up the good work!
Thanks for giving it a try! I actually shamelessly ripped off the channel name from @MaritimeHorrors, a channel on (you guessed it) ship accidents. He does good work, no flashy presentation but solid research, and I wanted to apply the same formula to my aviation passion.
I can understand not wanting to damage the engine from a rapid shutdown, but once you eject, the point is moot -unless you're flying a Delta Dart over a cornfield in 1970.-
Tragic example of poor judgement and unneccessary risk taking - especially for a 5,000 hour pilot. Reminds me of an old saying: There are old pilots or bold pilots, but there are no old and bold pilots.
"especially for a 5,000 hour pilot" Well... He was a fighter pilot. A combat veteran at that. Give a fight pilot an option of flying something high performance and 9 times out of 10 they'll jump at the chance. I'm just guessing it was too much of a temptation. Angel-on-the-shoulder: "No, I shouldn't. It's abuse of authority and isn't safe." Devil-on-the-shoulder: "It's a cool high performance combat aircraft that you can either fly now or never." General Bond: "...Okay, let's get suited up. Show me the training flight syllabus."
Also, credit to a pylt93 for pointing out a flaw in the original version of this video about the intake compressor stall vs. asymmetric engine stall...According to a pilot quoted in Red Eagles, the MiG-23 could experience an "air intake buzz", a compressor stall in one of the intakes, but not the other; this would cause a the aircraft to yaw and roll. Obviously, this wasn't the engine itself stalling, since the MiG-23 is a single-engine aircraft.
A transonic buzz is not a compressor stall. It's a rapid oscillation between supersonic and subsonic air flow at a particular point. It can occur at other points on the airframe. The Navy T-45 Goshawk has one on the vertical fin at high speed.
I read about this a few years ago, and my understanding is Bond had only a cursory brief before he launched. Considering all the training he'd had in the different types he'd flown previously, he of all people should've known you don't just hop into an unfamiliar Mach 2 jet and launch. Bad judgement did him in.
I don’t think you guys have the right to comment on what he was thinking or what he did he was a combat veteran of the Korean and Vietnam war highly decorated he had the right to be reckless and me or you don’t have the right to call him out on it let’s leave that to his peers
@@christosvoskresye yes he paid his dues and he had the right to be reckless. And who says he was being reckless? Pretty sure those are pretty smart guys he was fully briefed and me or you could not have done a better job than he that day so I think we should just tip our hats to the guy and say hey he went out doing extraordinary things. I don’t know why everyone’s assuming he did something wrong. Blah blah the facts say. Everyone’s putting the blame on him because that’s the easy thing to do I’m telling you right now he didn’t do anything wrong. If he didn’t die doing that then we wouldn’t have learned that plane has those faults at that speed end of conversation
There is no problem with shutting MiG 23 engine at supersonic speed and then restart it after bleeding off speed. Our pilots did it regularly when engine overheated in supersonic speeds. That is even in MiG 23 manual.... which was not available to USAF.
Higher ranks don't fly as often as youngsters and piloting is a perishable skill. Hubris can kill you. Worse for the USAF was the loss of the valuable aircraft because flying against them is likely to save many lives in combat. Read Chuck Yeager's biography. He survived because he was fierce about doing things correctly EVERY time. Many test pilots died because though having thousands of hours they did not fly with the utter self-discipline of Yeager. The moral is "be like Chuck" and nothing else or different. BG Yeager lived to be 97 years old.
The ironic thing about it is nowadays just about anyone can buy one of those things, an old Army buddy of mine from the mid 80's bought one a few years back. He's a big wig in the American Legion and has been involved for some years now in buying ex Soviet equipment for Cold War memorials and displays, occasionally he'll throw his own money into a deal and buy something for himself like a truck or something like that for his personal collection. The way he wound up with a MIG-23 was they wanted to purchase some trucks from Hungary or one of the satellite countries but the arms dealer in Eastern Europe that they always deal with wouldn't separate the trucks from the MIG's because they were the ground controller trucks for each aircraft, 6 trucks, 6 MIG's, so they called around and got buyers for 5 of the MIG-23's but couldn't find a 6th, the difference was so little money he just threw his own in and one of them was his. When he called me and said "You'll never believe what I just bought..." I immediately planned a motorcycle road trip from my home in Pennsylvania to Amarillo Tx where he lives. The really funny thing about the story is him and I were air defense (Vulcan) gunners in the Army, when we walked into the hangar where it's kept I looked at him and said "Gimme your gun, I feel like I should be shooting it full of holes!!!", then after walking up to it I said to him "All those years ago I'd never in my wildest imagination believe I'd ever be this close to one of these things unless it was dropping bombs on me." One thing that struck me about it was how massive it was for a single seat aircraft, I mean those things are huge, equally as amazing is how tight it was sitting in the cockpit for an aircraft of that size, all I had on was a ball cap, T-shirt, jeans and boots, I couldn't imagine how cramped it would be to wear a flight suit in something like that especially for a couple of hours at a time, that must have been exhausting. It's a complete aircraft minus the arms of course, but it's not airworthy because the engine is beyond it's service life but everything is there and intact, some of the MIG-23's that were part of the deal were incomplete like the avionics or other things had been cannibalized by the country that had them to keep other aircraft flying, several of them were outside the hangar waiting to be reassembled after being torn down for shipping. After all these years standing next to one of those things and especially sitting in one was probably the most surreal moment of my life, all those years ago I'd never have dreamed that one day I'd actually sit in the cockpit of one of those things.
Chuck was flying P-51's as a sergeant (enlisted man), so he knew how to obey the "rules of reality". Plus walking through endless miles of enemy territority to escape to spain, gave him a persepective, after escaping his shot up aircraft
You are totally correct. Yeager specifically relates in his book how another pilot got through with all his required missions, flew his fighter aircraft back to base, announced over the radio "I'm coming home Ma!" and then proceeded to attempt a Roll Over maneuver over the airbase which caused him to crash his aircraft and kill himself. One of the biggest things Flight Instructors attempt to teach new pilots is "Fly the Aircraft". If you don't do that, your going to die. That's why I stopped flying. I have a private pilot's license and I realized after about 100 hours of piloting that if I did not keep up my skills by flying at least once a month (or more) I would become a danger to myself so parked myself. Have never regretted it.
Absolutely foolish and irresponsible for General Bond to fly that airplane. At his rank, he was no longer actively flying airplanes and he was certainly not a test pilot. In the 90's, we knew very little about the flying characteristics or operational peculiarities of Soviet fighter aircraft, making EVERY flight a test flight with significantly elevated levels of risk. This was a General who used his rank and position to fulfill his ego by taking a rare and dangerous asset for a joy ride. His superiors should have stopped him, but just like the 1994 B-52 crash at Fairchild, once you reach a certain level within the Air Force hierarchy, there is very little to prevent your ego from writing a check your skill set cannot cash.
Well at least he only killed himself, instead of taking down a whole crew. Like the Wing commander hotdogging it in the B-52 at Fairchild AFB, Alaska. He killed his entire crew.
@@stevecovaleski6315 All of it in U.S. or Allied aircraft. All of it - combat or not, in aircraft he was thoroughly familiar with. Zero hours in a Soviet-made aircraft, with almost no knowledge of its eccentricities. No matter how experienced you are at flying supersonic aircraft, or even the largest military or commercial aircraft, it does NOT mean you can sit in the pilot's seat of one of our Shuttles (when we had them), and expect to do anything but end up as a grease-skid on the runway when landing - if you could even make the half-continent banking turn to shed your bullet-belittling speed, making your underbelly white-hot. Supersonic aircraft are incredibly unforgiving machines, each with its own peculiarities - and he had to have known this. "Combat vet with 5,000 hours," is the exact arrogant mistake he made - for ego's sake alone - one last joy-ride. The loss of that asset was far more important than one retiring Lieutenant-General. I can't imagine how the pilots in that squadron felt, hearing that precious Mig go down in flames - wasted for nothing. Actually, I CAN imagine it - it just makes me sick. I'm not disrespecting his combat experience, or his service - just his impulsive foolishness that late in the game, and his purposeless loss of a critical, life-saving asset. To know the enemy's vulnerabilities is to defeat the enemy.
Hubris seems to be the popular 1-word description here for this. Does it also apply to the June 24, 1994 B-52 crash at Fairchild AFB? Does it also apply to the 1981 Pushkin Tu-104 crash? I think so. Seems like one could start a "Hubris Hall of Fame".
Bud Holland had a reputation for hot-dogging in the B-52 and continually breaking safety rules with no consequences. That day it caught up to him, and he took 3 guys with him.
There's a BIG Difference between the two incidents, General Bonds accident only took HIS life. The B-52 Generals arrogance cost Several lives. And it doesn't seem Gen. Bond was "Hot dogging" and he also wasn't on the deck.
Scary situation to be at Mach 2 and the canopy starts melting while the engine will not slow down because of an interlock to protect the engine. Or it starts rolling. Maybe he would have been fine if not trying to go all out in his first flight in the aircraft. Interesting video, remember seeing this story on the news as kid.
Please keep these videos coming!! I’ve just watched them all twice over and being a pilot myself, I truly enjoy the depth and detail you put forward in each of them. 🤘🏼🤘🏼
Thanks for the feedback! I'm a pilot as well and my goal is to tell these interesting stories in an accurate manner and without the "fluff" or sensationalism that you sometimes find in other channels.
People need to cut this guy some slack, 33 yrs service, Korean War, 3 tours of Vietnam, over 5000 hrs of flight time, he earned the right to take this flight, many others before him have done the same, unfortunately it went bad
He didn't deserve anything. He surely had an excellent service record but this didn't allow him to pull his rank to operate military equipment he wasn't trained for just for his amusement before his retirement. His death was tragic but thought the US Air Force an invaluable lesson.
@@bastadimasta Have you been in the military? Shit like this and lesser is par for the course in all branches, atleast in the US military. In the Navy it was common for people retiring or separating to grab as many critical manuals as they could and "dispose" of them on thier way out.
I noticed in the hanger next to the Mig 23 was an F-111. I was stationed at Mountain Home Air Force Base in the 80s which is north of the Nellis range in Idaho. while I was there we lost two aircraft one I believe had a compressor stall and flew into the side of the mountain and they brought the pieces back with a large helicopter and the other was our wing Commander Colonel Coleman. He and the wso had to eject when the plane had issues. The F-111 has a capsule and there are air cushions that inflate after ejection which are used to soften the impact on the ground and also act as flotation devices in the water. One of them did not inflate and it hit the ground hard and broke his back and also injured the co-pilot but they both did live. I was wondering if you could do a video on those two incidences?
Thanks, that sounds interesting. Would you mind hitting me up at AviationHorrors@gmail.com? I'd like to get any other details you have on that incident.
Probability is that the general pulled rank, but after doing so much for program, he wanted to get one last check ride for his bucket list. The Mig-23 was not a great fighter, but the engine/airframe combination was impressive👏. By accounts I've heard, it would fly until it broke apart. Probably like a Soviet F-104. There may have been a reason, he was flying the Mig-23, that has not been declassified. With black, & even grey projects it's hard to tell🤐!
These were EARLY model 23s that the 44677th had and they had been sitting in the desert for three years before going to the USA. LATER Mig-23s were actually excellent fighters, the ML,MLA and MLD.
@@mig21pilot , while the later Mig-23's may have been good fighters. I'm actually quoting Executive Outcome, a South African mercenary company. They were talking about the Mig-23's an African nation was using, I think it could have been Sierra Leon, but I'm not sure. They said the avionics were junk, but the engine & airframe was strong & reliable.
There are old pilots; and there are bold pilots; but there are no old, bold pilots. Arrogance, ignorance and stupidity is a tough combination to overcome. Having flown against the Red Hats on three occasions, this was a huge waste of a great training asset. The F-4/F-5 training combo (Mig 23/Mig 21) was great to fight against in dissimilar air combat training.
Lack of total training on the Mig-23 which its a real shame on account of what a marvelous Pilot General Bond was. That he may still be flying somewhere
I sat in the cockpit of a Mig-23 (and MI-24) in the Kiyv War Museum, in Ukraine. You can do it too paying a small additional fee, but you've better wait for the war to end. It is extremely impressive, like being fastened to a spearhead. I remember thinking that never in my life would I have dared to solo in one of these, let alone fight with it! 💪
It is tragic that Gen Bond lost his life after such distinguished and meritorious service to his country and to the cause of freedom on the eve of his richly deserved retirement. I can clearly recall reading of this accident in my local newspaper after it happened. At the time that I read the story of his accident, I thought ofcourse we're flying MiGs, why wouldn't we be, it was never this big deal to me.
Watched this clip with interest, as my parents and the Bonds were very close friends during their early Air Force careers. My father and General Bonds attended flight training, primary and advanced together, graduated 1 & 2 and both chose fighters (F-86s) and were sent to Korea (51st FIS). After Korea my father went into the agency U-2 program in early 1956 and General Bonds stayed in as a Blue-Suitor. But they stayed in touch over the years (Xmas cards etc.). My father retired from the agency and the Air Force in 1971 and was hired by Lockheed ADP (Skunk Works) and until his retirement in 1988. I discussed Bonds death with him on several occasions and he assured me that General Bonds was as high a caliber and capable pilot as there ever was. I would suggest there is more to this story than what was presented.
the mig23 is the sort of plane that wouldnt have been deemed safe to fly in the west. he could be the best pilot ever and still get caught out in the heat of the moment. all i can say is may he R.I.P and atleast he was doing what he loved.
Thank you for this comment! I’m am General Bond’s oldest granddaughter and I was 3 years old when he died. I’ve spent a great deal of time researching and speaking with family members, friends and colleagues and I can assure you that he had flown the MiG 23 on numerous occasions and didn’t pull rank to take a damn joy ride in that piece of junk during his farewell tour. He didn’t die in the MiG 23 and I wish some of these people would keep their disgusting comments to themselves.
I was stationed at Area51 a year after this incident. We also had an A-7 pilot fly from NV to Philly where his plane glammed out, he ejected and the aircraft slammed into a hotel.
@@AviationHorrors If I could make a request as to another incident to cover: the 1945 crash where a B-25 Mitchell flew into the Empire State Building. I've always wondered what public sentiment was like about that when it happened. I know that it was even a concern when they were designing the WTC, I wonder if that incident was still in their minds because I remember reading that the designer(s) of 1 and 2 WTC designed them being able to still remain standing after being hit by a Boeing 707. Of course, I don't think even in their worst nightmares did they realize the extent of what would eventually, unfortunately, happen. But it's rather fascinating, if somewhat morbid, how such incidents might influence and shape events for decades to come.
@@matchesburn Good call, I'll add that to the list. Yeah, I think I knew of the B-25 incident even back in 2001, and I wondered why the WTC would collapse if it was rated against airplane strikes. Obviously, huge difference between a 757-sized airline full of full, vs a B-25...
@@AviationHorrors at the world trade center they used the airplane like a missile to penetrate the structure and the jet fuel as accelerant to cause a fire...the aircraft were accelerating at top speed..after the first bombing of the trade center they told investigators they were going to be back to take out the buildings....
Our unit responded to the crash, didn't see much of the wreckage, just the remains. It was a face palm moment, aside from the tragedy, on WTF he was doing flying this.
Mig-23 is single motor. It cannot experience compressor stall on only one side. Perhaps the author is referring intake turbulence, where the air going into intake develops more turbulence on one side. Would that cause a uncommanded roll? I don't know.
A couple of other people brought this up as well, but it seems to have been a phenomena called "air intake buzz", which evidently can affect a single side intake. Take a look at my pinned comment, I've tried to explain it better.
It is one thing taking a strange aircraft for a gentle sightseeing 'I bought the T-shirt' trip. It is quite another pushing that aircraft to it's extreme. ...... This suggests a complacency that led to a serious error of judgement.
@@sarge420 It was an A-7 flown by an F-117 pilot from Tonopah that crashed into a Ramada Inn at the Indianapolis airport. The Air Force used A-7s as a cover story for the still secret F-117 program. The pilots would actually fly A-7s when they wanted to take a cross-country flight and this pilot was returning to Tonopah when he experienced an engine failure and attempted to dead-stick the a/c into Indianapolis. When he broke out of the clouds, he was too high to land and didn't have enough altitude to do a 360 and was forced to eject.
What bothers me the most is the fact that he pushed this aircraft to it's limits. That's really foolish and he probably would have survived if he hadn't. He should have been happy with just flying something so exotic, but got greedy and was asking a lot from a machine he had zero flight experience with.
That F-111F at 1:50 was an F-111 that I loaded a LOT of weapons on during Desert Storm. That very aircraft was the wing king's (Wing Commander's) personal jet, and he flew it on the opening night of the war, on Jan 17th 1991. Col Tom Lennon, of the 48th Fighter Wing at RAF Lakenheath, UK. I've seen it at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH, and I'm glad it survived the scrapyard.
Several people have raised questions about my description of “air intake buzz…an asymmetric compressor stall affecting only one of the aircraft’s two intakes”. That explanation / description comes from Red Eagles chapter 10. Verbatim: “This was a compressor stall in one of the intakes, but not the other. It caused so much drag that it caused a yaw that brought the opposite wing forward…” Skimming some of the aeronautical science literature on “air inlet buzz”, here’s a concise definition: “An airflow instability that occurs when a shock wave is alternately swallowed and regurgitated by the inlet. At its worst, the condition can cause violent fluctuation in pressure throughout the inlet, which may result in damage to the inlet structure and maybe to the engine itself.” Therefore, it Does sound like this phenomena could affect only one of the two inlets on a two-inlet aircraft like the MiG-23. Now, it also sounds like there would be an interaction between the airflow disruption and the aircraft’s engine; if the the engine stalled would be symmetric (not asymmetric) for a single-engine design like the MiG-23. So, I’m not saying I completely understand it, but I’m all ears if someone can explain it better.
Asymmetric compressor stalls do occur, If the disturbed airflow disrupts one side of the compressor more than the other. Even a single-inlet system, like that on and F-100, could produce them it conditions were right. Needless to say, it's tough on the compressor.
What a wonderful little channel to find. Subscription number 237 from the UK 🍀, I wish you many more. I too exist in the unlit corners of TH-cam --- it is where the real people are
Tragic, but avoidable lose. The pilots in that program earned their "seats" in that aircraft through years of hard work and dedication . The Mig 23 was a serious jet to fly even for the most capable pilot . Above Mach one, flying characteristics change on most fighters and require the special knowledge that can only be acquired through study and "hands on " training in the aircraft. The General should have done himself a favor and limited himself to staying below Mach one and taken a simple flight out to the assigned area and back , with a "touch and go" to a full stop.
Excellent general analysis. The thing is, (and he HAD to have known this) EVERY aircraft ever made has/had its own unique peculiarities (from the Wright Brother's first craft onward) - strengths, quirks, oddities, and weaknesses. Ramp all of that up to supersonic speeds, and people can argue the details all day long: but the details only matter in retrospect, after the precious asset is gone. This aircraft, like all supersonic aircraft, had those oddities, quirks, strengths, and weaknesses - all MAGNIFIED tremendously traveling at twice the speed of sound. You don't just "jump in and hit Mach 2," and expect to just come back. Something unexpected IS going to happen. Climbing into the cockpit of a supersonic craft made in a foreign country, that you had someone give you a "short check-out talk" about, and then expecting it to act exactly like every American fighter you've ever flown, is an act of such foolish arrogance that it was suicidal - purposeful or just arrogant, but unbelievably foolish (to be kind), and an unforgivable waste. I say all of this with the greatest of respect for his combat, experience, and rank, but - my God...
@@AviationHorrors His experience in those supersonic types didn't prepare him for the flight characteristics of the MiG-23. He should've known better than to launch in an unknown type with virtually zero training.
@@berretta9mm158 Exactly. It's the very fact that he had so much experience that makes it unfathomable that he didn't understand just how dangerous what he was doing really was!
'77-'79 was my first field assignment in aircraft maintenance. Someone was talking about a GEN. that was flying a Russian aircraft for fun and died trying. Could there be more than one story along these lines?
It was irresponsible and unnecessary, but what's so bad about that? With his experience, the most likely outcome is he has a story that goes "Just before I retired, I pulled rank and they let me fly a MiG at mach 2." Nobody would be offended or all that surprised.
For what it's worth, the Mig 23 was notoriously difficult to fly at high speeds (and not very impressive at lower speeds). Most Red Eagle pilots actually preferred the Mig 21 and earlier subsonic 17 and 15s. Looking at the Soviet Union, it appears they also realized the Mig 23's limitations and kept the older Fishbed interceptors in service, even though the Flogger was supposed to replace it.
You don't mention altitude during loss of control but it figures to be near max where controlling the plane is easy to lose. Flying like a bullet and applying control surfaces gets some adverse effects in motion that thin air isn't going to do much to cause the air with that velocity to care whether the heavy plane has wings.
Those Soviet High Performance Aircraft are Very Finicky in My experience. I think the Glove Compartment was probably Over filled with Speeding Tickets Leading to a Catastrophic Cascade Failure of the Stereo System. When the General looked down to reach for the Tuning Knob He accidentally hit the Vodka Dispenser that with out a Glass Properly placed Sprayed Ricocheting Off the Master Arm Switch into His Face and Eyes Blinding Him causing Him to Loose Control. Either that or some Russian Thingy Broke.
Mig-23 is a dangerous problematic fighter design. Pilot never flew the Flogger before. General Bond made a bad choice, and no one in the know stopped him from taking that risk.
Maybe is was just a pushy know it all and used his rank to get what he wanted. I wouldn't try very hard to stop him either, hoping he'd break something so he'd have to answer for it. idk
There have been other flawed eyebrow raising fighter designs like the Mig 23. The Lockheed F 104 Starfighter killed many pilots. It too had a secondary configuration like the Mig 23 that an unfamiliar pilot would crash in. The Vought Corsair A7 had one wing angle configurations for take-off and landing, and another for flying. The Vought A7 was an aircraft carrier operated attack jet. The Vought F7U Cutlass was another naval fighter feared by it's pilots. It was underpowered and squirrely. Nothing against Vought. The Vought A8 Crusader was a sharkmouthed pure 4 cannon dogfighter that North Vietnamese fighter pilots feared. The A8 was the main rival to the F4 Phantom in Top Gun type fighter competitions. Pure badass gun toting Mig killer. Certainly looked the part in configuration, and gaping sharkmouth nose art.
Just about every aircraft accident results from a combination of several factors. In this case, it seems the MiG-23 was a flawed design even USSR pilots were leery of. Bond being a fighter jock, I would not be surprised if he had a "can do" attitude that would see him through any difficulty. If he had been flying a US jet, or a MiG-15, 17, 19 or 21, he likely would have prevailed. It seems the consensus was that loss of control ensued from an air flow problem with one of the air intakes, probably after he initiated a right turn. Apparently it was known that at speeds of Mach 2+ the MiG-23 remained safe while only flying straight ahead. Did Bond know that? Probably not. In any case, he failed to reduce speed before he would need to reverse his heading to remain inside the test range. Finally, by not cutting off the fuel supply, his final option to reduce his speed because he wanted to avoid damaging the engine, he was forced to eject. Summary: it was a combination of peculiarities of the MiG-23 and Bond's inadequate training in that particular aircraft. I would also point out that other jets become very finicky at speeds of Mach 2+; the SR-71 cruises over Mach 2, but in order to reverse course at such speeds requires a turn radius that can cover 3 states!
Do you have any citations for "Even USSR pilots were leery of."? The MiG-23ML+ series was generally beloved and remained in service until the end of the USSR.
@@Nothing_._Here The USSR had world class scientists and engineers but they were handicapped by the communist government and it’s shoddy state owned production facilities and the technology gap. Thus the sloppy workmanship.
I had the same question but couldn't find any information on that :-/ In general, the USAF pilots didn't want to rely on the Russian seats, given the difficulty of maintaining them...one pilot said that he'd rather dead-stick into the desert than eject, the only time he'd eject is if over mountainous terrain.
No. Not the cost of doing business. There was no 'business' involved. Nothing gained by the program. This was a joy ride for his vanity. (old navy flyer).
It was irresponsible and dangerous and if he had gotten away with it, it would have been magnificent. There would be TH-cam interviews of him explaining the thrill of his lifetime he got from breaking all the limits and rules and Mach 2. Dying from a foolish, stunt gone wrong, super sonic ejection from a misappropriated MiG-23... that's the way I wanna go.
I think you may have done your video on the cover story of the Generals death. I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters when it occurred. It was first reported in the Stars and Stripes paper that the General died in a crash of a stealth fighter. The next day they retracted that article and reported that he died in a MiG 23 crash (the lesser of the two evils as both were black projects). In early 1986, I went into the F-117 stealth program. First the Red Hats (MiG program) operated out of area 10 not area 51. The MiG's flew during the day, while the F-117 flew at night. I believe that he died in an F-117 that crashed at Tonopah test range (area 10). If I'm not mistaken, the crash was due to an avionics part (3 axis gyro) that was installed incorrectly (at the time all three cable connectors for pitch, roll, and yaw) were keyed the same, causing the three axis controls to respond incorrectly. The aircraft rolled upside down and flew into the ground at the end of the runway. Since the Stealth program had a higher Top Secret rating, it was decided to go with the MiG story, to keep the existence of the F-117 program a secret. If I remember correctly we got the MiG's primarily from Egypt, and they wanted to keep that a secret. We provided them F-4 Phantoms and support for the MiGs. The Egyptians wanted to keep that hush-hush as they still had soviet equipment, and didn't want to piss them off. As an unusual coincidence, while TDY at Rota Naval base in Spain in 1982, I got to sit in the cockpit of one of those F-4's that diverted into Rota Spain on the way back to the US for scheduled phase dock overhaul. The 2 ship took off from somewhere (I don't recall where) and one or both of the lead planes external fuel tanks jettisoned causing a fireball that the second F-4 had to roll through. There was 2 remarkable things about the F-4's. One carried its own unique T.O. for one of it's engines, as there had been an engine fire and they rewired things differently. The other was while sitting in the cockpit of one plane, I could see the tarmac, as the floor board had rusted through making it visible. I apologize for rambling, but I thought you might find it interesting.
Higher ranking officers who are no longer full time pilots, often maintain their flying status to 1) keep flying, and 2) to make extra money. For a General to fly one of the Red Hat Migs, or an F-117 they would have had to be briefed into that Top Secret Program at some point in their career. Just because you have a Top Secret clearance, doesn't mean you know about every Top Secret Program, they would have to have a need to know about that specific program due to compartmentalization.
I remember as a kid in the '80s who had a deep love of aviation being excited while checking out the various aviation books and magazines a squadron signal book on the MIG-23. In the mid to late '80s there was no internet for the masses shit the phone I'm writing this with and more than likely whoever is reading this is also on one. These things were beyond sci-fi, so you really had to hunt for your knowledge AND hope said knowledge was actually legit. Back then most combat aircraft enthusiasts believed they'd never get information on "enemy" aircraft on par with our own aircraft. A few things from that book still stick out in my memory. The Mig-23 gave a scary amount of people the ability to have extremely large water tanks for thier desolate houses. And among other things fleets of canoes. I was very surprised when I discovered these guys just dumped thier empty drop tanks wherever. The other thing was on the reliability of the 23. It more or less said the following" It's easy for civilians to own thier own 23. All one has to do is buy a piece of land and wait."
I had the great fortune to visit Russia in 1999 and fly in various trainers and fighters in the Incredible Adventures commercial venture. We were at the test pilot HQ and training center. For me one of the most striking memories was the stairwell wall, lined with photographs of dead test pilots. Not just a few, either. One of the remarkable gents I flew with, his father was on the wall, killed testing (I believe I recall) an early variant of the MiG-17. His grandfather has met the same fate testing the earliest MiG-3's. USSR aircraft development during the cold war, at least by my observations on site, was obviously more liberal in tolerance for quirks and risk to pilots. The aircraft were crudely finished in comparison to a contemporary Western equivalent. A Russian guide boasted to me before a flight in the MiG-21, as we stood there watching it drip hydraulic fluid, that it "could be landed on a dirt road and fixed with tools found in a farmer's work shed." It looked it. Bond pulled some strings and played around with stuff from that other design and build philosophy. Alas, his picture is probably not on that stairwell wall.
What do I think? Inadequate training in the aircraft, not to mention putting a pilot who should never have been behind the controls into the bird and taking it off. If that sounds harsh - it is so intended. I suppose prohibiting general officers from flying solo can be considered one good thing out of the accident.
The funny thing is that everything you say about his resume shows that he of all people should have known better not to pull rank and essentially order or intimidate lesser staff into letting him fly that plane. Then you have the fact that someone did so, maybe a few someones, who likewise should have known better. This is not just a failure of the program, it's a failure of the fundamental mentality of a military organization. It's the same sort of bullshit that let the Air Force to let that nutcase B-52 pilot continue to fly B-52s until he impaled one at an airshow killing the crew and blowing a quarter of the base facilities to smithereens. This is exactly why they are forced to retire.
Once met a Russian Trucker with a Tattoo of a Mig 21 on his arm, he told me hundreds of Russian pilots died flying the plane into the ground, I told him the Wings are way too small and the fuel tank behind the Pilot would effect the center of gravity when the aircraft is upside down which would then pull the aircraft right into the deck.
Overconfident almost-retired military man whom people are afraid to object to due to rank, destroys a piece of hard-to-obtain machinery... with himself in it. Now that's a typical military story if I ever heard one.
Death as a result of hubris, by no means the first pilot to fail in this aspect, and for as much training that can be attempted to rid the cockpit of civil & military pilots feeling they can handle anything an aircraft or weather can throw at them, needless deaths will continue to occur. The one ribbon missing from all that splattered egg on his chest was knowing not to risk his life, when it was a non-combat situation and the choices he made were all his.
I only saw one problem in your speculation You stated his reasoning for not cutting fuel to slow the aircraft was because "it's something any pilot would be loathe to do for risk of damaging the valuable asset"... However, that holds no water once factoring that a jettison would be the *far more likely* option to damage the frame! Which makes it more likely that his lack in knowledge/familiarity with the aircraft led to poor decisions 💯
Lack of proficiency / familiarity was likely a key factor, as you suggest; shutting down the engine entirely probably wouldn’t be a natural reaction, and because it would likely cause damage to the engine and force him to make a dead-stick landing.
I was told by somebody that he was flying a UFO. And he got killed that same. Somebody changed the store when I called him back. A few months ano he was a spokesperson. Regarding that crash
The only thing I really take issue with in this whole weird scenario... Is regardless of what may have gone wrong with the aircraft... Why would someone of his experience think that ejecting at those speeds was a good idea? A nearly mach 2 ejection? Hell, regardless of what the plane is doing at that moment.. You might as well ride it in at least until it literally starts to break up or something. At those speeds, staying with the plane might kill you eventually, sure.. But punching out is preety much definitely going to kill you immediately. If you're pretty much sure you're going to die.. Might as well stick with the aircraft as long as you can, even if just for the 1 in a million chance it might un-fuck itself.
I agree. Ejecting at supersonic speed is not a good idea. The early rocket sleds tests demonstrated the potential damage and I don't think they even got close to mach one. Another issue is he was worried that the canopy was going to melt. If it was he was perhaps exceeding the design parameters. I rumors I heard is that particular engine had a fuel system which had an iffy controller with no governor past a certain engine speed. Most jet engines do not operate at max thrust they are capable of but at the max thrust for a designed reliably. In this instance if you reached a certain speed apparently the controller locked in the speed and the throttle setting made no difference. Scary. This is like having your cruise control locking at 75 and won't shut off. However the rumor is that once a threshold was passed the controller would continue to accelerate the engine until destruction. If that happened the airspeed might exceed the design speed of the fuselage. Friction causes heat. If the canopy was thought to be melting he was way above it's designed top speed. With a jet engine power is controlled by fuel flow. If there was no way to turn off the fuel but the way described there was a major pucker factor. If the man hit the airstream at more than a thousand miles an hour he was a bag of jello instantly. In the eighties one got into a flat spin from which there is no recovery and crashed. The pilot ejected and was fine.
@@kermitthehermit5949 Yeah some of the big Migs and Sukhois from that Era were basically designed as anti-aircraft missiles with pilots. They were pure interceptors and nothing else. Pretty much get to altitude as fast as possible, take a few shots at an American bomber and then land the thing as a glider, or just get it down to a more manageable altitude and bail out. They were barely even made to be re-used..kinda like those rocket powered Me-163s the Germans were trying out by the end of WW2. This plane seems like the right Era for that so it may well have had a "melt the engines and just fuckin climb" detent on the throttle. Would have been not only in Russian, a foreign language, but also Cyrillic, a totally different alphabet.. So it isn't even as easy as just memorizing phrases. Your theory definitely checks out.
@@The_Sword_King Basically same as the second part of my answer to the other person applies to your comment as well. The controls would have not only been very unfamiliar.. But stuff would have been labeled in Russian.. And you can't just memorize a few key words and phrases very easily cause it's a whole different alphabet too. So yeah. I could easily see him just being like "WTF?" in a moment of startle or panic. Like "What the fuck does катапультное mean? Do I hit that or the one that says Отсечка топлива?"
My late father-in-law was an engineering manager in ASC. He and his engineers were involved in the engineering required to keep the foreign aircraft flying, so he knew about Gen. Bond’s misadventure right after it happened. He was appalled that the general took this flight and at the waste of a lot of work to maintain these jets for the training of pilots on active flight status.
"You can never be too old to have some fun."
"You can never be too young to die like an idiot."
My buddies and I used to crew F-16s at Eglin so we got to meet him a few times. He was still current in that jet, and a pretty decent guy to deal with. He would come out on the weekends once a month or so and go cross country for meetings. Always seamed pretty layed back, would visit for a bit, small talk, and ask if the jet was ready, hop in and haul butt. We launched him out that weekend obviously not knowing he wouldn't return.
Thanks for your service.
We remember him as an able manager and a good guy.
@@WildBillCox13 thank him for what? Staying in the states and seeing zero combat? The whole ‘thank you for your service’ thing makes me want to puke.
@@Jimmythefish577 excuse you. Every serviceman is part of a larger machine and mission. some of them go oversears to fight, while others are stateside helping the military's various elements prepare others for combat, or test future weapons for combat. A drill sergeant may have never seen combat, but prepares new recruits who one day will. So he and they are both to be thanked for their service.
@@Jimmythefish577 Didn't really think that through did you? I served at Eglin (and yes, knew Gen Bond) and I also served in the First Gulf War. You see... you can have numerous postings during a career. Some safe, some not so much. Since you have no idea where ELSE the gentleman above served, your comment is pure bullshit. Go puke somewhere else.
I was a 1st Lieutenant Aircraft Maintenance Officer at Eglin AFB in the late 1970's. I recall General Bond coming out to fly the F-4s and T-38s. I was standing by at the aircraft one day when the van pulled up and out stepped a two star general. I saluted not knowing who he was. He saluted back and walked up to me shook my hand and introduced himself as Bobby Bond. he was quite a personable guy. it is sad that he went out that way but it was doing what he probably enjoyed the most, Flying.
Thanks for sharing! He seems to have been a well-liked guy, maybe it made it difficult for folks to say "No sir, you shouldn't fly this..."
@@AviationHorrors it’s not like some guy right out a flight school jumped in that thing and took it without daddy‘s permission. He was more than qualified to fly it he was fully briefed on the plane strength’s and weaknesses. He went hard An maxed that thing out and it started to get silly on him. I could only imagine flipping inverted in a millisecond and diving towards the ground .8 g’s. what is that six seconds till Impacting the deck at that speed? I would’ve ejected too and they didn’t find out about that buffering and engine loading till later
@@Reggiestreet Sorry, once you have stated, "He had the right to be reckless," as you did 9 minutes before this comment, it's too late to offer your "insight" into how perfectly qualified Bond was for this flight.
@@Reggiestreet Overconfidence. Soviet planes are very sturdy and most of them very reliable - sort of "fuel and go" machines, but they´ve had special aerodynamics characteristics pilot should be trained to cope with. That is reason why our pilots had to fly first in MiG 23 UB version with experienced instructor in the back seat... Once pilot understood how to handle these aerodynamic characterictics he was safe. BTW there ware series of mishaps with MiG 23 planes in Czecho-Slovak and Czech Airforces in 90-ies due to civilians taking over management of Army with resulting sharp drop in flying hours and consequences were lost airplanes and pilot´s too. Pilot has to fly to keep his skills. This is what caused that general to die - lack of practice in particular plane and lack of flying in general (I guess this from from panick ejection at nonsurvivable speed).
My grandpa was an F4 phantom pilot in Vietnam, and him and Bobby Bond were in the same flying group (I’m not in the military, so I don’t know the proper terms) and they flew a lot of combat missions together. They would go out and fly their missions as a team of 4 jets and Bond was the highest ranking and would be calling the shots and then my grandpa was just below him as Lt. Colonel. My grandpa was just telling me a crazy story the other day about how he was dropping some bombs in Vietnam and there was an accident and one of his fellow pilots nearly flew into the bombs he was dropping. I asked him if he remembered the pilots name, and he said “hell yes, it was Bobby Bond.” My grandpa is a hard ass and dislikes nearly everybody, especially hot shot, flashy type guys, and he says that Bobby Bond was the most charming and likable guy you could ever meet, which says a lot about him. I think my grandpa has a lot of stories of him with Bond in Vietnam that he is probably the only person alive who knows about them. I’ll have to try to get more stories out of him. My grandpa is 92, still hanging in there and living on his own out on his 20 acre property just outside the Fairchild Air Force Base near Spokane.
MiG-23 was a complex plane to fly, pilots graduated to it by learning in the MiG-21, and then by achieving enough flying hours and seniority, were given the 23. The pilot had to adjust the wing sweep manually, to match the engine speed and maneuver, and poor pilots could make a fatal mistake easily. The Mig-23 did not produce a lot of lift, it was not designed for dogfight, especially daring maneuvers at low speed could prove deadly when, the plane fell quickly and took time to recover. The electronics were very sophisticated, especially the autopilot was state-of-the-art that could execute complex routes and even land the plane, which happened in the 1980-s when a runaway MiG-23 in Poland flew across Germany, and when running out of fuel, the autopilot landed the plane in Belgium, but unfortunately there was a house in the field and it ran into it and a young boy died inside.
In the early 90's, I got real close to an Ex-Syrian Mig-23. It was " being taken care of " in a maintenance facility, along with F-15, F-16, F-4, CH53 and other types.
I was told it had cracks in engine blades, tires were balled, brakes didn't work well, and some other stuff I can't recall. At the time I was training to be a structural technician. The riveting workmanship on the Mig was terrible. As a supersonic jet, it's supposed to have countersunk rivits. The solid aluminium rivits on the fuselage were of countersunk type but about 50 to 60% were all over the place. You would cut your hand if you ran in along the fuselage. It was quite a shock.
That's probably a testimony to the corruption on the assembly and QA side of the Russian aerospace industry. You'd expect the panels to have all sorts of excessive stresses in them around the offset rivet heads and consequent risk of cracking of the fastened aluminium sheet.
Doesn't surprise me one iota, you savvy. Well.........
@@F_Tim1961 Exactly, there are a hwole set of regulations regarding rivit spacing and positioning, deburring et al.. I would have failed my certification if I had presented just a few wonky rivits. It was drilled into us, only the best workmanship is acceptable. And here I was face to face with an enemy jet. Even as a rank novice, the Mig looked like crap. By comparison, the F-16's were perfection down to the millimeter. Even the pannel fit on old Phantoms looked amazing by comparison.
@@trespire
If you could get cut from the edges of the countersunk rivets that suggests that the rivets jammed so badly during insertion prior to setting that they did not pull up properly. That suggests that the chord rib holes don't line up with the drillings on the sheet metal wing surfaces. Once you have half set a rivet like that you' d have to use a specialised tool to mill the top of the external part down with out scarring the sheet metal surrounding them and then with another tool, hydraulically press the tail of the rivet back into the wing section (and catch it). After that you'd have to redrill the hole for clearance while the sheetmetal is now on the wing and fit a custom rivet.
I had to look up how solid ac rivets are in fact set. I suspect for aircraft there is a massive wing jig (at Boeing and similar places) and that backs up the rivets as the are set on the wing chord profiles. Possibly the underside rivets are done using countersunk pop rivets . If not there have to be special jigs that can be set inside the partly metal covered wing to back up the riveting gun. You can see why light a/craft manufacturers try to use pop rivets wherever possible - these solid rivets come with a mess of problems in installation.
The Rivet spacing is set by the manufacturer's design bureau. Maintenance can't set that. you might be referring to small internal changes that are not structural like fittings for seats and tables and equipment where maintenance can make decisions. It's an interesting fact that on the fuselage tail end of commercial aircraft where the airflow has separated from the body, the rivets are often dome head types.
These must be much simpler to drive and the hole preparation is not nearly as critical - there's no chamfer.
Know that feeling! Checking out a soviet capsule-HOLY COW!!!! My trash can capsule I made when I was 10 was sturdier! True story!!!
I flew with a former Navy pilot attached to this AF unit. He was super irritated 20 years later that Bond had crashed their "best" example of the Mig 23. His account of the accident was very similar to this video except he added that the General's neck was "four feet long" after the supersonic ejection. His take was that Bond panicked himself into a non- survivable ejection.
4 ft long omigod that is so graphic that must have been a horrible sight of the mans shattered body
Probably hyperbole but I’m sure he suffered internal decapitation and wasn’t a pretty sight.
!!!
@@decimated550 once as a kid I saw a cat who somehow had been squeezed by a parking car, from his tail up, like a toothpaste tube. His eyeballs protruded some two inches out. I know it sounds horrible, but as young kids we found that incredibly funny. Shame on us...
This channel showed up in my feed and I was hesitant to watch any videos, due to the somewhat sensationalist name. Yet, I am extremely impressed with your calm reporting style, the excellent animation and editing and the deep research you clearly do. Subscribed! Keep up the good work!
Thanks for giving it a try! I actually shamelessly ripped off the channel name from @MaritimeHorrors, a channel on (you guessed it) ship accidents. He does good work, no flashy presentation but solid research, and I wanted to apply the same formula to my aviation passion.
I can understand not wanting to damage the engine from a rapid shutdown, but once you eject, the point is moot -unless you're flying a Delta Dart over a cornfield in 1970.-
Good point, and that F-106 landing in the field is another episode worth making.
Point well made!!!🙏😢
If you build the field they will land?
@@AviationHorrors It's a great story, with the a/c leaping forward every time the terrified farmer approached. Oops...you tell it.
@@robertdragoff6909 maybe in 1960s and 70s Germany lol
Tragic example of poor judgement and unneccessary risk taking - especially for a 5,000 hour pilot. Reminds me of an old saying: There are old pilots or bold pilots, but there are no old and bold pilots.
Being close to retirement, I'm guessing General Bond qualified as old.
"especially for a 5,000 hour pilot"
Well... He was a fighter pilot. A combat veteran at that. Give a fight pilot an option of flying something high performance and 9 times out of 10 they'll jump at the chance. I'm just guessing it was too much of a temptation. Angel-on-the-shoulder: "No, I shouldn't. It's abuse of authority and isn't safe." Devil-on-the-shoulder: "It's a cool high performance combat aircraft that you can either fly now or never." General Bond: "...Okay, let's get suited up. Show me the training flight syllabus."
This was not a matter of boldness, I'd rather say arrogance...
Just came to say great channel! It’s certainly on the way to growth; this is the type of “niche content”missing from the YT algorithm! Nice work!
Also, credit to a pylt93 for pointing out a flaw in the original version of this video about the intake compressor stall vs. asymmetric engine stall...According to a pilot quoted in Red Eagles, the MiG-23 could experience an "air intake buzz", a compressor stall in one of the intakes, but not the other; this would cause a the aircraft to yaw and roll. Obviously, this wasn't the engine itself stalling, since the MiG-23 is a single-engine aircraft.
A transonic buzz is not a compressor stall. It's a rapid oscillation between supersonic and subsonic air flow at a particular point. It can occur at other points on the airframe. The Navy T-45 Goshawk has one on the vertical fin at high speed.
I read about this a few years ago, and my understanding is Bond had only a cursory brief before he launched. Considering all the training he'd had in the different types he'd flown previously, he of all people should've known you don't just hop into an unfamiliar Mach 2 jet and launch. Bad judgement did him in.
His arrogance got him killed
I don’t think you guys have the right to comment on what he was thinking or what he did he was a combat veteran of the Korean and Vietnam war highly decorated he had the right to be reckless and me or you don’t have the right to call him out on it let’s leave that to his peers
@@Reggiestreet "He had the right to be reckless"? Then he has the right to be dead. The MiG didn't care about him being "highly decorated".
@@christosvoskresye yes he paid his dues and he had the right to be reckless. And who says he was being reckless? Pretty sure those are pretty smart guys he was fully briefed and me or you could not have done a better job than he that day so I think we should just tip our hats to the guy and say hey he went out doing extraordinary things. I don’t know why everyone’s assuming he did something wrong. Blah blah the facts say. Everyone’s putting the blame on him because that’s the easy thing to do I’m telling you right now he didn’t do anything wrong. If he didn’t die doing that then we wouldn’t have learned that plane has those faults at that speed end of conversation
@@Reggiestreet YOU are the one who literally said "he had the right to be reckless." He paid his dues. To the MiG.
There is no problem with shutting MiG 23 engine at supersonic speed and then restart it after bleeding off speed. Our pilots did it regularly when engine overheated in supersonic speeds. That is even in MiG 23 manual.... which was not available to USAF.
Most interesting.
Your comment wins the internet today. 🤣
Very interesting, thanks for sharing. What country are you from?
@@AviationHorrors I´m from Slovakia.
Higher ranks don't fly as often as youngsters and piloting is a perishable skill. Hubris can kill you. Worse for the USAF was the loss of the valuable aircraft because flying against them is likely to save many lives in combat. Read Chuck Yeager's biography. He survived because he was fierce about doing things correctly EVERY time. Many test pilots died because though having thousands of hours they did not fly with the utter self-discipline of Yeager. The moral is "be like Chuck" and nothing else or different. BG Yeager lived to be 97 years old.
and even then, that one 104 nearly got him. Agreed though.
The ironic thing about it is nowadays just about anyone can buy one of those things, an old Army buddy of mine from the mid 80's bought one a few years back.
He's a big wig in the American Legion and has been involved for some years now in buying ex Soviet equipment for Cold War memorials and displays, occasionally he'll throw his own money into a deal and buy something for himself like a truck or something like that for his personal collection.
The way he wound up with a MIG-23 was they wanted to purchase some trucks from Hungary or one of the satellite countries but the arms dealer in Eastern Europe that they always deal with wouldn't separate the trucks from the MIG's because they were the ground controller trucks for each aircraft, 6 trucks, 6 MIG's, so they called around and got buyers for 5 of the MIG-23's but couldn't find a 6th, the difference was so little money he just threw his own in and one of them was his.
When he called me and said "You'll never believe what I just bought..." I immediately planned a motorcycle road trip from my home in Pennsylvania to Amarillo Tx where he lives.
The really funny thing about the story is him and I were air defense (Vulcan) gunners in the Army, when we walked into the hangar where it's kept I looked at him and said "Gimme your gun, I feel like I should be shooting it full of holes!!!", then after walking up to it I said to him "All those years ago I'd never in my wildest imagination believe I'd ever be this close to one of these things unless it was dropping bombs on me."
One thing that struck me about it was how massive it was for a single seat aircraft, I mean those things are huge, equally as amazing is how tight it was sitting in the cockpit for an aircraft of that size, all I had on was a ball cap, T-shirt, jeans and boots, I couldn't imagine how cramped it would be to wear a flight suit in something like that especially for a couple of hours at a time, that must have been exhausting.
It's a complete aircraft minus the arms of course, but it's not airworthy because the engine is beyond it's service life but everything is there and intact, some of the MIG-23's that were part of the deal were incomplete like the avionics or other things had been cannibalized by the country that had them to keep other aircraft flying, several of them were outside the hangar waiting to be reassembled after being torn down for shipping.
After all these years standing next to one of those things and especially sitting in one was probably the most surreal moment of my life, all those years ago I'd never have dreamed that one day I'd actually sit in the cockpit of one of those things.
Chuck was flying P-51's as a sergeant (enlisted man), so he knew how to obey the "rules of reality". Plus walking through endless miles of enemy territority to escape to spain, gave him a persepective, after escaping his shot up aircraft
You are totally correct. Yeager specifically relates in his book how another pilot got through with all his required missions, flew his fighter aircraft back to base, announced over the radio "I'm coming home Ma!" and then proceeded to attempt a Roll Over maneuver over the airbase which caused him to crash his aircraft and kill himself. One of the biggest things Flight Instructors attempt to teach new pilots is "Fly the Aircraft". If you don't do that, your going to die. That's why I stopped flying. I have a private pilot's license and I realized after about 100 hours of piloting that if I did not keep up my skills by flying at least once a month (or more) I would become a danger to myself so parked myself. Have never regretted it.
Absolutely foolish and irresponsible for General Bond to fly that airplane. At his rank, he was no longer actively flying airplanes and he was certainly not a test pilot. In the 90's, we knew very little about the flying characteristics or operational peculiarities of Soviet fighter aircraft, making EVERY flight a test flight with significantly elevated levels of risk.
This was a General who used his rank and position to fulfill his ego by taking a rare and dangerous asset for a joy ride. His superiors should have stopped him, but just like the 1994 B-52 crash at Fairchild, once you reach a certain level within the Air Force hierarchy, there is very little to prevent your ego from writing a check your skill set cannot cash.
Eloquent
Well at least he only killed himself, instead of taking down a whole crew. Like the Wing commander hotdogging it in the B-52 at Fairchild AFB, Alaska. He killed his entire crew.
He's a combat vet with 5000 hours
@@stevecovaleski6315 he's a statistic, demonstrating what happens when you 'cowboy' it.
@@stevecovaleski6315
All of it in U.S. or Allied aircraft. All of it - combat or not, in aircraft he was thoroughly familiar with.
Zero hours in a Soviet-made aircraft, with almost no knowledge of its eccentricities.
No matter how experienced you are at flying supersonic aircraft, or even the largest military or commercial aircraft, it does NOT mean you can sit in the pilot's seat of one of our Shuttles (when we had them), and expect to do anything but end up as a grease-skid on the runway when landing - if you could even make the half-continent banking turn to shed your bullet-belittling speed, making your underbelly white-hot.
Supersonic aircraft are incredibly unforgiving machines, each with its own peculiarities - and he had to have known this.
"Combat vet with 5,000 hours," is the exact arrogant mistake he made - for ego's sake alone - one last joy-ride.
The loss of that asset was far more important than one retiring Lieutenant-General. I can't imagine how the pilots in that squadron felt, hearing that precious Mig go down in flames - wasted for nothing. Actually, I CAN imagine it - it just makes me sick.
I'm not disrespecting his combat experience, or his service - just his impulsive foolishness that late in the game, and his purposeless loss of a critical, life-saving asset.
To know the enemy's vulnerabilities is to defeat the enemy.
Hubris seems to be the popular 1-word description here for this. Does it also apply to the June 24, 1994 B-52 crash at Fairchild AFB? Does it also apply to the 1981 Pushkin Tu-104 crash? I think so. Seems like one could start a "Hubris Hall of Fame".
yes many a big wig has come to grief.
and it will happen again
we all know it will
Maybe we could aptly call it "Hubris Fall(s) of Fame"
Bud Holland had a reputation for hot-dogging in the B-52 and continually breaking safety rules with no consequences. That day it caught up to him, and he took 3 guys with him.
Hubris is what cost Dougie Bader his legs.
There's a BIG Difference between the two incidents, General Bonds accident only took HIS life.
The B-52 Generals arrogance cost Several lives.
And it doesn't seem Gen. Bond was
"Hot dogging" and he also wasn't on the deck.
Scary situation to be at Mach 2 and the canopy starts melting while the engine will not slow down because of an interlock to protect the engine. Or it starts rolling. Maybe he would have been fine if not trying to go all out in his first flight in the aircraft. Interesting video, remember seeing this story on the news as kid.
Please keep these videos coming!! I’ve just watched them all twice over and being a pilot myself, I truly enjoy the depth and detail you put forward in each of them. 🤘🏼🤘🏼
Thanks for the feedback! I'm a pilot as well and my goal is to tell these interesting stories in an accurate manner and without the "fluff" or sensationalism that you sometimes find in other channels.
The better expression is: “Deep kimchi” (a euphemism for deep trouble), more emphatic than hot water but without potty-language.
From 007 agent to general, what an accomplishment.
People need to cut this guy some slack, 33 yrs service, Korean War, 3 tours of Vietnam, over 5000 hrs of flight time, he earned the right to take this flight, many others before him have done the same, unfortunately it went bad
Agree with you. There are a bunch of us "Has Beens", and then there are billions of "Never Weres". Have some respect.
He didn't deserve anything. He surely had an excellent service record but this didn't allow him to pull his rank to operate military equipment he wasn't trained for just for his amusement before his retirement. His death was tragic but thought the US Air Force an invaluable lesson.
@@bastadimasta Have you been in the military? Shit like this and lesser is par for the course in all branches, atleast in the US military. In the Navy it was common for people retiring or separating to grab as many critical manuals as they could and "dispose" of them on thier way out.
@@Scott11078 I have been in the military, met with some Generals. None of them dared to pull that kind of nonsense with military equipment.
Overall it sounds like he crashed a perfectly good aircraft and wasn’t properly trained to be flying it. Regardless of his rank or accolades
I noticed in the hanger next to the Mig 23 was an F-111. I was stationed at Mountain Home Air Force Base in the 80s which is north of the Nellis range in Idaho. while I was there we lost two aircraft one I believe had a compressor stall and flew into the side of the mountain and they brought the pieces back with a large helicopter and the other was our wing Commander Colonel Coleman. He and the wso had to eject when the plane had issues. The F-111 has a capsule and there are air cushions that inflate after ejection which are used to soften the impact on the ground and also act as flotation devices in the water. One of them did not inflate and it hit the ground hard and broke his back and also injured the co-pilot but they both did live. I was wondering if you could do a video on those two incidences?
Thanks for your service.
Thanks, that sounds interesting. Would you mind hitting me up at AviationHorrors@gmail.com? I'd like to get any other details you have on that incident.
Probability is that the general pulled rank, but after doing so much for program, he wanted to get one last check ride for his bucket list. The Mig-23 was not a great fighter, but the engine/airframe combination was impressive👏. By accounts I've heard, it would fly until it broke apart. Probably like a Soviet F-104.
There may have been a reason, he was flying the Mig-23, that has not been declassified. With black, & even grey projects it's hard to tell🤐!
Nope.
These were EARLY model 23s that the 44677th had and they had been sitting in the desert for three years before going to the USA. LATER Mig-23s were actually excellent fighters, the ML,MLA and MLD.
@@mig21pilot , while the later Mig-23's may have been good fighters. I'm actually quoting Executive Outcome, a South African mercenary company. They were talking about the Mig-23's an African nation was using, I think it could have been Sierra Leon, but I'm not sure.
They said the avionics were junk, but the engine & airframe was strong & reliable.
There are old pilots; and there are bold pilots; but there are no old, bold pilots. Arrogance, ignorance and stupidity is a tough combination to overcome. Having flown against the Red Hats on three occasions, this was a huge waste of a great training asset. The F-4/F-5 training combo (Mig 23/Mig 21) was great to fight against in dissimilar air combat training.
Lack of total training on the Mig-23 which its a real shame on account of what a marvelous Pilot General Bond was. That he may still be flying somewhere
I sat in the cockpit of a Mig-23 (and MI-24) in the Kiyv War Museum, in Ukraine. You can do it too paying a small additional fee, but you've better wait for the war to end. It is extremely impressive, like being fastened to a spearhead. I remember thinking that never in my life would I have dared to solo in one of these, let alone fight with it! 💪
Good video - I learnt a few things from this, thank you.
It is tragic that Gen Bond lost his life after such distinguished and meritorious service to his country and to the cause of freedom on the eve of his richly deserved retirement. I can clearly recall reading of this accident in my local newspaper after it happened. At the time that I read the story of his accident, I thought ofcourse we're flying MiGs, why wouldn't we be, it was never this big deal to me.
I mean absolutely no disrespect- it’s just a terrible shame that this is what he will be most remembered for.
Watched this clip with interest, as my parents and the Bonds were very close friends during their early Air Force careers. My father and General Bonds attended flight training, primary and advanced together, graduated 1 & 2 and both chose fighters (F-86s) and were sent to Korea (51st FIS). After Korea my father went into the agency U-2 program in early 1956 and General Bonds stayed in as a Blue-Suitor. But they stayed in touch over the years (Xmas cards etc.). My father retired from the agency and the Air Force in 1971 and was hired by Lockheed ADP (Skunk Works) and until his retirement in 1988. I discussed Bonds death with him on several occasions and he assured me that General Bonds was as high a caliber and capable pilot as there ever was. I would suggest there is more to this story than what was presented.
the mig23 is the sort of plane that wouldnt have been deemed safe to fly in the west. he could be the best pilot ever and still get caught out in the heat of the moment. all i can say is may he R.I.P and atleast he was doing what he loved.
@ Robert Barnes - That doesn't sound overly objective to me...
@@Will_M600 If doing what he loved was breaking his neck while ejecting…
@@lordhung7013 well that's a stupid comment isn't it
Thank you for this comment! I’m am General Bond’s oldest granddaughter and I was 3 years old when he died.
I’ve spent a great deal of time researching and speaking with family members, friends and colleagues and I can assure you that he had flown the MiG 23 on numerous occasions and didn’t pull rank to take a damn joy ride in that piece of junk during his farewell tour.
He didn’t die in the MiG 23 and I wish some of these people would keep their disgusting comments to themselves.
I was stationed at Area51 a year after this incident. We also had an A-7 pilot fly from NV to Philly where his plane glammed out, he ejected and the aircraft slammed into a hotel.
Yeah, sad story, killed some people on the ground. I may do an episode on that at some point.
@@AviationHorrors
If I could make a request as to another incident to cover: the 1945 crash where a B-25 Mitchell flew into the Empire State Building. I've always wondered what public sentiment was like about that when it happened. I know that it was even a concern when they were designing the WTC, I wonder if that incident was still in their minds because I remember reading that the designer(s) of 1 and 2 WTC designed them being able to still remain standing after being hit by a Boeing 707. Of course, I don't think even in their worst nightmares did they realize the extent of what would eventually, unfortunately, happen. But it's rather fascinating, if somewhat morbid, how such incidents might influence and shape events for decades to come.
@@matchesburn Good call, I'll add that to the list. Yeah, I think I knew of the B-25 incident even back in 2001, and I wondered why the WTC would collapse if it was rated against airplane strikes. Obviously, huge difference between a 757-sized airline full of full, vs a B-25...
@@AviationHorrors at the world trade center they used the airplane like a missile to penetrate the structure and the jet fuel as accelerant to cause a fire...the aircraft were accelerating at top speed..after the first bombing of the trade center they told investigators they were going to be back to take out the buildings....
@@AviationHorrors Yeah, if not for the fires the Trade Centers would not have collapsed.
Our unit responded to the crash, didn't see much of the wreckage, just the remains.
It was a face palm moment, aside from the tragedy, on WTF he was doing flying this.
SPO?
Looks like you did not made it right into the Danger Zone, Mr. Bond!
Mig-23 is single motor. It cannot experience compressor stall on only one side. Perhaps the author is referring intake turbulence, where the air going into intake develops more turbulence on one side. Would that cause a uncommanded roll? I don't know.
A couple of other people brought this up as well, but it seems to have been a phenomena called "air intake buzz", which evidently can affect a single side intake. Take a look at my pinned comment, I've tried to explain it better.
It is one thing taking a strange aircraft for a gentle sightseeing 'I bought the T-shirt' trip.
It is quite another pushing that aircraft to it's extreme. ...... This suggests a complacency that led to a serious error of judgement.
That was not the only MiG-23 that was lost, there was another fatal accident after a flameout.
A-7 into a PA hotel.
@@sarge420 It was an A-7 flown by an F-117 pilot from Tonopah that crashed into a Ramada Inn at the Indianapolis airport. The Air Force used A-7s as a cover story for the still secret F-117 program. The pilots would actually fly A-7s when they wanted to take a cross-country flight and this pilot was returning to Tonopah when he experienced an engine failure and attempted to dead-stick the a/c into Indianapolis. When he broke out of the clouds, he was too high to land and didn't have enough altitude to do a 360 and was forced to eject.
new to the channel and i love it. it is the perfect match to maritime horrors
MiG 23 is very good aircraft with reliable engine, but needs proper reaction of pilot and attention in some manouvers.
"There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold, pilots." -E Hamilton Lee.
I know MANY MANY old and bold pilots.
@@mig21pilot Thank them for their service.
Restarting is a delicate situation . If he was really at a very high attitude he must tried many steps to recover.
What bothers me the most is the fact that he pushed this aircraft to it's limits. That's really foolish and he probably would have survived if he hadn't. He should have been happy with just flying something so exotic, but got greedy and was asking a lot from a machine he had zero flight experience with.
Right? Mach 1.1, return to the circuit, attend your retirement party.
Melt the canopy, eject, different kind of party.
That F-111F at 1:50 was an F-111 that I loaded a LOT of weapons on during Desert Storm. That very aircraft was the wing king's (Wing Commander's) personal jet, and he flew it on the opening night of the war, on Jan 17th 1991. Col Tom Lennon, of the 48th Fighter Wing at RAF Lakenheath, UK. I've seen it at the USAF Museum in Dayton, OH, and I'm glad it survived the scrapyard.
Neat, thanks for sharing!
Several people have raised questions about my description of “air intake buzz…an asymmetric compressor stall affecting only one of the aircraft’s two intakes”. That explanation / description comes from Red Eagles chapter 10. Verbatim:
“This was a compressor stall in one of the intakes, but not the other. It caused so much drag that it caused a yaw that brought the opposite wing forward…”
Skimming some of the aeronautical science literature on “air inlet buzz”, here’s a concise definition:
“An airflow instability that occurs when a shock wave is alternately swallowed and regurgitated by the inlet. At its worst, the condition can cause violent fluctuation in pressure throughout the inlet, which may result in damage to the inlet structure and maybe to the engine itself.”
Therefore, it Does sound like this phenomena could affect only one of the two inlets on a two-inlet aircraft like the MiG-23. Now, it also sounds like there would be an interaction between the airflow disruption and the aircraft’s engine; if the the engine stalled would be symmetric (not asymmetric) for a single-engine design like the MiG-23. So, I’m not saying I completely understand it, but I’m all ears if someone can explain it better.
You know, Russian engineers are clever. This anomaly might have been built into the airplane.
Asymmetric compressor stalls do occur, If the disturbed airflow disrupts one side of the compressor more than the other. Even a single-inlet system, like that on and F-100, could produce them it conditions were right. Needless to say, it's tough on the compressor.
Any chance in doing a video on the Kinross incident involving the disappearance of an F-89 Scorpion in the Lake Superior area?
What a wonderful little channel to find.
Subscription number 237 from the UK 🍀, I wish you many more.
I too exist in the unlit corners of TH-cam --- it is where the real people are
Tragic, but avoidable lose. The pilots in that program earned their "seats" in that aircraft through years of hard work and dedication . The Mig 23 was a serious jet to fly even for the most capable pilot . Above Mach one, flying characteristics change on most fighters and require the special knowledge that can only be acquired through study and "hands on " training in the aircraft. The General should have done himself a favor and limited himself to staying below Mach one and taken a simple flight out to the assigned area and back , with a "touch and go" to a full stop.
To be fair, Bond Did had flown several supersonic fighters. But yeah, I tend to agree.
Excellent general analysis. The thing is, (and he HAD to have known this) EVERY aircraft ever made has/had its own unique peculiarities (from the Wright Brother's first craft onward) - strengths, quirks, oddities, and weaknesses.
Ramp all of that up to supersonic speeds, and people can argue the details all day long: but the details only matter in retrospect, after the precious asset is gone. This aircraft, like all supersonic aircraft, had those oddities, quirks, strengths, and weaknesses - all MAGNIFIED tremendously traveling at twice the speed of sound.
You don't just "jump in and hit Mach 2," and expect to just come back. Something unexpected IS going to happen.
Climbing into the cockpit of a supersonic craft made in a foreign country, that you had someone give you a "short check-out talk" about, and then expecting it to act exactly like every American fighter you've ever flown, is an act of such foolish arrogance that it was suicidal - purposeful or just arrogant, but unbelievably foolish (to be kind), and an unforgivable waste.
I say all of this with the greatest of respect for his combat, experience, and rank, but - my God...
@@AviationHorrors His experience in those supersonic types didn't prepare him for the flight characteristics of the MiG-23. He should've known better than to launch in an unknown type with virtually zero training.
Ya, Mach 1.1 would have been safe.
@@berretta9mm158 Exactly. It's the very fact that he had so much experience that makes it unfathomable that he didn't understand just how dangerous what he was doing really was!
Aviation doesn't protect you from mistakes.
It is indeed very unforgiving
Neither does rank.
5000 hours but not one in a MiG-23. There.
'77-'79 was my first field assignment in aircraft maintenance. Someone was talking about a GEN. that was flying a Russian aircraft for fun and died trying. Could there be more than one story along these lines?
Read above.
Got to see one at Nellis in their adversary museum. The cockpit is very cramped and you really can’t see out the sides.
Its not cramped,a little larger than the -21 cockpit.
It was irresponsible and unnecessary, but what's so bad about that?
With his experience, the most likely outcome is he has a story that goes "Just before I retired, I pulled rank and they let me fly a MiG at mach 2."
Nobody would be offended or all that surprised.
For what it's worth, the Mig 23 was notoriously difficult to fly at high speeds (and not very impressive at lower speeds). Most Red Eagle pilots actually preferred the Mig 21 and earlier subsonic 17 and 15s.
Looking at the Soviet Union, it appears they also realized the Mig 23's limitations and kept the older Fishbed interceptors in service, even though the Flogger was supposed to replace it.
yes,it wasn't a good aircraft.
Ive flown the Flogger at low speeds,it was very stable.
@@mig21pilot I didn't mean to say it was unstable at low speed. But from what I've read (maybe you can confirm), it wasn't very maneuverable.
@@mig21pilot Wow! Where did you get the chance to do that?
You don't mention altitude during loss of control but it figures to be near max where controlling the plane is easy to lose. Flying like a bullet and applying control surfaces gets some adverse effects in motion that thin air isn't going to do much to cause the air with that velocity to care whether the heavy plane has wings.
In English please.
Aircraft accidents are rarely caused by just one thing. They are usually a culmination of errors and/or malfunctions.
Those Soviet High Performance Aircraft are Very Finicky in My experience. I think the Glove Compartment was probably Over filled with Speeding Tickets Leading to a Catastrophic Cascade Failure of the Stereo System. When the General looked down to reach for the Tuning Knob He accidentally hit the Vodka Dispenser that with out a Glass Properly placed Sprayed Ricocheting Off the Master Arm Switch into His Face and Eyes Blinding Him causing Him to Loose Control. Either that or some Russian Thingy Broke.
Thank you for the video.
General Bond was a brave man. Every time a pilot flies could be his last!
Mig-23 is a dangerous problematic fighter design. Pilot never flew the Flogger before. General Bond made a bad choice, and no one in the know stopped him from taking that risk.
Maybe is was just a pushy know it all and used his rank to get what he wanted. I wouldn't try very hard to stop him either, hoping he'd break something so he'd have to answer for it. idk
Who was "in the know?" And do you think they would have been able to stop him?
@@rudolphguarnacci197 RHP comes to mind
There have been other flawed eyebrow raising fighter designs like the Mig 23. The Lockheed F 104 Starfighter killed many pilots. It too had a secondary configuration like the Mig 23 that an unfamiliar pilot would crash in. The Vought Corsair A7 had one wing angle configurations for take-off and landing, and another for flying. The Vought A7 was an aircraft carrier operated attack jet. The Vought F7U Cutlass was another naval fighter feared by it's pilots. It was underpowered and squirrely. Nothing against Vought. The Vought A8 Crusader was a sharkmouthed pure 4 cannon dogfighter that North Vietnamese fighter pilots feared. The A8 was the main rival to the F4 Phantom in Top Gun type fighter competitions. Pure badass gun toting Mig killer. Certainly looked the part in configuration, and gaping sharkmouth nose art.
@@raypitts4880 rhp?
Interesting video. What about quirks of US aircraft?
News: GENERAL DIES IN CRASH
Murca: thats sad, BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR MIG
I remember when he served at Eglin AFB, Fl
I own a Mig-23ML and can tell you what happened.
What?
crash
A shame to lose a valuable training asset in anything other than the training of future combat pilots .
Just about every aircraft accident results from a combination of several factors. In this case, it seems the MiG-23 was a flawed design even USSR pilots were leery of. Bond being a fighter jock, I would not be surprised if he had a "can do" attitude that would see him through any difficulty. If he had been flying a US jet, or a MiG-15, 17, 19 or 21, he likely would have prevailed. It seems the consensus was that loss of control ensued from an air flow problem with one of the air intakes, probably after he initiated a right turn. Apparently it was known that at speeds of Mach 2+ the MiG-23 remained safe while only flying straight ahead. Did Bond know that? Probably not. In any case, he failed to reduce speed before he would need to reverse his heading to remain inside the test range. Finally, by not cutting off the fuel supply, his final option to reduce his speed because he wanted to avoid damaging the engine, he was forced to eject. Summary: it was a combination of peculiarities of the MiG-23 and Bond's inadequate training in that particular aircraft. I would also point out that other jets become very finicky at speeds of Mach 2+; the SR-71 cruises over Mach 2, but in order to reverse course at such speeds requires a turn radius that can cover 3 states!
Do you have any citations for "Even USSR pilots were leery of."? The MiG-23ML+ series was generally beloved and remained in service until the end of the USSR.
@@Nothing_._Here That says more about the state of the USSR than it does about the worthiness of the aircraft.
@@lordhung7013 And what does it exactly say about the state of the USSR?
The US used the F-111 until 1998.
Both aircraft have very successful careers.
th-cam.com/video/5gbZi2YTxyc/w-d-xo.html
@@Nothing_._Here The USSR had world class scientists and engineers but they were handicapped by the communist government and it’s shoddy state owned production facilities and the technology gap. Thus the sloppy workmanship.
Can you comment how why his ejection failed. Why was there damage to the shoot?
I had the same question but couldn't find any information on that :-/ In general, the USAF pilots didn't want to rely on the Russian seats, given the difficulty of maintaining them...one pilot said that he'd rather dead-stick into the desert than eject, the only time he'd eject is if over mountainous terrain.
@@AviationHorrors Thank you
Call it what it was, as stated a frivolous joy ride!!!🙏😢
What do you think, was Bond's flight just the "cost of doing business" in a dangerous operation, or was it irresponsible & unnecessary?
I think Col. Ted Drake summed it up pretty well
No. Not the cost of doing business. There was no 'business' involved. Nothing gained by the program. This was a joy ride for his vanity. (old navy flyer).
It was irresponsible and dangerous and if he had gotten away with it, it would have been magnificent. There would be TH-cam interviews of him explaining the thrill of his lifetime he got from breaking all the limits and rules and Mach 2.
Dying from a foolish, stunt gone wrong, super sonic ejection from a misappropriated MiG-23... that's the way I wanna go.
I think you may have done your video on the cover story of the Generals death. I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters when it occurred. It was first reported in the Stars and Stripes paper that the General died in a crash of a stealth fighter. The next day they retracted that article and reported that he died in a MiG 23 crash (the lesser of the two evils as both were black projects). In early 1986, I went into the F-117 stealth program. First the Red Hats (MiG program) operated out of area 10 not area 51. The MiG's flew during the day, while the F-117 flew at night. I believe that he died in an F-117 that crashed at Tonopah test range (area 10). If I'm not mistaken, the crash was due to an avionics part (3 axis gyro) that was installed incorrectly (at the time all three cable connectors for pitch, roll, and yaw) were keyed the same, causing the three axis controls to respond incorrectly. The aircraft rolled upside down and flew into the ground at the end of the runway. Since the Stealth program had a higher Top Secret rating, it was decided to go with the MiG story, to keep the existence of the F-117 program a secret. If I remember correctly we got the MiG's primarily from Egypt, and they wanted to keep that a secret. We provided them F-4 Phantoms and support for the MiGs. The Egyptians wanted to keep that hush-hush as they still had soviet equipment, and didn't want to piss them off. As an unusual coincidence, while TDY at Rota Naval base in Spain in 1982, I got to sit in the cockpit of one of those F-4's that diverted into Rota Spain on the way back to the US for scheduled phase dock overhaul. The 2 ship took off from somewhere (I don't recall where) and one or both of the lead planes external fuel tanks jettisoned causing a fireball that the second F-4 had to roll through. There was 2 remarkable things about the F-4's. One carried its own unique T.O. for one of it's engines, as there had been an engine fire and they rewired things differently. The other was while sitting in the cockpit of one plane, I could see the tarmac, as the floor board had rusted through making it visible. I apologize for rambling, but I thought you might find it interesting.
@@blkjet117Well I found it interesting.Thanks for sharing.
Higher ranking officers who are no longer full time pilots, often maintain their flying status to 1) keep flying, and 2) to make extra money. For a General to fly one of the Red Hat Migs, or an F-117 they would have had to be briefed into that Top Secret Program at some point in their career. Just because you have a Top Secret clearance, doesn't mean you know about every Top Secret Program, they would have to have a need to know about that specific program due to compartmentalization.
It was the f-117 prototype they made only 2 from available parts.. to prove the stealth worked as advertised both of them crashed
I view General Bond’s crash as him joyriding while he still could. Before he retired. RIP General
There is no ambiguity here: the MiG-23 boasts a long, well-documented, and deeply embarrassing service record.
I remember as a kid in the '80s who had a deep love of aviation being excited while checking out the various aviation books and magazines a squadron signal book on the MIG-23. In the mid to late '80s there was no internet for the masses shit the phone I'm writing this with and more than likely whoever is reading this is also on one. These things were beyond sci-fi, so you really had to hunt for your knowledge AND hope said knowledge was actually legit. Back then most combat aircraft enthusiasts believed they'd never get information on "enemy" aircraft on par with our own aircraft.
A few things from that book still stick out in my memory. The Mig-23 gave a scary amount of people the ability to have extremely large water tanks for thier desolate houses. And among other things fleets of canoes. I was very surprised when I discovered these guys just dumped thier empty drop tanks wherever.
The other thing was on the reliability of the 23. It more or less said the following" It's easy for civilians to own thier own 23. All one has to do is buy a piece of land and wait."
Yeah, the Soviet planes were almost all excessively dangerous.
Love the videos but the audio sounds like I'm talking to someone over their car speakers
Does anyone know who or what was chasing general Bond's wing'?
I had the great fortune to visit Russia in 1999 and fly in various trainers and fighters in the Incredible Adventures commercial venture. We were at the test pilot HQ and training center.
For me one of the most striking memories was the stairwell wall, lined with photographs of dead test pilots. Not just a few, either. One of the remarkable gents I flew with, his father was on the wall, killed testing (I believe I recall) an early variant of the MiG-17. His grandfather has met the same fate testing the earliest MiG-3's.
USSR aircraft development during the cold war, at least by my observations on site, was obviously more liberal in tolerance for quirks and risk to pilots. The aircraft were crudely finished in comparison to a contemporary Western equivalent. A Russian guide boasted to me before a flight in the MiG-21, as we stood there watching it drip hydraulic fluid, that it "could be landed on a dirt road and fixed with tools found in a farmer's work shed." It looked it.
Bond pulled some strings and played around with stuff from that other design and build philosophy. Alas, his picture is probably not on that stairwell wall.
Crudely made is right. Do you think maintenance experience had a roll?
Well, I see his mistake... everyone knows you need to watch your back when you're that close to retirement. Hadn't he ever seen an action movie?
Rank General, corners cut definitely, some things never change, rank has it's privileges, period!!!🙏😢
What do I think? Inadequate training in the aircraft, not to mention putting a pilot who should never have been behind the controls into the bird and taking it off. If that sounds harsh - it is so intended. I suppose prohibiting general officers from flying solo can be considered one good thing out of the accident.
He died doing what he loved:
Stupidly flying an aircraft he was supremely unqualified to pilot without further training.
The funny thing is that everything you say about his resume shows that he of all people should have known better not to pull rank and essentially order or intimidate lesser staff into letting him fly that plane. Then you have the fact that someone did so, maybe a few someones, who likewise should have known better. This is not just a failure of the program, it's a failure of the fundamental mentality of a military organization. It's the same sort of bullshit that let the Air Force to let that nutcase B-52 pilot continue to fly B-52s until he impaled one at an airshow killing the crew and blowing a quarter of the base facilities to smithereens.
This is exactly why they are forced to retire.
So true. How that dick flew that B-52 into the ground was unbelievable.
Oh it cant spin down hard? No wonder on the sim im kickin all their asses with a phantom 2
Once met a Russian Trucker with a Tattoo of a Mig 21 on his arm, he told me hundreds of Russian pilots died flying the plane into the ground, I told him the Wings are way too small and the fuel tank behind the Pilot would effect the center of gravity when the aircraft is upside down which would then pull the aircraft right into the deck.
Overconfident almost-retired military man whom people are afraid to object to due to rank, destroys a piece of hard-to-obtain machinery... with himself in it.
Now that's a typical military story if I ever heard one.
Imagine if a US Army General about to retire turned up at the Aberdeen proving ground, pointed to his stars and said
"I wanna fire the Atomic cannon!"
HAHAHAHAHA!
I would drop my pants and say “stroke away sir!”
This is why you never combine vanity projects with high speed aircraft.
😮Lack of training....
6:52 The plural of aircraft is aircraft.
Death as a result of hubris, by no means the first pilot to fail in this aspect, and for as much training that can be attempted to rid the cockpit of civil & military pilots feeling they can handle anything an aircraft or weather can throw at them, needless deaths will continue to occur. The one ribbon missing from all that splattered egg on his chest was knowing not to risk his life, when it was a non-combat situation and the choices he made were all his.
oh one other thing
I'll bet a lot of those pilots were glad that they hadn't tried to eject at Mach2
Very interesting
So he wanted his moment of glory without understanding system he was operating and died. Sounds like epic cowboy fail.
I only saw one problem in your speculation
You stated his reasoning for not cutting fuel to slow the aircraft was because "it's something any pilot would be loathe to do for risk of damaging the valuable asset"... However, that holds no water once factoring that a jettison would be the *far more likely* option to damage the frame! Which makes it more likely that his lack in knowledge/familiarity with the aircraft led to poor decisions 💯
Lack of proficiency / familiarity was likely a key factor, as you suggest; shutting down the engine entirely probably wouldn’t be a natural reaction, and because it would likely cause damage to the engine and force him to make a dead-stick landing.
Liked and subbed.
Low-time pilots kill themselves through inexperience; high-time pilots through complacency.
Wisdom > judgment > training > certifications > rank.
RIP General Bond. It looks like his inexperience on this Aircraft was fatal.
A mans ego is more powerful than any jet. And its harder to control
Panicked ejection at speed over 300 m/s... That has been survived only twice if I remember well...
I was told by somebody that he was flying a UFO. And he got killed that same. Somebody changed the store when I called him back. A few months ano he was a spokesperson. Regarding that crash
The only thing I really take issue with in this whole weird scenario... Is regardless of what may have gone wrong with the aircraft... Why would someone of his experience think that ejecting at those speeds was a good idea? A nearly mach 2 ejection? Hell, regardless of what the plane is doing at that moment.. You might as well ride it in at least until it literally starts to break up or something. At those speeds, staying with the plane might kill you eventually, sure.. But punching out is preety much definitely going to kill you immediately. If you're pretty much sure you're going to die.. Might as well stick with the aircraft as long as you can, even if just for the 1 in a million chance it might un-fuck itself.
I agree. Ejecting at supersonic speed is not a good idea. The early rocket sleds tests demonstrated the potential damage and I don't think they even got close to mach one. Another issue is he was worried that the canopy was going to melt. If it was he was perhaps exceeding the design parameters. I rumors I heard is that particular engine had a fuel system which had an iffy controller with no governor past a certain engine speed. Most jet engines do not operate at max thrust they are capable of but at the max thrust for a designed reliably. In this instance if you reached a certain speed apparently the controller locked in the speed and the throttle setting made no difference. Scary. This is like having your cruise control locking at 75 and won't shut off. However the rumor is that once a threshold was passed the controller would continue to accelerate the engine until destruction. If that happened the airspeed might exceed the design speed of the fuselage. Friction causes heat. If the canopy was thought to be melting he was way above it's designed top speed. With a jet engine power is controlled by fuel flow. If there was no way to turn off the fuel but the way described there was a major pucker factor. If the man hit the airstream at more than a thousand miles an hour he was a bag of jello instantly. In the eighties one got into a flat spin from which there is no recovery and crashed. The pilot ejected and was fine.
@@kermitthehermit5949 Yeah some of the big Migs and Sukhois from that Era were basically designed as anti-aircraft missiles with pilots. They were pure interceptors and nothing else. Pretty much get to altitude as fast as possible, take a few shots at an American bomber and then land the thing as a glider, or just get it down to a more manageable altitude and bail out. They were barely even made to be re-used..kinda like those rocket powered Me-163s the Germans were trying out by the end of WW2. This plane seems like the right Era for that so it may well have had a "melt the engines and just fuckin climb" detent on the throttle. Would have been not only in Russian, a foreign language, but also Cyrillic, a totally different alphabet.. So it isn't even as easy as just memorizing phrases. Your theory definitely checks out.
@@The_Sword_King Basically same as the second part of my answer to the other person applies to your comment as well. The controls would have not only been very unfamiliar.. But stuff would have been labeled in Russian.. And you can't just memorize a few key words and phrases very easily cause it's a whole different alphabet too. So yeah. I could easily see him just being like "WTF?" in a moment of startle or panic. Like "What the fuck does катапультное mean? Do I hit that or the one that says Отсечка топлива?"
Salute!
Oh I think I know this story but I'll check it out