Okay that is absolutely hilarious, both in how it happened, how their commanders threw the book at them because they didn't have anything else to do to them, and the designers all congratulated them for testing something they hadn't gotten around to yet.
Reminds me of how criminals manipulate the members of their gangs.. no matter what they do, they always get punished first by the leader, then awarded later by those further down the chain of commane 😂 I can't believe that pilot in the 1989 france airshow survived.. however that seems like pure luck more than anything, and like the ejection rocket didn't do its job at all. I bet he was severely crippled from that, and likely in critical condition with questionable survival chances.
Yep. Blame the crew for the engineering mistake of making the yoke stick and the ejection handle get in each other's way so moving the yoke pulls the ejection. It's like Boeing blaming pilots for their badly designed MCAS problems. (A system pulling information from only one non redundant sensor that can be wrong shouldn't't be overriding pilot manual attempts to correct a nose dive.)
Sounds like my general thoughts on Kitchen appliances. Sure, people get mad at their toaster, but how many times has your toaster been mad at you? (tentatively looks at kitchen empty of appliances and the paranoia subsides)
@@parrotcraft7503 yes, the thumbnail made me think of them ejecting over the runway, while jet goes bonkers due to funny software. the cope is getting stronger! :)
Russian ejection seats really work as per the Paris air show accident., the other thing is the blast protection that comes up to stop the air blast at high speed.
Those poor, confused pilots. Not only did they have zero idea what just happened, but their 0-0 test got them both commendations and reprimands, which sort of zeros out. On the bright side, there were zero injuries or deaths.
@@Tank50us That and two seriously damaged planes... but hey, on true Russian fashion they turned it on a propaganda piece at relatively low cost, they usually did worse.
I'm sure both of them thought, in that moment, that they were about to die. The one ejected probably thought the plane had already exploded and he was flying through the air.
Reality tends be a an eye opener being way more creative than imagination. You can't foresee everything. I know a case of two jets striking each other in mid air. The pilots in the lower plane died immediately hitting the higher plane. The two pilots in the upper plane ejected successfully - but only one survived. One pilot was killed by a truck - the winds blew him on the highway.
@@abcdef-qk6jfI was Air Traffic Controller all my adult life. One day an aircraft departing from an adjacent aerodrome blew a tire on the take off run. A friend volunteered to carry the pilot of the disabled aircraft in his, since the intention was to fly together to the same destination in two aircraft; but meanwhile the visibility had deteriorated seriously. They took off nevertheless and less than five minutes afterwards crashed against the slope of a range they never saw in time. Both were killed.
It's embarrassing but I follow the logic They didn't think about how the stick would go backwards and hook the ejection handle when designing the cockpit layout Then when they found out, they had two choices: redesign the navigators station, do more testing, possibly reduce navigator visibility by making their display smaller or moving it up higher to allow the stick to be full length Or String and duct tape
@@contrapasta2454 That's the thing you say when you have too much smegma under you foreskin. All that engineering and it's enough for one string to latch off for the plane to become uncontrollable.
These types of issues do arise in complex engineering projects, and even under the best circumstances sometimes they get through reviews and tests to become an issue in the field. The non fix for the situation though is remarkable, it's generally bad practice to solve a design issue by asking a human to do something that can be easily forgotten neglected or not possible. Loss of the balls or a plane needing to land at a location that isn't setup for its maintenance are two very likely scenarios over the service life of a plane, but even more likely is simple human error, even more likely l, and not just for the memable Russian military is laziness. If this scenario hasn't repeated in the last 50 years it's largely due to luck.
@@sriharshacv7760 they could try defecting by flying into a "neutral" country. Though they would have to accept cutting off all ties to Russia and avoiding Russian nations wherever they go once they resettle since the trend of Russian diaspora murdering anyone on the Ukrainian side in neutral countries has just gone up.
No, this is trolling over Russians who believe that a product with the stamp “Made in the USSR” is the highest sign of quality. For example, when it comes to airplanes, they are sure that Soviet airplanes were and are very strong and reliable And they can cite as an example that they have had a Soviet refrigerator at home for 30-50 years and that their mother washes clothes in a washing machine that was made when Brezhnev was alive
@@EdU-od5ec Fair, arguably the biggest issue in the West is the (generally-speaking) lack of care when it comes to maintenance. Many tragedies over the decades have been caused by failing airframes as opposed to outright undertested/underengineered designs. It's ingrained in our culture, everyone complains about maintenance at a personal level, let alone when business and money gets involved. Edit: I think most folks have learned these lessons the hard way at this point, the US military has noticeably been retiring airframes ahead of accidents for the past ~3 decades, and commercial regulations have changed, to be clear.
"Congratulations! You've successfully performed an ejection from a stationary aircraft!" "Uh.... Thanks? I guess?" "Also, you've just cost us 35 million Rubles in damages. You're hereby discharged and court-martialed." "Blyat."
I loved the bit where the animated ground crewman had his startled "WTF!!" moment when the navigator's seat obeyed the law of gravity and landed on top of the parked aircraft. Also loved the fact that instead of designing some kind of mechanical lock or figuring out a way to isolate the sticks from the control surfaces, the Soviet solution was "sling a rope with balls over it". Peak Smekalka!
I mean, sometimes simple solutions are the best solutions. For example, want to keep birds and bugs out of your pitot tubes? Just stick a cover over them. Or want to keep random junk from flying into the engine while parked? Just add a cover.
When you dropped the line „however there was one really positive aspect“, i fully expected you to mention the type of aviation cocktail the aircraft made 🍸
In general, the alcohol wasn't the best side of the Su-24. If I remember correctly, the standard Su-24 used ~5 liters of alcohol per flight, which, in comparison to other Soviet planes, was little to nothing. However, the reconnaissance version of the plane - the Su-24MR - used ~70-80 liters (to cool down the rec. equipment). But there weren't that many of those models, and those crews were considered lucky.
i remember my grandpa telling a story of a Su-24 pilot that bailed out in 1975 during his visit to the air base. I didnt know what was so special about that story (compared to his experience in Afghanistan), but now i know!
And the perfect achievement was: - Got reprimanded for a mistake they did not commit. - Got rewarded for a feat they did not do. Statements after the incident: Navigator: "I dunno... I was like looking at my checklist. Then I felt a sudden pain in my back, saw my seat landing on another jet, and when I landed, everyone started shouting at me." Pilot: "I was busy starting the engines and clearing some grechka from my teeth, when Misha suddenly disappeared. I leaned in to check, and saw him hangin' around above the plane. I instantly had the nagging feeling that we would be late for dinner." Sukhoi Bureau: "Thanks to our brave volunteers, we finally confirmed the correctness of the planned string-n-balls design."
Dude just two days ago I was looking at your channel going "God, wonder when Paper Skies is putting out a new video." 9.5/10 timing, only ~30 hours off.
The copilot was just confirming the engineer's plans for ejection seat capability.....and I am _so_ glad you told us what the piece of rope and two styrofoam balls were for.
Two related stories from Sweden, including one of the most amusing reasons for losing a JAS-39 Gripen. First story: when I did my conscription service -1994 ‒ 95 - as an aircraft mechanic on Saab J35J Draken, the cockpit featured - on each corner of the center console - a tiny metal loop, screwed directly into the metal frame. These were for the boot restraints, that pull the pilot's feet close to the seat when ejecting. But when instructing us, the more seasoned conscript noticed that the manual - yes, we had manuals, with big line-art drawing showing us what do to - said "Lay the straps crossed over the base of the control stick". He called over to the officer in charge: "Oi, lieutenant! We've got an unsafe manual here, this is the old one!" What was going on? Well, on June 20, 1991 - after Draken had spent nearly 4 decades in the air without this being an issue - one pilot forgot to strap in the boots. He taxied onto the runway, and took off. As the main wheels got airborne, he instantly knew something was wrong, as the plane started rolling, and he could not counter it. After just a couple of seconds, he understood that the roll would continue, which - with Draken's poor low speed performance - would lead to vigorous lithobraking. He ejected, was saved, and the plane (serial 35522) became the second to last hull loss for Draken. What had happened? Turns out that during the preflight control surface tests - which involved vigorous and large control stick movements - the unfastened boot straps had jammed where the control stick interfaces the floor. This then made it impossible for the pilot to use the stick for roll on take-off. Hence, the small metal loops were added for us aircraft mechs to put the boot restraints in, to avoid them fouling the control stick again. And, yes, despite his feet not being pulled in, and despite him being partially responsible for the situation, he did keep his feet, and his wings. ---- Second story: in 2007, a Saab JAS-39 Gripen made an 8.6 g turn to turn downwind at Vidsel airbase. As the pilot rolled out on the downwind leg, the canopy was - unexpectedly - jettisoned. The pilot realised something was about to go very wrong and started reaching for the ejection handle. He did not get that far, because the seat activated on its own, threw the pilot clear of the plane, which subsequently crashed in the Norrland forest next to the main runway. What had happened? Turns out that this was a JAS-39C, the second generation Gripen. The "Cesars" got bigger cockpit screens. But, the control column got in the way of the lower screen. Okay, we can fix that, move the control column back. But, the ejection seat handle is there! The moved control column made the handle harder to reach. Well, we can fix that too, let us make ejection seat handle rigid, flat and cone-shaped. Martin-Baker tested this, Saab and the Defence Material Administration signed off on it, and all was peachy. ...until that ejection. The investigation revealed that the seat log said that the handle had been pulled and activated the seat. The pilot assured everyone he had not touched it. But what then, had pulled the handle? The g-suit had. Remember that 8.6 g turn? When the pants inflated, they had pulled the handle up. Major WTF... Martin-Baker, we tested this, did you do something with the handles after testing?! Well... we changed supplier of the handles, MB said. Aaand... turns out they did not quite follow the specs used during testing, and so the friction between handle and pants were different compared to when we tested. Hold on, the Swedish Accident Investigation Board thought, this cannot be the first time something like this has happened. So they called the JAS-39C divisions to ask "Have you had any occurrences where the ejection handle appeared to have come loose?" The reply... "Well, now that you mention it..." there _had_ been such occurrences, where the mechs had to push the handle back down again, in order to get the safety pin in. It was just that they had not used the incident reporting system properly to alert anyone to the issue.
Hmm. I'm former MB & worked on that contract - needless to say I'm unaware of any such occurrence. Moved the handle back to improve clearance?! Nor do I recall 'tier 2' supply of said Primary Ejection handles(!) We are talking about the black & yellow loop I assume? 🤔
@@grahampalmer9337 I made a small mistake, the ejection seat handle was not moved, but it was redesigned. Here is the relevant section from the Swedish Accident Investigation Board's report on the crash, document RM2008:01 _In the JAS 39C/D, new color displays with larger dimensions than the corresponding displays in the JAS 39A/B were introduced on the dashboard. The control column console therefore had to be moved to the rear, which reduced the space between the pilot and the console. This meant that the ejection handle in the design used in the JAS 39A/B (a variant of Martin-Baker's original "covered wire" type handle) was too difficult to reach in the JAS 39C/D._ _Martin-Baker developed new handles in several designs, which were reviewed by SAAB and FMV. The handle design accepted by the test pilots and chosen for the JAS 39C/D had a hard, low-friction surface. The Board has not found that the handle in the JAS 39C/D has been examined with regard to the risk of inadvertent ejection due to interaction between the G-suit and the handle with regards to its shape, friction and location._ _After the accident, it was found that the material properties of the ejection handles in different JAS 39C/D exhibited individual variations. The handle that was in U59 was marked "Issue 2". Compared to the handle originally tested and delivered to the C/D aircraft, the "Issue 2" handle was made of softer material and had a significantly higher surface friction. The "Issue 2 handle" therefore created significantly higher friction against the G suit than the original C/D handle. The change of material in the handles was said to have occurred when Martin-Baker changed subcontractors for handles, whereby the marking "Issue 2" was introduced._
I love your channel because it shows an often neglected part of aviation by the west as a Pole whose country is on the crossroads between the west and east having you is a amazing opportunity to dive into the history of eastern aviation as it is strongly correlated with polish aviation! ❤️🙏
In Soviet Union pilots don't test the ejection seats. Ejection seats test them! By the way, LOVE the artistic style of the re-enactments of the incidents. Great artistic choice.
I have a feeling my neighbours will be reporting me to the local authorities because of the insane, sustained cackling coming from my place. I mean, the Soviet military aircraft construction program, a supposedly serious business, sounds like a combination of the Keystone Kops meets Abbott & Costello, meets Leslie Nielsen's Airplane. And the Sahara Desert dry, snarky wit had me in stitches. I was on the floor. And that last thing about the balls was the coup de grace! Well played, Sir Paper Skies. I have subscribed and I will be back for more, despite anything my neighbours might say!
That "Good enough. Made in USSR." stamp of passability is outstanding. I wish I could stick that to anything that is obviously broken but still somehow works, like a phone with cracked display.
That is actually far more relevant to modern Chinese stuff. None of is outright junk, usually - it works well enough most of the time, it's just engineered with zero point zero regard for any of the OTHER times.
It doesnt seem to get any more soviet than to strap the horizontal stabilizers in place with a rope instead of adding a shut-off valve to the hydraulic circuit to keep them horizontal when the system is no longer pressurized - as seen on any excavator for example. 😅
Similar anecdote from the Space Race: During the 1960s, NASA and the Sovs independently discovered that ballpoint pens can't write in space. NASA solved this by paying a private contractor to develop a very expensive pen that could write in zero G, underwater and in temperatures between about -40 and 200 degrees Fahrenheit. The Soviets switched to pencils.
@@sturmovik1274 Nasa didn't pay to develop the pen, the Fisher Pen Company developed the pen with their own funds and marketed it to Nasa. Nasa originally used pencils like the Soviets but switched to the pens because of risks associated with conductive graphite (pencil lead). The Soviets also purchased and used the pens for the same reason -- graphite bits, microgravity, and space hardware don't mix.
Hey Paper Skies. One F-5 was even brought to Czechoslovakia to be studied and there was a project to build sort of a supersonic mix between the F-5 and L-39. Models for aerodynamic tunnel are still hanged in VZLU. Back then it was all state owned so almost like one company but now you could say it was mostly work done by Aero and VZLU. Sometimes you can spot it as A-150 Sokol. I think it would be definetly cool looking into it. Even some more detailed technical drawings exist.
1:34 Soviet made Su24, used by Ukraine's Air Force, equipped with incompatible British missile, destroyed a Soviet submarine sitting above water line. How hard to imagine?!
Accidental firings of ejection seats is, or was, a much more common thing then many people realize. That's why most militaries by now have A LOT of safety precautions for them.
My aunt and I watched the video! Absolutely hilarious. I feel kind of bad for the fellows at the design bureaus being given objectives and too little time to complete them and copying other craft without being able to understand what's going on under the hood. The ejection seat pretty clearly shows that when Soviet designers were given time, resources, _and not meddled with from on high,_ they were capable of producing _genuinely good_ equipment. A universal ejection seat so good that it was _seriously_ considered for adoption by the United States military after the fall of the Soviet Union? Let the eggheads run the show and they'll give you _real_ results. Give them stupid deadlines, and you win stupid prizes.
exactly. there were a lot of legitimately competent- outright brilliant people- but, well... the system as a whole.... look at how the kremlin killed Gagarin's best friend through sheer stupidity/malicious incompetence.... seriously, it was incredibly fucked up- Yuri was the backup cosmonaut, and both of them knew that whoever went up (mission was rushed due to something cosmically idiotic- either some politico's birthday or a pitifully unimportant anniversary), and they both attempted to force the other to let them into the INCOMPLETE capsule instead- Yuri actually turned up shortly before launch, fully suited up, demanding to be allowed to take his friend's place... *sighs* almost literally everything malfunctioned/broke, and the poor bastard inside's last words were literally cursing the politicians for killing him. parachute completely failed and the capsule pancaked, landing retros failed to fire until after impact..... there... are photos, real ones, showing what his remains looked like after (as a piece of per-meditated post-mortem spite, his last will demanded an open casket funeral with his killers-by-proxy present), but i dont recommend looking them up- what was left of him was... entirely unrecognizable as human...
Yeah but the problem always comes back to management. Let people toil away with a useless dead end idea forever and you'll never reach the deadline. Unfortunately necessary to have someone step in and say "enough" and move to the next.
Best channel about military aviation (on pair with Mustard) and, more important, about soviet block itself. Great narration, humor and way of delivering the info. Дякую, що доносиш інформацію як "воно є" до англомовної аудиторії. Успіхів. (До речі підписав родину на Brilliant, напевно, час глянути на цю Nebula))
The fairy tale that all the technical successes of the Soviet Union and Russia came only from copying Western technology is old, but not entirely correct. Many Western secret services also have the task of spying on technologies in order to be able to obtain them cheaply, because developments are known to be expensive and difficult to achieve. The French secret service in particular is known for its ability to identify technologies. But also the CIA. For example, the well-known space expert Scott Manley has shown that the findings from the recordings of the BOR spaceplane landings in Langley received a lot of attention. Reingeniering was then carried out there because it turned out that the shape of the bow (the front of the vehicle) from BOR was far better than its own design. The rounder "snout", which was much better able to withstand the heat generated during re-entry in the MIG 105 (this had already been shown in the shape of the space capsules). The CIA then built models for wind tunnel and testing. And then presented a model, the mock up of which was then even used for the Dreamchaser (which will hopefully be tested this year). And that's just one example. The Tsarist Academy of Science had already achieved amazing achievements (including the first electron beam imaging in 1911). The great developer of aircraft and helicopters Sikorski had his first successes building aircraft for the Tsar. The Soviet Union and Korolyev had already successfully launched rockets with liquid fuel in the 1930s. The successes of the Soviet designers were demonstrated again and again in space travel. But it should also not be forgotten that the Soviet Union built the first high-altitude bombers in which additional machines could generate compressed air, which enabled the engines to operate at lower altitudes. But the difficulties also appeared there. As with Korolyov's first liquid rockets, the leadership did not understand how to make use of this advantage. However, this also happened again and again with other nations. In any case, it is completely wrong to act as if everything was just copied. For example, the Buran space plane was able to do a number of things that the Space Shuttle Orbiter could not. How to automatically land and take off without uncontrollable solid rockets. PS: France lost its sovereignty for years during WW2. To ensure that this cannot happen again, they are particularly interested in a strong arms industry.
It is either " Funny" or "" Interesting "" the Expression of { Good Enough Made in USSR" . I prefer my expression of {{ I will Accept Perfection Until I can Improve Upon It }} I learnt the other week that some other country their People have much the same saying "".
@@edwardcarberry1095 One good one is: Never do improvements that are not real improvements. Don't fix things that work well for the sake of fixing something. Volvo lived by that for decades before they had to be "modern" in the wrong kind of way.
@@secularnevrosis I am going to say "" ALL"" of what I design do not need to be improved as they are and do work VERY Well. The one I enlarged the hole from 1/4" to 5/16" that was all I could improve upon it in 25 years. The riser for my truck has not shown any short comings. .
To be honest, what you're describing with the SU7 "B" was very similar in the West! The West German air force took it to the extreme by using the F104 interceptor as a bomber
AAAhahahah. Strauss´ pipe dream. The creation of the infamous "NATO tent peg". The deadliest plane the german airforce had post war. killed nearly a third of its pilots. The saying was in the 80´s: " Want a jet fighter? easy. Buy a piece of land and a folding spade." These contraptions were dropping left and right, and leaving them out in the open between flights for lack of hangars didn´t really help, either.
@@paavobergmann4920 I honestly can't speak to that. I was merely trying to point out that the Canadian air force, like the West German air force, used the Starfighter as an attack aircraft rather than an interceptor.
@@MrDiddlebug Yeah, this is where the trouble started. You don´t tie your race horse in front of a plough. But then the german airforce really doubled down on this bad premise, insisted on fitting all kinds of non-compatible german gadgets to the plane, and then left them out in the open to rot, And then were all surprised when the planes started killing pilots in revenge. So, Yeah, an interceptor is not a fighter-bomber, but as one of your astronauts said: " There is no problem so bad that you can´t make it worse." And that´s something you have to hand to german engineering: complicating problems is kind of our signature move.
@@JacobBax Is it more complicated to put that piece of styrofoam in there forever, or fit a piece of hardware once? I'd honestly go with the 2nd choice but i guess it depends on the point of view.
@@Dooaana It's not there forever, it's effectively just "chocks" for the aileron and are removed once the hydraulic system is active. It's a kludge, but it's not exactly a big inconvenience to keep a couple of styrofoam cups, string, and duct tape in the hangar.
I heard that one of the hangars in Akhtubinsk still has a distinct stain on its ceiling after one of the ground crew accidentally ejected himself (actually upper half of his body) straight into it.
Лучший канал об авиации восточного блока. Даже не столько об авиации, сколько о самом блоке и условиях жизни в нем. Кудос. Особенно радует tonque in cheek подача материала - остро, но с достоинством. Благодарю за труд - западному зрителю (да и восточному, чего уж там) такая пилюля крайне нужна - Вы снимаете лишний пафос и идеологичесие нагромождения и очень наглядно приводите жизнь бывш. СССР на осязаемых примерах.
@@billyponsonby As far as I know, he is Ukranian. His father was a pilot in soviet and later ukranian arforce. You can check his video about Mary (Soviet Topgun program) for more insides about it all (the video itself is rather exquisite and informative).
This excellent video illustrates a compelling example of unintentional operation of cockpit controllers and the absence of safety mechanisms to prevent it. It highlights the deficiency in Human Factors Engineering in Soviet designs.
Good to have you back! Another great video and I had a good laugh. The dark humour in these videos are priceless. Thx for good content👍👍Greetings from Denmark🇩🇰
Something similar happened in South Korea and its F-15K jet. This time it was purely operator error by a high-ranking officer. Similarly to how Sukhoi reacted Boeing thanked ROKAF for its accidental "live test" of a zero-zero ejection from its F-15 fighter jet and offered free replacement parts.😂
There was a sad incident with the K-36 chair. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the entire story, but it was with a MiG-29UB that was preparing for flight. Both the pilot and navigator had already taken their places in their seats, but had not yet lowered the canopy. When suddenly the navigator’s ejection seat triggered and he flew not into the glass of the lantern, but into a steel and massive frame. And after 0.4 seconds the pilot, who did not have time to fasten himself to the seat, ejected. Both the pilot and the navigator died, and after that the ejection system was equipped with the protection of a “pulling halyard/belt” (sorry, I don’t know how to spell it correctly in English) which was attached to the folding part of the canopy. This also means that if during ejection the canopy of your MiG-29, Su-27 or Su-25 DOESN’T shoot out!!! the ejection seat will not shoot anywhere and the pilot will remain in the plane until the ground. True, there is an emergency release handle for the cockpit canopy
@@kalashnikovdevil No they are not armed all the time and are blocked by a pin on the headrest However, careless handling of ejection seats can lead to death. For example, on January 13, 1986, exactly the same tragedy happened on the F-14A-90-GR BuNo 159846/NH-205 fighter of the VF-213 "Blacklions" squadron when two pilots ejected through the open hinged part of the canopy while on the deck of an aircraft carrier. LT Joseph Dwayne "Joe" "Dirt" Durmon and RIO LT Stephen Engeman were killed. You could see the F-14 BuNo 159846 in the title sequence of the 1986 film Top Gun. It stands out there with its number 205 on one of the wing planes. Shortly before his death, LT Joseph Dwayne "Joe" "Dirt" Durmon boasted in a letter to his younger brother that he acted in films and saw Tom Cruise The plane (159846) was repaired, but exactly a month later, on February 14, 1986, it crashed into the sea. Pilots Lieutenant. RJ Sklenka and RIO Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Lorenzo ejected. web.archive.org/web/20160330061631/www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/f-14.htm
@@dmitryyakimenko1779 A ground ejection fatality occurred some ~30 years ago in Serbia (Moma Stanojlovic aircraft maintenance facility), where a technician was working on the instruments in the cockpit of a G-2 Galeb trainer aircraft (equipped with Martin Baker ejection seats). The seat was not properly secured (disarmed) and he accidentally pulled the handle while working. The canopy was open (sideways, so no problem), the problem was that the plane was in the hangar, so he was ejected straight into the roof.
Guy Severin designed a truly excellent ejection seat like the K-36, a device made to protect flight crews from injury which actually works really well, largely on its own merits. A Russian engineer did that and I can't help but see the irony in that.
He wasn't being meddled with from above for Lysenko reasons or given unreasonable time-tables or anything, apparently. He was simply given the time and the resources required to _do it right._ And, uh... Considering that the US _seriously considered_ fully adopting his pilot seat? I'd say he succeeded.
@@ShadowDragon8685 That's not what the report said. They wanted to license the tech and use parts of it to build a better hybrid chair. Not the K36 seats itself.
We joke about it because so much of Russian tech suffers these "major flaws that are too publicly embarrasing to fix properly, so we just keep bodging it", but the history of the Soviet Union and its previous and later independent nations knows quite a lot of engineers who came up with interesting out-of-the-box solutions. Some of those solutions are born out of necessity due to absurd design constraints, some are just good blue sky thinking about what hasn't been tried before and some are seeing the perspective that everyone else seems to have missed. And sometimes it's seeing someone else's homework and copying 80% of it because plagiarism is a capitalist pigdog concept, except for when people steal your designs.
This is true of engineers in all countries, if they're given the chance some of them come up with insane stuff that actually works ( Barnes Wallace? that corker of a Soviet gun that was put in the wrong aircraft? ) and some of them produce stuff that makes you facepalm ( like the jeep with the gyrocopter blade ). But so much of the time they aren't allowed to just get on with it, so corners are cut & non-engineers get involvd in engineering decisions... We are very slowly learning to build overspend into engineering projects, but meddling still screws it up & I don't think we'll ever learn not to.
The funny thing about technical advance in the USSR: you never know, if you get reprimanded for breakting the rules, congratulated for finding something new or, in this case, both ;-)
I ran into this channel today, and it's completely sucked me in like a bird on a takeoff run. Well researched, great commentary and a delightful dab of tongue-in-cheek asides. Brilliant.
Point of order. This was not the first Zero/Zero ejection from an aircraft. Maybe from a Soviet aircraft. In 1971 in Vietnam the 20th Tactical Air Support Squadron had two incidents with OV-10 crew members ejecting. The first one was at Plaku when both crew members ejected as the aircraft went off the end of the runway. The aircraft was almost at a stop when it ran into a barb wire entanglement. The crew punched out. The aircraft was recovered and repaired. The second incident was an observer in the backseat was arming his seat and had placed one pin on the top of the instrument panel. The second pin which was tied to the first pin with a Remove Before Flight Flight streamer. This Streamer was was routed through the ejection seat D-Ring. When the observer removed the pin he went to place it with the first pin. This created a pulley and the observer received a ride. I personally observed this second incident. The major problem with the design is the seat is a Rockwell LW-3B which uses a rocket and all the wiring for the cockpit goes under the seat. All the wiring gets burned and this is a base level repair.
"The aircraft was almost at a stop" You clearly watched too much Soviet propaganda or (more likely) propaganda in USA is as strong as in Russia... If the plane was moving then it was not Zero/Zero ejection...
Ya know... from time to time I think "the Soviets weren't that incompetent" and then a Paper Skies video pops up to reinforce exactly how dysfunctional their state was.
Or simply give no flying (pun semi-intended) fuck. They order you to fly - you fly. They order you to shoot - you shoot. They order you to go and die - you go and die. The whole Army thing is like a big machine for selecting that kind of dudes and further training them to perfection. Any army, any country, some just figured out to only take in those who obey willingly. Never could settle this in my head. Not the army material, I guess.
MiG-21 killed much more and not only in Russia... My uncle said that from his Dęblin Polish flight school classmates 20% died because of MiG-21 issues with engine nozzle... On the other hand my father refused to switch to Mig-21 and after first year in Dęblin he got so nasty argument with the head of the school about it that he was sure that they kicked him out and was surprised after he returned from vacation that he was left in service -> as helicopter pilot...
For the past days, I have been very intrigued and interested about your videos, the video production is very well put. It gives us more insights about the USSR's aviation history, and it's overall history in general. From the pacing, to the animations, the information, and even the humor, all of it greatly contributes to our entertainment. Please do continue to make more of these videos, I understand that great efforts are required in order to create these videos, but nevertheless it is very worth it.
It turns out there was actually more damage than you mentioned. The only damage was his pride. I bet that his buddies all made fun of him for the rest of his life
Get Nebula using my link for *40% off an annual subscription* : go.nebula.tv/paperskies
17:57 Thanks for assuming this. Absolute respect!
Is Paypal finally implemented in nebular?
Made some video about recent F-22 design flaw about nose gear falling apart !
6:03 he took photos of the “F-11”? 😂 oops, bit of a mistake there!
Mú@@svinche2
Okay that is absolutely hilarious, both in how it happened, how their commanders threw the book at them because they didn't have anything else to do to them, and the designers all congratulated them for testing something they hadn't gotten around to yet.
Sounds like the military, Russian or otherwise
@@garrysteffens3040 well said!
@garrysteffens3040 military! You are going to get shouted at and rewarded! Do not speak to the press!
Reminds me of how criminals manipulate the members of their gangs.. no matter what they do, they always get punished first by the leader, then awarded later by those further down the chain of commane 😂
I can't believe that pilot in the 1989 france airshow survived.. however that seems like pure luck more than anything, and like the ejection rocket didn't do its job at all.
I bet he was severely crippled from that, and likely in critical condition with questionable survival chances.
Yep. Blame the crew for the engineering mistake of making the yoke stick and the ejection handle get in each other's way so moving the yoke pulls the ejection. It's like Boeing blaming pilots for their badly designed MCAS problems. (A system pulling information from only one non redundant sensor that can be wrong shouldn't't be overriding pilot manual attempts to correct a nose dive.)
Lots of crewmen dislike their aircraft. But it's noteworthy when an aircraft dislikes a crewman.
Good one! Thanks!
Sounds like my general thoughts on Kitchen appliances. Sure, people get mad at their toaster, but how many times has your toaster been mad at you? (tentatively looks at kitchen empty of appliances and the paranoia subsides)
@@nerdjournalmy toaster tried to burn my house down
Like the F-35
@@parrotcraft7503 yes, the thumbnail made me think of them ejecting over the runway, while jet goes bonkers due to funny software. the cope is getting stronger! :)
I love the animated sections so much, laughing so hard at the pilot looking up at the hole in the canopy to see where his buddy has gone 😆
Agreed
"Mischa, you're okay???"
".....look out for the seat!"
"The what?"
*whamm*
I know. The animations in Paper Skies videos are great.
Russian ejection seats really work as per the Paris air show accident., the other thing is the blast protection that comes up to stop the air blast at high speed.
"If you even say 'huh?' you'll be talking to yourself. 'Cause I'll be gone."
Those poor, confused pilots. Not only did they have zero idea what just happened, but their 0-0 test got them both commendations and reprimands, which sort of zeros out. On the bright side, there were zero injuries or deaths.
just a couple sets of ruined underwear
@@Tank50us That and two seriously damaged planes... but hey, on true Russian fashion they turned it on a propaganda piece at relatively low cost, they usually did worse.
So a 0-0 test with 0-0 death injury… 0-0-0-0
I'm sure both of them thought, in that moment, that they were about to die. The one ejected probably thought the plane had already exploded and he was flying through the air.
@@cesaravegah3787 Ah yes, having the first 0-0 ejection seat is "propaganda". Please tell me more of your non biased wisdom.
The ejected seat landing on a nearby plane is a hilarious detail that I had not heard before.
the graphic of it doing so is doubly hilarious!
Reality tends be a an eye opener being way more creative than imagination. You can't foresee everything. I know a case of two jets striking each other in mid air. The pilots in the lower plane died immediately hitting the higher plane. The two pilots in the upper plane ejected successfully - but only one survived. One pilot was killed by a truck - the winds blew him on the highway.
@@abcdef-qk6jfI was Air Traffic Controller all my adult life. One day an aircraft departing from an adjacent aerodrome blew a tire on the take off run. A friend volunteered to carry the pilot of the disabled aircraft in his, since the intention was to fly together to the same destination in two aircraft; but meanwhile the visibility had deteriorated seriously. They took off nevertheless and less than five minutes afterwards crashed against the slope of a range they never saw in time. Both were killed.
The final comedic touch.
@@abcdef-qk6jf Wow that's a crazy story, thanks for sharing.
I need to use that “confirm the correctness of design” line at my own job.😅
Are you a Chinese (reverse) engineer?
I dunno but I think I'm going to start brewing beer.
I wish someone would "confirm the correctness" of War Thunder's design at this point 😞
@@SupercohboyPipe down, Nerdlinger!
It's something I could see perfectly fitting into a modern manager's vocabulary, so perhaps it's the best way to fish for a promotion.
there is no such a thing as a short Paper Skies video
And we wouldn’t want it any other way
@@fangride3577I’ll second that!
@@fangride3577Truer words have never been spoken.
They can’t be too long!
I would phrase it differently: There is no Paper Skies video that is too long!
Premature ejection happens to many. Would that we all get a gold watch and personalized helmet out of it!
😂
Or a necktie.
I find that thinking about baseball helps to alleviate early evacuations.
Idk about personalized, but a helmet definitely helps with that😉
Apparently affects one out of every five
It's embarrassing but I follow the logic
They didn't think about how the stick would go backwards and hook the ejection handle when designing the cockpit layout
Then when they found out, they had two choices: redesign the navigators station, do more testing, possibly reduce navigator visibility by making their display smaller or moving it up higher to allow the stick to be full length
Or
String and duct tape
smekalka!
Da
@@contrapasta2454 That's the thing you say when you have too much smegma under you foreskin.
All that engineering and it's enough for one string to latch off for the plane to become uncontrollable.
Its the most Russian solution ever.
These types of issues do arise in complex engineering projects, and even under the best circumstances sometimes they get through reviews and tests to become an issue in the field. The non fix for the situation though is remarkable, it's generally bad practice to solve a design issue by asking a human to do something that can be easily forgotten neglected or not possible. Loss of the balls or a plane needing to land at a location that isn't setup for its maintenance are two very likely scenarios over the service life of a plane, but even more likely is simple human error, even more likely l, and not just for the memable Russian military is laziness.
If this scenario hasn't repeated in the last 50 years it's largely due to luck.
An entire video to set up a "The plane has balls, but the pilots don't" joke. Bravo, good sir.
IDK, what are they supposed to do? Get court-martialled?
@@sriharshacv7760 they could try defecting by flying into a "neutral" country. Though they would have to accept cutting off all ties to Russia and avoiding Russian nations wherever they go once they resettle since the trend of Russian diaspora murdering anyone on the Ukrainian side in neutral countries has just gone up.
@@sriharshacv7760 yes. or leave
@@sriharshacv7760 if you'd rather bomb women and kids than get court martialed, then indeed you lack any balls whatsoever.
Pilots have a lot of sway in the Russian Air Force
The "Good Enough, Made in USSR" stamp at 3:10 lol
Merch Idea?
Would totally buy if he made it a merch lol
Just like Boeing now "Good Enough, Made in USA"
@@Jacky-zt5chyou wouldn t buy any
I would have bought the whole stock before you could even buy one
No, this is trolling over Russians who believe that a product with the stamp “Made in the USSR” is the highest sign of quality. For example, when it comes to airplanes, they are sure that Soviet airplanes were and are very strong and reliable
And they can cite as an example that they have had a Soviet refrigerator at home for 30-50 years and that their mother washes clothes in a washing machine that was made when Brezhnev was alive
@@EdU-od5ec Fair, arguably the biggest issue in the West is the (generally-speaking) lack of care when it comes to maintenance. Many tragedies over the decades have been caused by failing airframes as opposed to outright undertested/underengineered designs. It's ingrained in our culture, everyone complains about maintenance at a personal level, let alone when business and money gets involved.
Edit: I think most folks have learned these lessons the hard way at this point, the US military has noticeably been retiring airframes ahead of accidents for the past ~3 decades, and commercial regulations have changed, to be clear.
"Congratulations! You've successfully performed an ejection from a stationary aircraft!"
"Uh.... Thanks? I guess?"
"Also, you've just cost us 35 million Rubles in damages. You're hereby discharged and court-martialed."
"Blyat."
Man, I love accidentally discovering that the thing I am using is WAY better than I thought it was by ACCIDENTALLY PROVING IT JUST IS THAT WAY 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Said every motocross rider ever!
Accidental discovery are often either the best or the worst kind of discovery.
"So you are saying the best part of the plane is the ejection seat?"
"Yes comrade pilot!"
"Hm..."
I loved the bit where the animated ground crewman had his startled "WTF!!" moment when the navigator's seat obeyed the law of gravity and landed on top of the parked aircraft.
Also loved the fact that instead of designing some kind of mechanical lock or figuring out a way to isolate the sticks from the control surfaces, the Soviet solution was "sling a rope with balls over it". Peak Smekalka!
I mean, sometimes simple solutions are the best solutions. For example, want to keep birds and bugs out of your pitot tubes? Just stick a cover over them. Or want to keep random junk from flying into the engine while parked? Just add a cover.
🤦🤦🤦 не надо верить всему сказанному. Всё было исправлено просто замечательно и после этого случая таких происшествий не было.
When you dropped the line „however there was one really positive aspect“, i fully expected you to mention the type of aviation cocktail the aircraft made 🍸
In general, the alcohol wasn't the best side of the Su-24. If I remember correctly, the standard Su-24 used ~5 liters of alcohol per flight, which, in comparison to other Soviet planes, was little to nothing. However, the reconnaissance version of the plane - the Su-24MR - used ~70-80 liters (to cool down the rec. equipment). But there weren't that many of those models, and those crews were considered lucky.
i remember my grandpa telling a story of a Su-24 pilot that bailed out in 1975 during his visit to the air base. I didnt know what was so special about that story (compared to his experience in Afghanistan), but now i know!
he didnt say it was while being on the ground btw
1:00 I love how the pilot is vibing to the background music
The fact that the pilot survived in that air show with his chute not even opening all the way is just amazing..
What is so amazing bout it when he started from ground level and with zero speed?!
On top of it he landed on the grass...
@@Bialy_1at the air show. Not the su24...
And the perfect achievement was:
- Got reprimanded for a mistake they did not commit.
- Got rewarded for a feat they did not do.
Statements after the incident:
Navigator: "I dunno... I was like looking at my checklist. Then I felt a sudden pain in my back, saw my seat landing on another jet, and when I landed, everyone started shouting at me."
Pilot: "I was busy starting the engines and clearing some grechka from my teeth, when Misha suddenly disappeared. I leaned in to check, and saw him hangin' around above the plane. I instantly had the nagging feeling that we would be late for dinner."
Sukhoi Bureau: "Thanks to our brave volunteers, we finally confirmed the correctness of the planned string-n-balls design."
Dude just two days ago I was looking at your channel going "God, wonder when Paper Skies is putting out a new video." 9.5/10 timing, only ~30 hours off.
I was watching videos last night thinking the same thing lol
He was listening outside your window disguised as a pigeon
So was I literally 2 days ago
@@blackcountrymeYou say that, but there WAS a pigeon outside my window two nights ago.
The copilot was just confirming the engineer's plans for ejection seat capability.....and I am _so_ glad you told us what the piece of rope and two styrofoam balls were for.
The engineer’s son tested the seat. Great motivation to make sure that the seat that you designed actually works well.
Two related stories from Sweden, including one of the most amusing reasons for losing a JAS-39 Gripen.
First story: when I did my conscription service -1994 ‒ 95 - as an aircraft mechanic on Saab J35J Draken, the cockpit featured - on each corner of the center console - a tiny metal loop, screwed directly into the metal frame. These were for the boot restraints, that pull the pilot's feet close to the seat when ejecting.
But when instructing us, the more seasoned conscript noticed that the manual - yes, we had manuals, with big line-art drawing showing us what do to - said "Lay the straps crossed over the base of the control stick". He called over to the officer in charge: "Oi, lieutenant! We've got an unsafe manual here, this is the old one!"
What was going on?
Well, on June 20, 1991 - after Draken had spent nearly 4 decades in the air without this being an issue - one pilot forgot to strap in the boots. He taxied onto the runway, and took off.
As the main wheels got airborne, he instantly knew something was wrong, as the plane started rolling, and he could not counter it. After just a couple of seconds, he understood that the roll would continue, which - with Draken's poor low speed performance - would lead to vigorous lithobraking. He ejected, was saved, and the plane (serial 35522) became the second to last hull loss for Draken.
What had happened?
Turns out that during the preflight control surface tests - which involved vigorous and large control stick movements - the unfastened boot straps had jammed where the control stick interfaces the floor. This then made it impossible for the pilot to use the stick for roll on take-off.
Hence, the small metal loops were added for us aircraft mechs to put the boot restraints in, to avoid them fouling the control stick again.
And, yes, despite his feet not being pulled in, and despite him being partially responsible for the situation, he did keep his feet, and his wings.
----
Second story: in 2007, a Saab JAS-39 Gripen made an 8.6 g turn to turn downwind at Vidsel airbase. As the pilot rolled out on the downwind leg, the canopy was - unexpectedly - jettisoned. The pilot realised something was about to go very wrong and started reaching for the ejection handle. He did not get that far, because the seat activated on its own, threw the pilot clear of the plane, which subsequently crashed in the Norrland forest next to the main runway.
What had happened? Turns out that this was a JAS-39C, the second generation Gripen. The "Cesars" got bigger cockpit screens. But, the control column got in the way of the lower screen. Okay, we can fix that, move the control column back. But, the ejection seat handle is there! The moved control column made the handle harder to reach. Well, we can fix that too, let us make ejection seat handle rigid, flat and cone-shaped.
Martin-Baker tested this, Saab and the Defence Material Administration signed off on it, and all was peachy.
...until that ejection. The investigation revealed that the seat log said that the handle had been pulled and activated the seat. The pilot assured everyone he had not touched it. But what then, had pulled the handle?
The g-suit had. Remember that 8.6 g turn? When the pants inflated, they had pulled the handle up. Major WTF... Martin-Baker, we tested this, did you do something with the handles after testing?!
Well... we changed supplier of the handles, MB said. Aaand... turns out they did not quite follow the specs used during testing, and so the friction between handle and pants were different compared to when we tested.
Hold on, the Swedish Accident Investigation Board thought, this cannot be the first time something like this has happened. So they called the JAS-39C divisions to ask "Have you had any occurrences where the ejection handle appeared to have come loose?" The reply... "Well, now that you mention it..." there _had_ been such occurrences, where the mechs had to push the handle back down again, in order to get the safety pin in. It was just that they had not used the incident reporting system properly to alert anyone to the issue.
Draken: one of the coolest looking (and most effective, too!) airplanes ever! Thanks, Sweden!
Enjoyed reading that kudos
Hmm. I'm former MB & worked on that contract - needless to say I'm unaware of any such occurrence. Moved the handle back to improve clearance?! Nor do I recall 'tier 2' supply of said Primary Ejection handles(!) We are talking about the black & yellow loop I assume? 🤔
@@grahampalmer9337 I made a small mistake, the ejection seat handle was not moved, but it was redesigned. Here is the relevant section from the Swedish Accident Investigation Board's report on the crash, document RM2008:01
_In the JAS 39C/D, new color displays with larger dimensions than the corresponding displays in the JAS 39A/B were introduced on the dashboard. The control column console therefore had to be moved to the rear, which reduced the space between the pilot and the console. This meant that the ejection handle in the design used in the JAS 39A/B (a variant of Martin-Baker's original "covered wire" type handle) was too difficult to reach in the JAS 39C/D._
_Martin-Baker developed new handles in several designs, which were reviewed by SAAB and FMV. The handle design accepted by the test pilots and chosen for the JAS 39C/D had a hard, low-friction surface. The Board has not found that the handle in the JAS 39C/D has been examined with regard to the risk of inadvertent ejection due to interaction between the G-suit and the handle with regards to its shape, friction and location._
_After the accident, it was found that the material properties of the ejection handles in different JAS 39C/D exhibited individual variations. The handle that was in U59 was marked "Issue 2". Compared to the handle originally tested and delivered to the C/D aircraft, the "Issue 2" handle was made of softer material and had a significantly higher surface friction. The "Issue 2 handle" therefore created significantly higher friction against the G suit than the original C/D handle. The change of material in the handles was said to have occurred when Martin-Baker changed subcontractors for handles, whereby the marking "Issue 2" was introduced._
Thank you for this.
I love your channel because it shows an often neglected part of aviation by the west as a Pole whose country is on the crossroads between the west and east having you is a amazing opportunity to dive into the history of eastern aviation as it is strongly correlated with polish aviation! ❤️🙏
Being an avid video essay watcher I find you describing a 20 minute video as short perfectly fitting
In Soviet Union pilots don't test the ejection seats. Ejection seats test them!
By the way, LOVE the artistic style of the re-enactments of the incidents. Great artistic choice.
I have a feeling my neighbours will be reporting me to the local authorities because of the insane, sustained cackling coming from my place. I mean, the Soviet military aircraft construction program, a supposedly serious business, sounds like a combination of the Keystone Kops meets Abbott & Costello, meets Leslie Nielsen's Airplane. And the Sahara Desert dry, snarky wit had me in stitches. I was on the floor. And that last thing about the balls was the coup de grace! Well played, Sir Paper Skies. I have subscribed and I will be back for more, despite anything my neighbours might say!
During the checklist:
Pilot: Hydraulic pressure?
Navigator: Hydraulic pressure nomina - a - a - aaaaaal
That "Good enough. Made in USSR." stamp of passability is outstanding. I wish I could stick that to anything that is obviously broken but still somehow works, like a phone with cracked display.
That is actually far more relevant to modern Chinese stuff. None of is outright junk, usually - it works well enough most of the time, it's just engineered with zero point zero regard for any of the OTHER times.
Had I been born a few years earlier, I’d wear a shirt with this stamp
Can we apply that to the recent turtle tanks? I know they're made in Russia and all
It doesnt seem to get any more soviet than to strap the horizontal stabilizers in place with a rope instead of adding a shut-off valve to the hydraulic circuit to keep them horizontal when the system is no longer pressurized - as seen on any excavator for example. 😅
Similar anecdote from the Space Race:
During the 1960s, NASA and the Sovs independently discovered that ballpoint pens can't write in space. NASA solved this by paying a private contractor to develop a very expensive pen that could write in zero G, underwater and in temperatures between about -40 and 200 degrees Fahrenheit.
The Soviets switched to pencils.
@@sturmovik1274 except that they didn’t. They used the same pen NASA did because graphite dust in a zero G cockpit = short circuits and fires.
I'll take your word for it. I heard my version third-hand many years ago.@@p.strobus7569
@@sturmovik1274That's an urban myth debunked long ago
@@sturmovik1274 Nasa didn't pay to develop the pen, the Fisher Pen Company developed the pen with their own funds and marketed it to Nasa. Nasa originally used pencils like the Soviets but switched to the pens because of risks associated with conductive graphite (pencil lead). The Soviets also purchased and used the pens for the same reason -- graphite bits, microgravity, and space hardware don't mix.
Hey Paper Skies. One F-5 was even brought to Czechoslovakia to be studied and there was a project to build sort of a supersonic mix between the F-5 and L-39. Models for aerodynamic tunnel are still hanged in VZLU. Back then it was all state owned so almost like one company but now you could say it was mostly work done by Aero and VZLU. Sometimes you can spot it as A-150 Sokol. I think it would be definetly cool looking into it. Even some more detailed technical drawings exist.
Russian F-5, or the OG MiG-28?
1:34 Soviet made Su24, used by Ukraine's Air Force, equipped with incompatible British missile, destroyed a Soviet submarine sitting above water line. How hard to imagine?!
pretty easy if your enemy is goofy russians
@@bebra3896ukro bot
@@22ym36Russian bot
@@22ym36 shitholestani serf
Incompatible off the shelf, yes. But believe it or not, engineers can alter things to make it compatible and with that, Russia has one less submarine.
I got a chuckle out the humor and subtitles.
I have to admit, the thumbnail for this video alone had me 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I expected to see “Nyet! Bot Aepbmo!” (“No! Oh shit!” in Russian.)
Don’t have time to get a Cyrillic keyboard.
Great stuff! "Confirming decisions" 🤣
It must have been one of those really wtf moments!
Accidental firings of ejection seats is, or was, a much more common thing then many people realize. That's why most militaries by now have A LOT of safety precautions for them.
@poiujnbvcxdswq "Two things are infinite - the Universe and human stupidity, and I am not so sure about the Universe," - Albert Einstein. :)
My aunt and I watched the video! Absolutely hilarious. I feel kind of bad for the fellows at the design bureaus being given objectives and too little time to complete them and copying other craft without being able to understand what's going on under the hood.
The ejection seat pretty clearly shows that when Soviet designers were given time, resources, _and not meddled with from on high,_ they were capable of producing _genuinely good_ equipment. A universal ejection seat so good that it was _seriously_ considered for adoption by the United States military after the fall of the Soviet Union?
Let the eggheads run the show and they'll give you _real_ results. Give them stupid deadlines, and you win stupid prizes.
exactly. there were a lot of legitimately competent-
outright brilliant people-
but, well... the system as a whole....
look at how the kremlin killed Gagarin's best friend through sheer stupidity/malicious incompetence....
seriously, it was incredibly fucked up- Yuri was the backup cosmonaut, and both of them knew that whoever went up (mission was rushed due to something cosmically idiotic-
either some politico's birthday or a pitifully unimportant anniversary), and they both attempted to force the other to let them into the INCOMPLETE capsule instead-
Yuri actually turned up shortly before launch, fully suited up, demanding to be allowed to take his friend's place...
*sighs* almost literally everything malfunctioned/broke, and the poor bastard inside's last words were literally cursing the politicians for killing him.
parachute completely failed and the capsule pancaked, landing retros failed to fire until after impact.....
there... are photos, real ones, showing what his remains looked like after (as a piece of per-meditated post-mortem spite, his last will demanded an open casket funeral with his killers-by-proxy present), but i dont recommend looking them up- what was left of him was... entirely unrecognizable as human...
The problem with the USSR is they executed competent people for the crime of being competent.
Yeah but the problem always comes back to management. Let people toil away with a useless dead end idea forever and you'll never reach the deadline. Unfortunately necessary to have someone step in and say "enough" and move to the next.
This channel is part aviation history, part English language comprehension test. Incredible command of the language.
It's literal runglish with russian sentence structure still in.
@@Klovaneerhe's Ukrainian, you muppet.
Best channel about military aviation (on pair with Mustard) and, more important, about soviet block itself. Great narration, humor and way of delivering the info.
Дякую, що доносиш інформацію як "воно є" до англомовної аудиторії. Успіхів. (До речі підписав родину на Brilliant, напевно, час глянути на цю Nebula))
І я дякую автору за це, не вперше і не востаннє.
I would absolutely buy some 'Good Enough Made in USSR' merch. Please, put that on a shirt before I do.
The fairy tale that all the technical successes of the Soviet Union and Russia came only from copying Western technology is old, but not entirely correct. Many Western secret services also have the task of spying on technologies in order to be able to obtain them cheaply, because developments are known to be expensive and difficult to achieve. The French secret service in particular is known for its ability to identify technologies. But also the CIA. For example, the well-known space expert Scott Manley has shown that the findings from the recordings of the BOR spaceplane landings in Langley received a lot of attention. Reingeniering was then carried out there because it turned out that the shape of the bow (the front of the vehicle) from BOR was far better than its own design. The rounder "snout", which was much better able to withstand the heat generated during re-entry in the MIG 105 (this had already been shown in the shape of the space capsules). The CIA then built models for wind tunnel and testing. And then presented a model, the mock up of which was then even used for the Dreamchaser (which will hopefully be tested this year). And that's just one example. The Tsarist Academy of Science had already achieved amazing achievements (including the first electron beam imaging in 1911). The great developer of aircraft and helicopters Sikorski had his first successes building aircraft for the Tsar. The Soviet Union and
Korolyev had already successfully launched rockets with liquid fuel in the 1930s. The successes of the Soviet designers were demonstrated again and again in space travel.
But it should also not be forgotten that the Soviet Union built the first high-altitude bombers in which additional machines could generate compressed air, which enabled the engines to operate at lower altitudes. But the difficulties also appeared there. As with Korolyov's first liquid rockets, the leadership did not understand how to make use of this advantage. However, this also happened again and again with other nations. In any case, it is completely wrong to act as if everything was just copied. For example, the Buran space plane was able to do a number of things that the Space Shuttle Orbiter could not. How to automatically land and take off without uncontrollable solid rockets.
PS: France lost its sovereignty for years during WW2. To ensure that this cannot happen again, they are particularly interested in a strong arms industry.
It is either " Funny" or "" Interesting "" the
Expression of { Good Enough Made in USSR" .
I prefer my expression of {{ I will Accept Perfection Until I can Improve Upon It }}
I learnt the other week that some other country their People have much the same saying "".
@@edwardcarberry1095 One good one is:
Never do improvements that are not real improvements. Don't fix things that work well for the sake of fixing something.
Volvo lived by that for decades before they had to be "modern" in the wrong kind of way.
@@secularnevrosis I am going to say "" ALL"" of what I design do not need to be improved as they are and do work VERY Well. The one I enlarged the hole from 1/4" to 5/16" that was all I could improve upon it in 25 years.
The riser for my truck has not shown any short comings. .
@@edwardcarberry1095 Hehe :)
18:10 Oh my god, get the burn salve😂 Awesome video, as always!
Paper you savage. That balls comment was fabulous.
To be honest, what you're describing with the SU7 "B" was very similar in the West! The West German air force took it to the extreme by using the F104 interceptor as a bomber
AAAhahahah. Strauss´ pipe dream. The creation of the infamous "NATO tent peg". The deadliest plane the german airforce had post war. killed nearly a third of its pilots. The saying was in the 80´s: " Want a jet fighter? easy. Buy a piece of land and a folding spade." These contraptions were dropping left and right, and leaving them out in the open between flights for lack of hangars didn´t really help, either.
@Jonsonsan So did the Canadian air force.
@@MrDiddlebug But I suppose they didn´t lose 1/3 of their fleet to negligence and hardware failure?
@@paavobergmann4920 I honestly can't speak to that. I was merely trying to point out that the Canadian air force, like the West German air force, used the Starfighter as an attack aircraft rather than an interceptor.
@@MrDiddlebug Yeah, this is where the trouble started. You don´t tie your race horse in front of a plough. But then the german airforce really doubled down on this bad premise, insisted on fitting all kinds of non-compatible german gadgets to the plane, and then left them out in the open to rot, And then were all surprised when the planes started killing pilots in revenge. So, Yeah, an interceptor is not a fighter-bomber, but as one of your astronauts said: " There is no problem so bad that you can´t make it worse." And that´s something you have to hand to german engineering: complicating problems is kind of our signature move.
14:32 i love how the pilot looks up like "tf where did my navigator go?"
Every other engineer would have used an unlockable check Valve.
Russians: "Let's use a piece of rope and styrofoam!" 🤣🤣
Why make things complicated, if you don't have to.
@@JacobBax Is it more complicated to put that piece of styrofoam in there forever, or fit a piece of hardware once? I'd honestly go with the 2nd choice but i guess it depends on the point of view.
@@DooaanaThat's why Soviet equipment can operate everywhere. They solve their problems with simple solutions.
@@Dooaana It's not there forever, it's effectively just "chocks" for the aileron and are removed once the hydraulic system is active.
It's a kludge, but it's not exactly a big inconvenience to keep a couple of styrofoam cups, string, and duct tape in the hangar.
I literally checked your channel yesterday thinking "That was a while since Paper skies' last video..."
Радий бачити тебе знову)
14:32 These 2 seconds of animation made my day.
"Comrade, where are you?"
I heard that one of the hangars in Akhtubinsk still has a distinct stain on its ceiling after one of the ground crew accidentally ejected himself (actually upper half of his body) straight into it.
Ouch, I don't think he walked from that one.
@@prfwrx2497he did but his eyes couldn’t see
Actually that's not the only air force hangar with the "roof bump" resulting from ignorant mechanics horseplaying with armed ejection seats.
really enjoyed the animation of the accidental ejection. Well done.
I mean, I liked the whole video, but the animation made me wanna comment.
"The only balls thats pilots have left'" DAAAAAMN SOOO GOOD! Меня просто порвало со смеху!
It's not that funny if you're actually a civilian in Ukraine
@@decadenced2931 The only thing we can do to avoid going crazy in this situation is to laugh at everything connected
My day is now better seeing a new paper skies upload. Cheers from Conroe, Tx
Paper Skies, if you read this, your videos are a joy to watch. Brightened up a depressing sunday for me. Please continue!
Лучший канал об авиации восточного блока. Даже не столько об авиации, сколько о самом блоке и условиях жизни в нем. Кудос.
Особенно радует tonque in cheek подача материала - остро, но с достоинством.
Благодарю за труд - западному зрителю (да и восточному, чего уж там) такая пилюля крайне нужна - Вы снимаете лишний пафос и идеологичесие нагромождения и очень наглядно приводите жизнь бывш. СССР на осязаемых примерах.
I agree! Who is Paper Skys and what nationality and background does he have?
@@billyponsonby He was born in Ukraine, his father flew MiG-23 and MiG-29 for the Soviet Air Force
@@billyponsonby As far as I know, he is Ukranian. His father was a pilot in soviet and later ukranian arforce.
You can check his video about Mary (Soviet Topgun program) for more insides about it all (the video itself is rather exquisite and informative).
Батхерт чувстуется.
ну спорно, он выискивает самую дичь и смакотно ее описывает.
These videos are a goldmine of cool details to add on scale models, like the ductape
Have not seen video yet, but thsnks for coming back.
Hope you have been OK last few months.
Slava!
This excellent video illustrates a compelling example of unintentional operation of cockpit controllers and the absence of safety mechanisms to prevent it. It highlights the deficiency in Human Factors Engineering in Soviet designs.
Дякуємо!
I am using that one from now on. I wasn't "shamelessly plagiarizing" this piece of writing I was "validating the correctness of the word choices".😂
You turned a 3-minute story into a 21-minute video, but still entertaining.
Good to have you back! Another great video and I had a good laugh. The dark humour in these videos are priceless. Thx for good content👍👍Greetings from Denmark🇩🇰
I was literally checking your channel 2 hours ago, wondering if i missed something. Thank you again!
Danke!
Thank you for support!
You Sir have the Tube's best aviation channel. Period.
I also love your discontentment vs the Russian war machinery.
Excellent in all ways.
Rex's Hanger is also a very good one.
@@SephirothRyuAbsolutely. I love his channel too, but he's more into older airplanes. He does that stuff extremely well.
Дякую за цікаві історичні відео!
Something similar happened in South Korea and its F-15K jet. This time it was purely operator error by a high-ranking officer. Similarly to how Sukhoi reacted Boeing thanked ROKAF for its accidental "live test" of a zero-zero ejection from its F-15 fighter jet and offered free replacement parts.😂
The f-35 pilot screaming GREAT CHOICE GUYS had me rolling
There was a sad incident with the K-36 chair. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the entire story, but it was with a MiG-29UB that was preparing for flight. Both the pilot and navigator had already taken their places in their seats, but had not yet lowered the canopy. When suddenly the navigator’s ejection seat triggered and he flew not into the glass of the lantern, but into a steel and massive frame. And after 0.4 seconds the pilot, who did not have time to fasten himself to the seat, ejected. Both the pilot and the navigator died, and after that the ejection system was equipped with the protection of a “pulling halyard/belt” (sorry, I don’t know how to spell it correctly in English) which was attached to the folding part of the canopy. This also means that if during ejection the canopy of your MiG-29, Su-27 or Su-25 DOESN’T shoot out!!! the ejection seat will not shoot anywhere and the pilot will remain in the plane until the ground. True, there is an emergency release handle for the cockpit canopy
Wow, so the seats are just... armed? All the time? Wild.
@@kalashnikovdevil No they are not armed all the time and are blocked by a pin on the headrest
However, careless handling of ejection seats can lead to death.
For example, on January 13, 1986, exactly the same tragedy happened on the F-14A-90-GR BuNo 159846/NH-205 fighter of the VF-213 "Blacklions" squadron when two pilots ejected through the open hinged part of the canopy while on the deck of an aircraft carrier. LT Joseph Dwayne "Joe" "Dirt" Durmon and RIO LT Stephen Engeman were killed.
You could see the F-14 BuNo 159846 in the title sequence of the 1986 film Top Gun. It stands out there with its number 205 on one of the wing planes.
Shortly before his death, LT Joseph Dwayne "Joe" "Dirt" Durmon boasted in a letter to his younger brother that he acted in films and saw Tom Cruise
The plane (159846) was repaired, but exactly a month later, on February 14, 1986, it crashed into the sea. Pilots Lieutenant. RJ Sklenka and RIO Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Lorenzo ejected.
web.archive.org/web/20160330061631/www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/f-14.htm
@@dmitryyakimenko1779 A ground ejection fatality occurred some ~30 years ago in Serbia (Moma Stanojlovic aircraft maintenance facility), where a technician was working on the instruments in the cockpit of a G-2 Galeb trainer aircraft (equipped with Martin Baker ejection seats). The seat was not properly secured (disarmed) and he accidentally pulled the handle while working. The canopy was open (sideways, so no problem), the problem was that the plane was in the hangar, so he was ejected straight into the roof.
Once again, great videos you make! These are looking and sounding encyclopedic, if you will.
The ejection seat at the Paris Airshow actually didn’t perform nominally, with one of the stabilization booms not properly deploying.
I love how the bomber Commander reprimanded the navigator and everyone else knew the true significance of the event.
I LOVE your animations by the way.
Always love your videos, Curious Droid just released his F-111 video, so great timing!
We all know that the F-5 was developed into the phenomenal Mig-28, which carries the potent Exocet anti-ship missile.
the art/ejection video is BRILLIANT!
Paper Skies: *mentions F-111 Aardvark*
Lazer Pig: *wants to know your location*
Not to mention NCD.
VARK VARK VARK VARK VARK
@@nekdonikde5317 WOW the new translation bot does NOT like "Vark" ( it was translated to "pig")
This is unacceptable.
@@SephirothRyunah, it's perfectly acceptable.
@@SephirothRyu
That's what the word means.
It's Afrikaans, I think? Aardvark means something like "ant pig?"
Always a pleasure to see a new video from you. This one was no exception.
1:01 so addictive
As always, informed and so entertaining
The American also experienced issues with take-offs, due to overloaded aircraft, which they could only overcome with the use of rockets at launch.
I gave a thumbs up for your dishonesty turned honesty at the beginning of the video...☺
Guy Severin designed a truly excellent ejection seat like the K-36, a device made to protect flight crews from injury which actually works really well, largely on its own merits. A Russian engineer did that and I can't help but see the irony in that.
He wasn't being meddled with from above for Lysenko reasons or given unreasonable time-tables or anything, apparently. He was simply given the time and the resources required to _do it right._
And, uh... Considering that the US _seriously considered_ fully adopting his pilot seat? I'd say he succeeded.
@@ShadowDragon8685 That's not what the report said. They wanted to license the tech and use parts of it to build a better hybrid chair. Not the K36 seats itself.
We joke about it because so much of Russian tech suffers these "major flaws that are too publicly embarrasing to fix properly, so we just keep bodging it", but the history of the Soviet Union and its previous and later independent nations knows quite a lot of engineers who came up with interesting out-of-the-box solutions. Some of those solutions are born out of necessity due to absurd design constraints, some are just good blue sky thinking about what hasn't been tried before and some are seeing the perspective that everyone else seems to have missed. And sometimes it's seeing someone else's homework and copying 80% of it because plagiarism is a capitalist pigdog concept, except for when people steal your designs.
This is true of engineers in all countries, if they're given the chance some of them come up with insane stuff that actually works ( Barnes Wallace? that corker of a Soviet gun that was put in the wrong aircraft? ) and some of them produce stuff that makes you facepalm ( like the jeep with the gyrocopter blade ). But so much of the time they aren't allowed to just get on with it, so corners are cut & non-engineers get involvd in engineering decisions...
We are very slowly learning to build overspend into engineering projects, but meddling still screws it up & I don't think we'll ever learn not to.
They had control over not just the seat, but also the Aircrew Flight Equipment, which was an integral part of safe escape.
The funny thing about technical advance in the USSR: you never know, if you get reprimanded for breakting the rules, congratulated for finding something new or, in this case, both ;-)
There are no such things as too long videos from paper skies! Love your content!
0:01 which song is this, I am dying to know PLEASE
Cremation by Czechoslovakian band
“Sandstorm” by Darude
I ran into this channel today, and it's completely sucked me in like a bird on a takeoff run. Well researched, great commentary and a delightful dab of tongue-in-cheek asides. Brilliant.
Point of order. This was not the first Zero/Zero ejection from an aircraft. Maybe from a Soviet aircraft. In 1971 in Vietnam the 20th Tactical Air Support Squadron had two incidents with OV-10 crew members ejecting. The first one was at Plaku when both crew members ejected as the aircraft went off the end of the runway. The aircraft was almost at a stop when it ran into a barb wire entanglement. The crew punched out. The aircraft was recovered and repaired. The second incident was an observer in the backseat was arming his seat and had placed one pin on the top of the instrument panel. The second pin which was tied to the first pin with a Remove Before Flight Flight streamer. This Streamer was was routed through the ejection seat D-Ring. When the observer removed the pin he went to place it with the first pin. This created a pulley and the observer received a ride. I personally observed this second incident. The major problem with the design is the seat is a Rockwell LW-3B which uses a rocket and all the wiring for the cockpit goes under the seat. All the wiring gets burned and this is a base level repair.
"The aircraft was almost at a stop" You clearly watched too much Soviet propaganda or (more likely) propaganda in USA is as strong as in Russia... If the plane was moving then it was not Zero/Zero ejection...
@@Bialy_1 I saw it myself. No video involved. They were Zero/Zero ejections.
Of all aircraft systems, I fall in love with certain landing gear styles. Its nice to hear that there are others out there.
Ya know... from time to time I think "the Soviets weren't that incompetent" and then a Paper Skies video pops up to reinforce exactly how dysfunctional their state was.
Atlas Shrugged was prophetic in 1958.
The animation illustrating the zero-zero incident was hilarious. Tnx.
Love the "GOOD ENOUGH" stamp of approval.
The animation, the music - it all just works together so beautifully 😂 thanks so much for this!
Not to defend Russia or its pilots, but you gotta be pretty ballsy to fly a plane that killed 13 (🤯) test pilots.
Or simply give no flying (pun semi-intended) fuck. They order you to fly - you fly. They order you to shoot - you shoot. They order you to go and die - you go and die. The whole Army thing is like a big machine for selecting that kind of dudes and further training them to perfection. Any army, any country, some just figured out to only take in those who obey willingly. Never could settle this in my head. Not the army material, I guess.
MiG-21 killed much more and not only in Russia... My uncle said that from his Dęblin Polish flight school classmates 20% died because of MiG-21 issues with engine nozzle...
On the other hand my father refused to switch to Mig-21 and after first year in Dęblin he got so nasty argument with the head of the school about it that he was sure that they kicked him out and was surprised after he returned from vacation that he was left in service -> as helicopter pilot...
For the past days, I have been very intrigued and interested about your videos, the video production is very well put. It gives us more insights about the USSR's aviation history, and it's overall history in general. From the pacing, to the animations, the information, and even the humor, all of it greatly contributes to our entertainment. Please do continue to make more of these videos, I understand that great efforts are required in order to create these videos, but nevertheless it is very worth it.
It turns out there was actually more damage than you mentioned.
The only damage was his pride. I bet that his buddies all made fun of him for the rest of his life
Love your videos, man
Paper skies trying not to make a awsome documentary challenge (impossible)
Seriously "balls" shade at the end. Loved it! 😎
I always confirm the correctness of my homework with my classmates homework
I love the animation style during the explanation of why the ejection seat went off, thank you for this excellent channel