The new Su-35 is even with the F-15SE. Imagine how badly USAF would get their ass kicked with the Su-T50 PAK FA. + being sold to any nation willing to pay so they would have better fighter jets then USAF!
This is probably the -21SMF that Israel got from a defecting Iraqi pursuit pilot in 1965; the United States used it as the standard bogey in developing the tactics that F-8, F-105 and F-4 crews used against VPAF MiG drivers. I wonder if a single AL-41F-500-powered -21ter would be a cost-effective fighter for air arms unable to afford the -23 and -29? (The Su-27/33/37 uses two AL-41's.)
In this thread, we see what looks to be an American armchair general, who has chanced into being correct about USAF fighter training. Opposite, we have an Egyptian who thinks that any country still flying MiG-21s and F-4s stands a chance in an air war against a squadron of F-22s. Don't get me wrong: Egypt has a pretty good air force by North African standards, and the MiG-21 was a great airplane forty years ago. But I would hardly be surprised if the USAF's budget is more than the GDP of Egypt.
@BlackOpSource MiG21 is still a formidable aircraft with upgraded radar, avionics, and adapted to fire new missiles. I think Czech Republic has around 60 or so MiG21 upgraded with modern upgrades and the plane is in rank with any other modern 4.0 generation craft.
@Ouija121085 That would be truer yet with an RD-33 re-engine; don't know whether OKB Mikoyana-Gurjevna has a double-delta-wing retrofit in the works as well. A double-delta scaled down from the Su-21MP would lose speed more slowly than the original 57-degree delta in high-G turns; such a plane packing a 200-round GSh-23 and two each R-77R and R-73M AAM's would be a cost-effective interceptor even today.
@MrAviator96 where did you get that info??? MIG-23 was the worst plane ever to fly it was the eastern widow maker,it was usless in dogfight even student in F-16 could easly take on MIG-23!!!!There is no pilot who would like it!!!
@MrAviator96 the only succesful aircraft used then by the arabs was the mig23, which at first out performed the f16 due to the fact that the f16 is a below average bvr aircraft, but f15s dominated both types of migs and none were lost to migs
the most important weapon is the pilot not the plane .. when the pilot is well trained and has the courage to die protecting his home land , he becomes unstoppable ...
egyptian pilots with mig 21 were shooting down f4 ( fantom ) easily !!!
the mig 21 only carries 2 rockets , when the pilot is out of ammo he directs his plane twards enemy plane to crush together !!!
@doctor8poet The F-4 Phantom was direct proof that if you provided enough thrust, anything will fly. Shooting one of these bricks down isn't exactly extremely challenging. Try shooting down an F-16, F-15, or when they were still in service an F-14. And anyone who thinks F-22s are shit has no idea what they are talking about...
@th3lunchb0x i agree with you , f22 or f35 is very improved in technological equipments , but what you don't know is the air force in egypt has its own secrets and improvements , you do not know any thing about egyptian f 16 , or M1 abrams tank , we have our own secrets ... and our pilots are brave because they are protecting their own land , not occupying other countries !
@doctor8poet If you don't have AIM-9x sidewinders your F-16s are useless even against USN F/A-18 hornets and our ATFLIR can still find your M1s and put a 1,000lb laser guided bomb through their entrance hatch from 40,000 feet. The US military could eliminate any army and air force in Africa or the Middle East in a month.
PS: it doesn't matter how brave you are, if you go up against a better trained and equipped enemy chances are you're going to die...
yes the courage alone is not enough , but i told you Egypt has its own secrets ..
you can know any thing about any army in Europe or USA army , but you don't know any thing about Egypt , because we don't say in media how strong we are , instead of that we work silently .
by the way i am a medical student , my information about egypt army is not from ordinary websites , i have talked with pilots and military men , they know a lot ..
@doctor8poet good luck learning how to fly them against F-15s and F-22s. The USAF has been training to kill these jets even when flown by very good pilots for a very long time now. I doubt any middle eastern country could hold a candle to the USAF. I'd be willing to say just about any country in the EU could annihilate any air force from that region.
@rhcp014 Who knows? Im starting to think that the perfect record of the F-15 is for propaganda purposes. When that F-15 crashed in Libya they even tried excuses like "mechanical failure" LOL.
@Ienjoyinlife No idiot, SR Yugoslavia was accepted name of the country which lasted until 2002 when the name was changed to Serbia and Montenegro by Serbian parlament. All the worlds instituations recognised SR Yugoslavia as a country ranging from UN to all other institutions. I dont know where you got your information but what you wrote makes you look like an idiot.
@Ouija121085 Can you talk normaly? that country you are talking about is not the same country as the one that lasted from 1945-1991. Yugoslavia died 20y ago in bloody war. The name itself says Land of South Slavs. Not land of Serbia and Mont. All south Slavs.
@Ienjoyinlife Serbia and Montenegro were legitimate successors and the name of SR Yugoslavia lasted until 2002. Until it was decided by Serbian parliment that the name change should occur. SR Yugoslavia was a legitimate sucessor and it was recognised by every single institutions of this world this is a fact. We can talk about break-away republics which were not recognised for some time such as croatia which was recognised in 1993 and Bosnia in 1995.
@Ouija121085 This is a copy from wiki - The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia aspired to be a sole legal successor to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but those claims were opposed by other former republics. The United Nations also denied its request to automatically continue the membership of the former state. Eventually, after the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević from power as president of the federation in 2000, the country rescinded those aspirations and (next)
@Ienjoyinlife I come from that country and Serbia and Monenegro were legitimate sucessors to Yugoslavia and the country was called SR Jugoslavija from 1992-2002 where the name was changed by Serbian parliment as to regain the official names of the two republics. Serbia was the creating factor of Yugoslavia in 1918 after the world war 1 creating the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. After the break up of renegade states in 1991 and end of war in 1992 SFRJ was called SR Jugoslavija.
@Ienjoyinlife From 1992-2002 the valid name was Yugoslavia as i am Serbian nationality i have a passport with the name printed on it. All Serbian/Montenegrin sports teams appeared under the name Yugoslavia from 1992-2002 in all sports competitions. Yugoslavia was the member of United nations and one of the first memebers creators of the UN. I dont see what you are trying to say with this? SFRJ ceased to exist in 1991, but SR Jugoslavija existed until 2002. What is your point?
@Ouija121085 Furthermore Wikipedia is not a relevant source of information as anyone can write anything they want there. I can go there and write that Yugoslaiva was formed on mars and the site would accept and take my bullshit which others would read and think that it is true. As the article states some coutries reffered to Yugoslavia as "Serbia and Montenegro" as SR Yugosalvia was formed of those two states. SR Yugoslavia was always a legitimate state.
@Ouija121085 I am just saying that that country has nothing to do with Yugoslavia (1945-1991) and those facts I gave you can probably be found somewhere else. And SFRJ was not called FRY bcs its not the same.You can call yugo a ferrari but it still stays a yugo.It was not a member of UN until November 2000.World did not recognized it as a successor,now you can say what ever you want but those are facts I just gave you.The country you are talking about is not legal successor by UN.
@Ouija121085 In addition of SR Yugoslavia was not recognised nowhere could their sports teams appear under that name as it would not be recognised by that name. SR Yugoslavia was a member of UN from 1992-2002. Clearly stating Serbia and Montenegre as sucessors of the break up federal state. Serbia being the only state forming country of yugoslavia in 1918.
@Ienjoyinlife Opposition from croatia was a normal occurance as they opposed everything that was Yugosalvia and Serbia to this day they oppose it. As the matter of fact they were the illegitimate and illegal state until 1993 when they were illegal and against UN and 1244 proclaimed recognised by Vatican which long worked on break up of Yugoslavia togehter with Germany. If anything was not legitiamte was the break up for croatia and bosnia from the federal unit.
@Ouija121085 1974 Yugoslav Constitution gave republics rights to exit a federal unit. Thats all they needed. I personally belive that those leaders destroyed SFRY and that no one but Ante Marković and few else people try to save the country. As today, all of those republics sucks :P
@Ienjoyinlife Although this constituion was grave injustice to Serbian peoples, it was a communist mistake which resulted in a war. I think they did this hoping it would cause a war and a breake up since second Yugoslavia was a fake construct. Croatia did not have the right to independence in 1991 without Serbian vote. Serbian people in Croatia were a constitutive peoples and without their vote for Croatia could not exit Yugoslavia. This they did illegaly and started a war.
@Ouija121085 Croatia is 'Croatia' and it's homeland of Croatians and all other who whishes to live in it but its Croatia. Serbia is 'Serbia' and all the same. Yugoslavia was not a Serb made country.Talkingabout rights, what changed when Serbia took Vojvodina and Kosovo votes so it put it's on policy?And that happend in 1989.Rules started to brake much earlier.You dont need to tell me who's gulity. I am from Vukovar, and I know what happend there.But that does not mean I love Tuđman.
@Ienjoyinlife Guess what I am from Vukovar too. Second Croatia was never land of croatians as croatians do not exist they did at one time. Croatia is a artifical construct of vatican and austrohungaraian empire. Serbs always lived Slavaonija, Baranja, and Srem for hundreds of years before croatia ever existed. Serbian king created Yugoslavia in 1918 instead of creating Greater Serbia, a fatal misake. I would suggest you learn your own history.
Go fuck your self you prick. I respect all people but that was NEVER YOUR LAND. AND GUESS WHAT, We fucking kicked your ass. Go fuck your self idiot. Serbian king created it? Ma o cemu ti pricas konju jedan kakve granice. Tek poslije 1svj. rata ste se tamo poceli naseljavat kada vam je kralj dao zemlju konju jedan glupi, necu s tobom komunicarat na ovakav način. Svaki jebeni rat unazad 1000 godina ste izgubili i pod turcima bili 500g i ti si turcin vjerojatno idiote.
Umjetna tvorevina ROFL. Odi pogledaj karte stare više od 1000g i vidi di je tko živio. Mi izmisljena nacija? Pa konju jedan postoje Bijela i Crvena Hrvatska daj nauci povijest. U Ukrajini postoji pokrajina koja se zove Hrvatska jer su tamo Slaveni prolazili. Nemam namjeru vise pricat sa tobom. Di ima vaših grobova vaša je zemlja hah :D. Odi cetnicino i pusti bradu voli kralja lizi mu dupe. Ja sam s tobom zavrsio, vjeruj sto hoces. Rat ste IZGUBILI. BOK!
@Ienjoyinlife Slovenia for example had a much relaxed political ties to Yugosalvia and they could have exited without major problems which on the end they did since no massive populations of other nations were living in Slovenia. So slovenia decision was its own. Croatia and Bosnia could not because all three major peoples shared the populations and only way to break off would be thru massive war with ethnic cleansing to create pure states. Ofcourse west helped them.
@Ouija121085 -- accepted the opinion of Badinter Arbitration Committee about shared succession, and reapplied for and gained UN membership on November 2, 2000.[2] From 1992 to 2000, some countries, including the United States, referred to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as "Serbia and Montenegro". So no, it was not legitimate sucessor. The United Nations denied its request to automatically continue the membership of the former state which means it was not legal successor.
@rhcp014 During the 1991 Gulf War two F-15E Strike Eagles were shot down by ground fire, one on January 18 and the other on January 19 The crew of the first plane were killed, the crew of the second were taken prisoner..:D :D :D :D :D
This was an Iraqi Mig 21 MF that defected to Israel in 1966 it was handed over to USAF and evaluated in Nevada its surreal to see a Russian Mig wth USAF markings
True..the Arabs could not manuvere their soviet planes, tanks and other weapons and so was hit by western forces...it is not that the soviet or chinese weapons are inferior.
I love how people say "this plane sucks, that plane sucks". Real fighter pilots know not to trash talk and honestly evaluate a plane's performance. The MIG-21 wasn't a bad plane but it wasn't perfect either. No plane is. It was pretty much a rocket with a cockpit not a dog fighter. But it's acceleration, rate of climb and top speed are impressive even today. It's closest western equivalent was the F-104 Starfighter, another "manned rocket" with similar characteristics and similar problems.
In Europe, the Lockheed F-104 earned the unflattering nick-name "The Flying Coffin", and in the Netherlands, and possible also in Germany, there is still talk a bout the "Great Lockheed Scandal", regarding the politicians that was bribed into recommending the Starfighter by Lockheed.
While the MIG-21 wasn't a perfect plane by anyone's standards, it was not nearly as dangerous and unreliable as the F-104.
@LarS1963 Fishbed is just as much a deathtrap as F-104, just the kommies hide it. For example, IAF (indian) had about 100 mortal accidents with this plabe 1990 till 2000. Taking in count that MiG-21 was not hteir primary fighter in use, that's quite a lot.
@ORKSIZDABEST Not really, actually liked by N.Vietnam army during Vietnam war and was on par in terms of kills with F-4 Phantom II's and there were alot of Vietnamese aces. During Indo-Pakistani war it kicked so much ass that alot of countries sought aircraft training in India. Its already outdated plane,Russia already retired its fleet of Fishbed's in 1990's, Indian MiG-21's are already rotting and are too old to be functioning properly,so obviously they are crashing...
@ORKSIZDABEST They crash because of fact that their technical base is sub-par in providing adequate maintenance. MiG-21s can take ALOT of abuse but they can't even do the bare minium to keep them in good condition, hence the results. MiG-21s are great planes... just the pilots trained to fly them aren't taught well enough, dont have enough experience/flight time before actual combat.
@ORKSIZDABEST Witch is the best fighter is what being discussed in the forum. and the Mig 21 has come out far ahead of the F 104. That's basically it in a nut shell.
@LarS1963 Very true---the Russians were after a rugged, cost-effective, reasonably simple aircraft, and the -21 (which the Russians call Balalaika after their native lute) was just that. In the 1950's they needed an inexpensive tactical jet that could hold its own against the F-101 and carry destructive enough missiles to splash a B-58 with one hit as well as a 23mm Gardner cannon.
@bcschmerker Russian tech is not "simple" or what your western "analysts" like to say, so that it sounds like its primitive or stupid. Russians are creating more efficient technology because they dont fuckaround with byrocracy when it comes to building military hardware. Thats why SU27 costs 60million and F15 70 million and yet SU27 is vastly superior in every aspect then F15.
@Ouija121085 All supersonic tacjets were simpler when the requirements eventually met by the MiG-21 were drawn up; evolving mission requirements led to more complicated aircraft. Of course, by the mid-1970's the F-15 was available for a standard bogey for both OKBa Mikoyana-Gurjevna and Sukhogo to counter in the MiG-29/35 and Su-27/33/37 families, respectively, just as the MiG-21 was for McDonnellDouglas in developing the F-15 in the 1960's.
@LarS1963 Well I haven't flown one, but I'm from Romania and we had about 200 of these fighters and I had the opportunity to talk to a pilot who piloted one of these and overall he was quite pleased of the aircraft and it's ruggedness except it's turn capability which is poor, it loses a lot of air speed when you want to turn it hard. But if we pay attention to the documentary (it's old) so the guys who made it, they could of compared it to the f-104 who has also a bad turning capability.
I asked an USAF pilot at an air show one time if he flew any other aircraft besides the F-16 that he flew and what was his favorate...He said the Mig-21...You just kick the tires and light the fire in that airplane.
If you really want to learn of the MiG-21's abilities bing/google: unexploited MiG-21's agility: Phantom vs MiG-21.
It doesn't only explain how well MiG-21s fair against Phantoms but also F-15s, F16s, and F-18s! Its 2 pages but if you really are interested to know the limits of the MiG-21 there it is :)
India ran into problems/accidents cause their techs and pilots are not well trained compared to russian/romanian pilots. India and other middle east and african airforces that use MiG-21s need to upgrade their training standards. A few hours in a flight simulator then they get into an MiG-21?! You ARE expecting accidents. So sad, giving this beautiful and durable craft a bad name :(
@DavisCampbell MiG-21 is still widely used, for example Bulgarian Air Force used it as a main interceptor till like 10 years ago, now the MiG-29 is the main one but MiG-21 is still in service! Egypt and Indian Air Force use them too and countries from ex USSR!
@chomper720 well, china makes the chengdu J-7 which is a cheaper version which they also can sell to civilians. probably many US migs are actually chinese knockoffs, but they still have the same capabilities as their Russian counterparts!!! :=D
I don't think comparing Lightning to Mig-21 is very fair, better to compare it to the F-106 considering their roles.
However, the BAC aircraft despite being designed as a 'Bomber Swatter' did have very impressive all round performance, it's real limitations, like many post war British aircraft, was lack of development from confused procurement policies, after the 1957 Defence Review the aircraft was only grudgingly allowed to continue.
Mig-21 did not perform well against IDF/AF Mirage III's.
@SSCFPA Most of the Arab pilots didn´t have the training level the IDF pilots did. They were masters of dogfighting. And off course the Mirage III was no pushover compared to the Mig-21.
@bogoid That actualy puts quite a question: who the hell ever performed well with a mig? Well, arabs may have been undertrained, but the soviets actually didn't make any difference.
@ORKSIZDABEST The vietnamese did, those MIG-21 cause the USAF alot of trouble, often downing the far more advanced F4 phantom. Both sides claim favourable air to air ratios, but considering the MIG-21 was already dated at the time, it's a great acheivement.
@addys The Mig-21 is 3 years older than the phantom 14 February 1955 comparied to 27 May 1958 so it wasn't that dated. It simply ahd a differnt design pholisphy than the F-4 it was built around heat seaking missles. It would be about on par with comparing the Zero to a P-47
The mig-17 though was dated it first flew in 1950 and was basicly a souped up Mig-15. the fact they were not simply missle fotter though was amazing.
@bogoid Well. It wasn´t the machine during 1967 and 1973 (Mirage III/Nesher vs Mig-21 are more or less equally matched). But you can´t say the same about 1983, the F-15A was faaaaar superior to the export version of the Soviet Mig-23 used by the Syrians.
@bfahren Little wonder---OKB Mikoyana-Gurjevna built the E-231 in the 1960's, and later the production MiG-23, to match the F-4 Phantom at a time when the F-15 didn't exist. I'd have considered USMC/Chance Vought F-8 Juliett vs. VVS-FA MiG-23MF a fair fight in the late 1960's.
My Dad used to fly the Mirage III and then converted to F/A-18 before he left the RAAF. As he said, the newer the technology the more maintenance heavy a plane is. Remember though these things were built when there was a very real risk, if not expectation, of a sustained high intensity war. That risk doesn't exist any more. Modern wars with air combat are now over in months if not weeks.
@McLarenMercedes I believe that too. Kind of like with the T-34 vs tigers in ww2. T-34 wasn't the best, but it was easy and simple. And most of all cheap to produce. That has been the Russian strategy since WW2, cheap, reliable and easy to produce. MIG-21 fits that perfectly:)
@evildeathmonkey1 All modern tanks are basically descended from the T34. It was a phenomenal design, only problem was that the production quality was not the best.
In fairness to the English Electric/BAC Lightning, itis airframe design goes back to 1948. It was primarily a home-based defence interceptor which was designed to get off the ground fast, intercept enemy bombers and shoot them down. Although it was plagued by engine fires and a short range, it at least out-performed most other fightrers of the day with an incredible rate of climb, superb maneuverability and improved missiles (Red Top) complimented by two 30mm Aden cannon.
The Soviets built some interesting planes. The MiG 21 was, like other Soviet types, built to fly in all weathers with minimal maintainence, which also made it a popular aircraft with Third World countries. The Mirage family was comparable and were wisely chosen by isreal as a potent opponent to the MiGs flown by Syria and Egypt. However, The F-4 Phantom, although bigger, was a more sophisticated aircraft with the most advanced weapons system and radar unit, plus it had a crew of two.
@bgibb101 I dont get it, you will never praise the ingenuity and design of any aircraft other then those built by the US? I dont know if thats becuase you just dont like to admit the fact that soviets had better planes in the cold war era, or if you dont know that much about the subject. alot of americans will always find ways to try to insult something without doing it directly. give praise where its deserved. we do the same for any otehr Aircraft. american or Russian.
@KitchenSpeclol - First off, I am not an American, I'm from the UK and now live in Canada. While the USSR built and flew some excellent aircraft they were often not as technologically advanced than US and British Aircraft. Otherwise they were tough, durable and built in huge numbers. Note the kill ratio between MiGs and US aircraft during the Vietnam War.
@KitchenSpeclol - First off, I am not an American, I'm from the UK and now live in Canada. While the USSR built and flew some excellent aircraft they were often not as technologically advanced than US and British Aircraft. Otherwise they were tough, durable and built in huge numbers. Note the kill ratio between MiGs and US aircraft during the Vietnam War.
@shvaky you know it is true!!.the Russians kept the best for themselves like the ak-74,Dragunov,portable sam and Sukhois, they designed the cheap and simple for simple socialists friends in jungles&desert warzones which is why you call them 'monkey exports',i am right.
@grvc44 Mig-21 introduced in 1959. Yom Kipur war was 1973. this plane was outdated already. had Israels enemies used the MIG-25 instead, im sure it would have been a different story. (MIG-25 was introduced in 1970 by the way).
@KitchenSpeclol okay my mistake. yes it would be a defferent story! but these crappy mig 25 is probe to useless against the f-15 who went into services in 1976, during the israeli lebanon war these mig 25 fly by syrian pilot's trained by russian instructors 30+ of these were shoot down by israeli airforce. the f-15 with over 100 victories with no losses in dogfights.
@grvc44 now it seems like we are just comparing aircraft to each other. well in that case look at the MIG-29, it went into service in 1977, and was the counterpart of the F-15. but the F-15 wasnt used in the Yom Kipur war was it? and the thing about training pilots to fly is you need certain canidates, and you need sufficent time to train them. which wasnt the case for syrian pilots in YK war. look at korean war, Migs flown by russian pilots where deadly. listen to stories of korean war pilots.
@grvc44 The Federation of American Scientists claims the MiG-29 is equal or better than the F-15C in some areas such as short aerial engagements because of the Helmet Mounted Weapons Sight (HMS) and better maneuverability at slow speeds. This was demonstrated when MiG-29s of the Luftwaffe participated in joint DACT exercises with U.S. fighters. The HMS was a great help, allowing the Germans to achieve a lock on any target the pilot could see within the missile field of view.
@KitchenSpeclol and the mig 29 did not achieve the achievement of the F-15, yeah they are the same or equal but the the f-15 has a lot of combat experience.
@grvc44 combat expirience? this is a plane were talking about not a Boxer or MMA fighter. it's the pilots who count. if the MIG-29 was praised by WESTERN officials as bieng superior to the F-15. i believe them. (becuase usually even if the russian counterpart is better, they wont admit it) when they had simulated dog fights ( mig vs f 15) the mig would win. this isnt me bieng nationalistic, but from reading archives from lockheed martin testers etc.
@KitchenSpeclol you must be under delusion you say earlier that the f-15 and mig 29 are equal or better! but i can say the mig 29 lucky it did not meet the f-15 in the air to unlock who is better.
@grvc44 um actually i read this in avionics archives from testers who bought MIG-29's from east germany after the collapse of the soviet union. they said the MIG-29 was better then the F-15. more manuverability, just better performance overall. the fact that you argue against this shows that you are very nationalistic, which is understandable, but it also proves your ignorant on the subject. its been a real hoot chatting with you, enjoy yourself now.
@KitchenSpeclol if i am nationalistic its because its because in reality the F-15 is battle tested! but the mig 29 can you show me a combat scene? in reality the capability of mig 29 so far is a hearsay means showbiz issue.
@grvc44 During the Soviet occupation of Afganistan, Bosnia (flown by shitty pilots with crappy service records), the Russian counter attack in Georgia in 2008, and many more small skrimishes around the world. and uh, show me your source for the "in reality the capability of mig 29 so far is a hearsay means showbiz issue". statement. becuase once again, i think thats your nationalism and ignorance speaking.
@KitchenSpeclol now i ask you did the mig 29 fought with the f-15 in georgia? huh no right so that is the problem today it is just a display it is like you are another day dreamer bleep..:P
@grvc44 see, now thats weird becuase i think i told you about 4 times now that when the Fed of American Scientists compared both aircraft, (and had them run tests against each other), they said that the MIG-29 was a better plane. this is coming from americans. i dont know if you just skip over this, becuase your in denail or what but really, pull your head out of your ass.
@KitchenSpeclol The MiG-25 couldn't dogfight to save its life. It was strictly a bomber-killer/recon aircraft. Sure it could outrun a Phantom or Mirage III, but it couldn't bring one down.
@KitchenSpeclol I suspect that it might have been more of a walkover for the Heyl ha-Avir than against the MiG-21. Having been engineered as a brute force interceptor for one-shot kills on the Victor and B-70, the -25P is an extremely heavy fighter that can barely turn with an F-105, whereas the -23 can turn with an F-8 with the wing at mid-sweep. The -23 can pack a 23mm Gardner cannon; not so the -25.
Mig 21 is a crap-to average rate aircraft which seems to have been designed primarily for export to 3rd world Soviet client states in Africa,Central/South America and Asia,where air to air combat against better designed and more expensively maintained Western fighters would have been unlikely.It is the poor man's Cold War bomber,it's unlikely the soviets would have used it themselves as a front line aircraft if the cold war had went hot even in the late 50's given the choice of better aircraft..
@drfan2004 In the late 1950s those few Mig-21 F-13s that were just entering service were the best fighters in the VVS/VPO-Strany. The rest of the fighters in the Soviet inventory were subsonic MiG-17s and supersonic but low-tech MiG-19s (both were good "knife fighters" though). The best fighter in the USAF at the time was the F-100, which wasn't the most agile bird in the sky by far.
You hit this with a cannon shell, it just goes, meh. Indestructible, low mantainence killing machine with a GSH-30 rapid fire cannon and 4 K-3 Atoll heatseekers.
Anything in the way of this thing better consider its position.
@Plawranc Not to mention it is tiny! Makes it difficult to spot (as long as it's not belching out a smoke trail!) Wouldn't mind to have one of my own!
Holy crap. This is awesome. Check out the book "Red Eagles: America's Secret Migs" by Osprey Publishing if you want to know more about the evaluation and training program the USAF did. Great find on this video!
this thing SUCKS, during the many wars between Israel and the Arab states the Israeli American made F-4,F-15 and F-16 blew these soviet pieces of shit out of the sky to almost no loss(no loss of F-15 or 16, some F-4 lossed)
@tHeWasTeDYouTh Take for example conflict NATO vs. former Yugoslavia. They got 11 MiG-29, wastly downgraded version withou RWR, some navigation and other part of avionics as they wanted to safe some money. They flyed against hunderst of allied aircrafts under AWACS control of the situation. Do you think that on base on the result, you can compare MiG-29 and F-16?
because in all the wars there were no russian pilots flying the plane.. the Arabs didn t have the experience and the training of the US or the Russian pilots..Even today the Americans and the Europeans think the Russian planes suck but when the su-37 was first shown at the air show .the Russians wanted to proof the superiority of the fighter by asking all the company that were present at the air show for a training dogfight between the Sukhoi and any other jet.. gees what nobody wanted to fight
@tHeWasTeDYouTh It's the pilots & training. In late 1960's era Vietnam War the US losses to experienced northern Mig 21 pilots were too high, & directly led to USN & USAF Top Gun & Red Flag programs. During limited War of Attrition with Isreal, Egyptian pilots contrastingly had poor results in Mig 21's, so they asked for USSR help. Well trained Soviet pilots (&SAMs) downed 21 Isreali aircraft, before ceasefire. Alsot note Soviet arms doctrine was always about economics & large scale production.
the mig-21 was the main fighter in the egyptian compacts with israel
of course ,it was less than the french mirage ,sky hock and f-4 used by israel air forces,but in the same time it was able to achieve thundering victory in MANSORA air battle by ratio 3:1 . it can launch at 2 mack velocity ,and its maneuvering options re crazy but its fire power is limited and its fuel tank small.
so its a defensive plan with limited power to launch attacks.
MiG-21-93 upgrade. MiG-21-93 re-engined with the Klimov RD-33 engine. The Russians have claimed that the evaluation at Ramenskoye Airport had shown that this version has beaten simulated F-16 in a mock dogfight with a score of 4:1.
They were a very good weapon for their day.Britain had the EE Lightning , America was trasitioning from Super Sabre to Phantom.Equal pilots ,hard to call.
MiG-21's were the most popular with 3rd world nations because of its simplicity, reliability, and performance. Even the poorest country could go to the Soviet yard sales and buy them.
One hundred flights with nothing more than an oil filter change, new tires, and an EGT sensor malfunction - that's beyond impressive. Someone should remind our Lightning fanatic that by comparison it needed in excess of 100 maintenance hours for a single flight hour. But that, combined with its almost completely ineffective pair of missiles of course made it the best fighter in the world. The Mig-21 could rightly make that claim, as could the Mirage III.
@WinchesterRanger Do you stand by the Lightning facts you have quoted there whole heartedly? In particular the "Ineffective" Missiles? Think carefully how and before you reply pls...
@Ecthaelyon As I happen to be reading "Lightning From the Cockpit" and "Venom" (Firestreak trials aircraft) at the moment I'm happy to oblige. Firestreak was actually the better of the options (the other being Redtop which was les reliable) and preferred by many pilots, it required 2 minutes to warm up, a slow stern overtake speed, a non or minimal maneuvering target, max angle off of 30 degrees, and a launch range of more than 1000 yards and less than 2000 yards at sea level - more to follow...
@Ecthaelyon ..2000 and 4000 yards at 55000ft. When faced with Iranian MiG21s during a disupute over a small island in the Gulf during the 60s, RN Sea Vixens decided that their only chance of success was to use 2.75"RP !! To be fair, the Frightening was never intended to mix it with fighters, and its missiles were bomber killers. Only the British tend to view it with reverence, it was never on a par with the likes of the Mig 21 or Mirage III, superior to the disastrous F104 yes, but that's all
@Ecthaelyon There's a lot more I could add about rolling restrictions with Red Tops, or the limitation to 3G with one missile fired, or the average 50 minute sortie time on everything except the F2A and F6 (without guns), or how the Lightning with 4 Aden cannon (or even the theoretical maximum of 6) would have made it a better aircraft, but in the end you're always left with the fact that is was fast, and had delightful handling qualities, but not really much else. May Roland Beamont forgive me
This just goes to show that good basic engineering and design will beat technology every time. That's how R.A.F. Lightnings used to win in air combat excercises against the much more modern F-15s.
@PenzancePete You know, the RAF has been peddling that crap for decades, just as they are now trying to say that the Typhoon has beaten the F-22 in simulated combat. In actual combat the entire Lightning force would have been swept from the sky by a single squadron of F-15s - why? Because the damned things were barely armed, unmaintainable gas hogs, with a fire control system that belonged in a museum. It was far from an effective combat aircraft, except to the British of course.
Well if used to it's strengths the MiG 21 was VERY effective; it was small & hard to see and if properly used(IE: the ground control guided hit & run tactic) it could zip in fire it's Atoll missiles & blow past the strike package often before the escort could even see them...but if it mixed it up in a dogfight then there would be problems;
In terms of design, two major problems: a) Poor canopy (cannot check one's 6 o'clock effectively), b) Delta wing (a trade-off: good speed, but at the expense of payload and dogfighting).
An additional problem is the way most MiG's (not just the 21) have been built: They are not built for long life. The Indians found that out with their MiGs. They have ran into problems as they tried to use MiGs like Western air forces: Higher accident rate & inadequate maintenance.
I actually heard that it's very hard to see out of the front of the canopy due to a thick bullet proof pane AND the other stuff up front like the sighting plate & radar;
Personally I preferred the MiG19 because if it's three HUGE 30mm cannon, but I heard that it had reliability & range issues.
@Waterflux yeah, its not a good idea for a third world country to try and build their own aircraft. i believe the russians supplied them with the r-11 turbojet engine and then left them to their own devices.
Laser anti-missile weapons were and still are jokes: short range, very vulnerable (to air defence) platform, big in size, not very reliable, expensive,
Soviet Union tested laser weapons since 1960s, before USA, BTW.
This has been flagged as spam show
Your vid went viral on Ireland
enriqueowens616 1 month ago
Your video is a favorite on Myanmar
eweykidd13d 2 months ago
The new Su-35 is even with the F-15SE. Imagine how badly USAF would get their ass kicked with the Su-T50 PAK FA. + being sold to any nation willing to pay so they would have better fighter jets then USAF!
BusinessKi11ER 2 months ago
This is probably the -21SMF that Israel got from a defecting Iraqi pursuit pilot in 1965; the United States used it as the standard bogey in developing the tactics that F-8, F-105 and F-4 crews used against VPAF MiG drivers. I wonder if a single AL-41F-500-powered -21ter would be a cost-effective fighter for air arms unable to afford the -23 and -29? (The Su-27/33/37 uses two AL-41's.)
bcschmerker 3 months ago
In this thread, we see what looks to be an American armchair general, who has chanced into being correct about USAF fighter training. Opposite, we have an Egyptian who thinks that any country still flying MiG-21s and F-4s stands a chance in an air war against a squadron of F-22s. Don't get me wrong: Egypt has a pretty good air force by North African standards, and the MiG-21 was a great airplane forty years ago. But I would hardly be surprised if the USAF's budget is more than the GDP of Egypt.
BlackOpSource 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@BlackOpSource MiG21 is still a formidable aircraft with upgraded radar, avionics, and adapted to fire new missiles. I think Czech Republic has around 60 or so MiG21 upgraded with modern upgrades and the plane is in rank with any other modern 4.0 generation craft.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085 That would be truer yet with an RD-33 re-engine; don't know whether OKB Mikoyana-Gurjevna has a double-delta-wing retrofit in the works as well. A double-delta scaled down from the Su-21MP would lose speed more slowly than the original 57-degree delta in high-G turns; such a plane packing a 200-round GSh-23 and two each R-77R and R-73M AAM's would be a cost-effective interceptor even today.
bcschmerker 1 month ago
@MrAviator96 where did you get that info??? MIG-23 was the worst plane ever to fly it was the eastern widow maker,it was usless in dogfight even student in F-16 could easly take on MIG-23!!!!There is no pilot who would like it!!!
vipmig69 3 months ago
@MrAviator96 the only succesful aircraft used then by the arabs was the mig23, which at first out performed the f16 due to the fact that the f16 is a below average bvr aircraft, but f15s dominated both types of migs and none were lost to migs
packr72 4 months ago
Did us airforce realy had mig 21?
maxgrbesa 5 months ago
@maxgrbesa ：indeed we have. We purchased a squadron of migs from China and Israel, used these jets in Red Flag combat practice.
orogenus 4 months ago
@MrAviator96 they never shot down a single f15
plainstudman 5 months ago
the most important weapon is the pilot not the plane .. when the pilot is well trained and has the courage to die protecting his home land , he becomes unstoppable ...
egyptian pilots with mig 21 were shooting down f4 ( fantom ) easily !!!
the mig 21 only carries 2 rockets , when the pilot is out of ammo he directs his plane twards enemy plane to crush together !!!
how brave they were !!!
doctor8poet 5 months ago
@doctor8poet The F-4 Phantom was direct proof that if you provided enough thrust, anything will fly. Shooting one of these bricks down isn't exactly extremely challenging. Try shooting down an F-16, F-15, or when they were still in service an F-14. And anyone who thinks F-22s are shit has no idea what they are talking about...
th3lunchb0x 3 months ago
@th3lunchb0x i agree with you , f22 or f35 is very improved in technological equipments , but what you don't know is the air force in egypt has its own secrets and improvements , you do not know any thing about egyptian f 16 , or M1 abrams tank , we have our own secrets ... and our pilots are brave because they are protecting their own land , not occupying other countries !
doctor8poet 3 months ago
@doctor8poet If you don't have AIM-9x sidewinders your F-16s are useless even against USN F/A-18 hornets and our ATFLIR can still find your M1s and put a 1,000lb laser guided bomb through their entrance hatch from 40,000 feet. The US military could eliminate any army and air force in Africa or the Middle East in a month.
PS: it doesn't matter how brave you are, if you go up against a better trained and equipped enemy chances are you're going to die...
th3lunchb0x 3 months ago
@th3lunchb0x
yes the courage alone is not enough , but i told you Egypt has its own secrets ..
you can know any thing about any army in Europe or USA army , but you don't know any thing about Egypt , because we don't say in media how strong we are , instead of that we work silently .
by the way i am a medical student , my information about egypt army is not from ordinary websites , i have talked with pilots and military men , they know a lot ..
doctor8poet 3 months ago
@th3lunchb0x
do have any idea about Russian mig 29 and su 35 which are coming soon to Egypt ? we will know after 10 years at least ..
doctor8poet 3 months ago
@doctor8poet good luck learning how to fly them against F-15s and F-22s. The USAF has been training to kill these jets even when flown by very good pilots for a very long time now. I doubt any middle eastern country could hold a candle to the USAF. I'd be willing to say just about any country in the EU could annihilate any air force from that region.
th3lunchb0x 3 months ago
No F-15 has ever been shot down...
rhcp014 5 months ago 2
@rhcp014 Who knows? Im starting to think that the perfect record of the F-15 is for propaganda purposes. When that F-15 crashed in Libya they even tried excuses like "mechanical failure" LOL.
999cheetos999 5 months ago
@rhcp014 Yeah, I saw on one of the documentaries that an F-15 flown by an American Pilot with all that training has never lost a dogfight.
chilirich 3 months ago
@rhcp014 Wrong, a F-15 was shot down over Yugoslavia in 1999 during the NATO Bombings
AccessDenied55 2 months ago
@AccessDenied55
Yugoslavia died in 1991. That was Serbia and Montenegro.
Neither did UN or anyone in the world accepted that name bcs it country was dead. Finaly that was the reason why they changed it.
Ienjoyinlife 2 months ago
@Ienjoyinlife No idiot, SR Yugoslavia was accepted name of the country which lasted until 2002 when the name was changed to Serbia and Montenegro by Serbian parlament. All the worlds instituations recognised SR Yugoslavia as a country ranging from UN to all other institutions. I dont know where you got your information but what you wrote makes you look like an idiot.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085 Can you talk normaly? that country you are talking about is not the same country as the one that lasted from 1945-1991. Yugoslavia died 20y ago in bloody war. The name itself says Land of South Slavs. Not land of Serbia and Mont. All south Slavs.
Ienjoyinlife 1 month ago
@Ienjoyinlife Serbia and Montenegro were legitimate successors and the name of SR Yugoslavia lasted until 2002. Until it was decided by Serbian parliment that the name change should occur. SR Yugoslavia was a legitimate sucessor and it was recognised by every single institutions of this world this is a fact. We can talk about break-away republics which were not recognised for some time such as croatia which was recognised in 1993 and Bosnia in 1995.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085 This is a copy from wiki - The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia aspired to be a sole legal successor to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but those claims were opposed by other former republics. The United Nations also denied its request to automatically continue the membership of the former state. Eventually, after the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević from power as president of the federation in 2000, the country rescinded those aspirations and (next)
Ienjoyinlife 1 month ago
@Ienjoyinlife I come from that country and Serbia and Monenegro were legitimate sucessors to Yugoslavia and the country was called SR Jugoslavija from 1992-2002 where the name was changed by Serbian parliment as to regain the official names of the two republics. Serbia was the creating factor of Yugoslavia in 1918 after the world war 1 creating the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. After the break up of renegade states in 1991 and end of war in 1992 SFRJ was called SR Jugoslavija.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ienjoyinlife From 1992-2002 the valid name was Yugoslavia as i am Serbian nationality i have a passport with the name printed on it. All Serbian/Montenegrin sports teams appeared under the name Yugoslavia from 1992-2002 in all sports competitions. Yugoslavia was the member of United nations and one of the first memebers creators of the UN. I dont see what you are trying to say with this? SFRJ ceased to exist in 1991, but SR Jugoslavija existed until 2002. What is your point?
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085 Furthermore Wikipedia is not a relevant source of information as anyone can write anything they want there. I can go there and write that Yugoslaiva was formed on mars and the site would accept and take my bullshit which others would read and think that it is true. As the article states some coutries reffered to Yugoslavia as "Serbia and Montenegro" as SR Yugosalvia was formed of those two states. SR Yugoslavia was always a legitimate state.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085 I am just saying that that country has nothing to do with Yugoslavia (1945-1991) and those facts I gave you can probably be found somewhere else. And SFRJ was not called FRY bcs its not the same.You can call yugo a ferrari but it still stays a yugo.It was not a member of UN until November 2000.World did not recognized it as a successor,now you can say what ever you want but those are facts I just gave you.The country you are talking about is not legal successor by UN.
Ienjoyinlife 1 month ago
Comment removed
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085 In addition of SR Yugoslavia was not recognised nowhere could their sports teams appear under that name as it would not be recognised by that name. SR Yugoslavia was a member of UN from 1992-2002. Clearly stating Serbia and Montenegre as sucessors of the break up federal state. Serbia being the only state forming country of yugoslavia in 1918.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ienjoyinlife Opposition from croatia was a normal occurance as they opposed everything that was Yugosalvia and Serbia to this day they oppose it. As the matter of fact they were the illegitimate and illegal state until 1993 when they were illegal and against UN and 1244 proclaimed recognised by Vatican which long worked on break up of Yugoslavia togehter with Germany. If anything was not legitiamte was the break up for croatia and bosnia from the federal unit.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085 1974 Yugoslav Constitution gave republics rights to exit a federal unit. Thats all they needed. I personally belive that those leaders destroyed SFRY and that no one but Ante Marković and few else people try to save the country. As today, all of those republics sucks :P
Ienjoyinlife 1 month ago
@Ienjoyinlife Although this constituion was grave injustice to Serbian peoples, it was a communist mistake which resulted in a war. I think they did this hoping it would cause a war and a breake up since second Yugoslavia was a fake construct. Croatia did not have the right to independence in 1991 without Serbian vote. Serbian people in Croatia were a constitutive peoples and without their vote for Croatia could not exit Yugoslavia. This they did illegaly and started a war.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085 Croatia is 'Croatia' and it's homeland of Croatians and all other who whishes to live in it but its Croatia. Serbia is 'Serbia' and all the same. Yugoslavia was not a Serb made country.Talkingabout rights, what changed when Serbia took Vojvodina and Kosovo votes so it put it's on policy?And that happend in 1989.Rules started to brake much earlier.You dont need to tell me who's gulity. I am from Vukovar, and I know what happend there.But that does not mean I love Tuđman.
Ienjoyinlife 1 month ago
@Ienjoyinlife Guess what I am from Vukovar too. Second Croatia was never land of croatians as croatians do not exist they did at one time. Croatia is a artifical construct of vatican and austrohungaraian empire. Serbs always lived Slavaonija, Baranja, and Srem for hundreds of years before croatia ever existed. Serbian king created Yugoslavia in 1918 instead of creating Greater Serbia, a fatal misake. I would suggest you learn your own history.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085
Go fuck your self you prick. I respect all people but that was NEVER YOUR LAND. AND GUESS WHAT, We fucking kicked your ass. Go fuck your self idiot. Serbian king created it? Ma o cemu ti pricas konju jedan kakve granice. Tek poslije 1svj. rata ste se tamo poceli naseljavat kada vam je kralj dao zemlju konju jedan glupi, necu s tobom komunicarat na ovakav način. Svaki jebeni rat unazad 1000 godina ste izgubili i pod turcima bili 500g i ti si turcin vjerojatno idiote.
Ienjoyinlife 1 month ago
@Ienjoyinlife lol konacno si se otkrio ko si.... lol
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085
Umjetna tvorevina ROFL. Odi pogledaj karte stare više od 1000g i vidi di je tko živio. Mi izmisljena nacija? Pa konju jedan postoje Bijela i Crvena Hrvatska daj nauci povijest. U Ukrajini postoji pokrajina koja se zove Hrvatska jer su tamo Slaveni prolazili. Nemam namjeru vise pricat sa tobom. Di ima vaših grobova vaša je zemlja hah :D. Odi cetnicino i pusti bradu voli kralja lizi mu dupe. Ja sam s tobom zavrsio, vjeruj sto hoces. Rat ste IZGUBILI. BOK!
Ienjoyinlife 1 month ago
@Ouija121085
Piši što hoces. Ne zanima me, ja ovdje više ne dolazim slušat idiotarije i citat tvoje komentare.
Drug Tito je bio zakon :)
Ienjoyinlife 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ouija121085
Piši što hoces. Ne zanima me, ja ovdje više ne dolazim slušat idiotarije i citat tvoje komentare.
Drug Tito je bio zakon :)
Ienjoyinlife 1 month ago
@Ienjoyinlife Slovenia for example had a much relaxed political ties to Yugosalvia and they could have exited without major problems which on the end they did since no massive populations of other nations were living in Slovenia. So slovenia decision was its own. Croatia and Bosnia could not because all three major peoples shared the populations and only way to break off would be thru massive war with ethnic cleansing to create pure states. Ofcourse west helped them.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085 -- accepted the opinion of Badinter Arbitration Committee about shared succession, and reapplied for and gained UN membership on November 2, 2000.[2] From 1992 to 2000, some countries, including the United States, referred to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as "Serbia and Montenegro". So no, it was not legitimate sucessor. The United Nations denied its request to automatically continue the membership of the former state which means it was not legal successor.
Ienjoyinlife 1 month ago
@rhcp014 During the 1991 Gulf War two F-15E Strike Eagles were shot down by ground fire, one on January 18 and the other on January 19 The crew of the first plane were killed, the crew of the second were taken prisoner..:D :D :D :D :D
MrKasperabhay 1 month ago
@MrAviator96 Really where? Am NOT saying your wrong, just wanna know where and when
sammni 5 months ago
@MrAviator96
I know, I was just talking about the overall war(s)
bogoid 6 months ago
This was an Iraqi Mig 21 MF that defected to Israel in 1966 it was handed over to USAF and evaluated in Nevada its surreal to see a Russian Mig wth USAF markings
thorn1174us 6 months ago
model MiG 21-F13 old version
pasakari 6 months ago
@TNQTV thats just about the dumbs thing iv ever heard a human say.
fordfan25 7 months ago
True..the Arabs could not manuvere their soviet planes, tanks and other weapons and so was hit by western forces...it is not that the soviet or chinese weapons are inferior.
nusld 7 months ago
I love how people say "this plane sucks, that plane sucks". Real fighter pilots know not to trash talk and honestly evaluate a plane's performance. The MIG-21 wasn't a bad plane but it wasn't perfect either. No plane is. It was pretty much a rocket with a cockpit not a dog fighter. But it's acceleration, rate of climb and top speed are impressive even today. It's closest western equivalent was the F-104 Starfighter, another "manned rocket" with similar characteristics and similar problems.
Atomicskull 7 months ago
@Atomicskull Very true!
In Europe, the Lockheed F-104 earned the unflattering nick-name "The Flying Coffin", and in the Netherlands, and possible also in Germany, there is still talk a bout the "Great Lockheed Scandal", regarding the politicians that was bribed into recommending the Starfighter by Lockheed.
While the MIG-21 wasn't a perfect plane by anyone's standards, it was not nearly as dangerous and unreliable as the F-104.
LarS1963 7 months ago
@LarS1963 It's not that it was unreliable it's that it was a very unforgiving plane to fly.
Atomicskull 7 months ago
@LarS1963 Fishbed is just as much a deathtrap as F-104, just the kommies hide it. For example, IAF (indian) had about 100 mortal accidents with this plabe 1990 till 2000. Taking in count that MiG-21 was not hteir primary fighter in use, that's quite a lot.
ORKSIZDABEST 7 months ago
@ORKSIZDABEST Not really, actually liked by N.Vietnam army during Vietnam war and was on par in terms of kills with F-4 Phantom II's and there were alot of Vietnamese aces. During Indo-Pakistani war it kicked so much ass that alot of countries sought aircraft training in India. Its already outdated plane,Russia already retired its fleet of Fishbed's in 1990's, Indian MiG-21's are already rotting and are too old to be functioning properly,so obviously they are crashing...
999cheetos999 6 months ago
@ORKSIZDABEST They crash because of fact that their technical base is sub-par in providing adequate maintenance. MiG-21s can take ALOT of abuse but they can't even do the bare minium to keep them in good condition, hence the results. MiG-21s are great planes... just the pilots trained to fly them aren't taught well enough, dont have enough experience/flight time before actual combat.
VegaSec 6 months ago
@ORKSIZDABEST
In the "aviation forum" the "Mig 21 VS F 104" is coming out with about a 50% higher score than the 104.
IIJG27Rich 2 months ago
@IIJG27Rich Crashes or kills?
ORKSIZDABEST 2 months ago
@ORKSIZDABEST Witch is the best fighter is what being discussed in the forum. and the Mig 21 has come out far ahead of the F 104. That's basically it in a nut shell.
IIJG27Rich 2 months ago
@LarS1963 Very true---the Russians were after a rugged, cost-effective, reasonably simple aircraft, and the -21 (which the Russians call Balalaika after their native lute) was just that. In the 1950's they needed an inexpensive tactical jet that could hold its own against the F-101 and carry destructive enough missiles to splash a B-58 with one hit as well as a 23mm Gardner cannon.
bcschmerker 2 months ago
@bcschmerker Russian tech is not "simple" or what your western "analysts" like to say, so that it sounds like its primitive or stupid. Russians are creating more efficient technology because they dont fuckaround with byrocracy when it comes to building military hardware. Thats why SU27 costs 60million and F15 70 million and yet SU27 is vastly superior in every aspect then F15.
Ouija121085 1 month ago
@Ouija121085 All supersonic tacjets were simpler when the requirements eventually met by the MiG-21 were drawn up; evolving mission requirements led to more complicated aircraft. Of course, by the mid-1970's the F-15 was available for a standard bogey for both OKBa Mikoyana-Gurjevna and Sukhogo to counter in the MiG-29/35 and Su-27/33/37 families, respectively, just as the MiG-21 was for McDonnellDouglas in developing the F-15 in the 1960's.
bcschmerker 1 month ago
"Turn capability of the airplane is excellent"??? yeah...if you say so!!
ionuttamasan 7 months ago
@ionuttamasan Yeah, quite likely the guy has flown one, which I doubt that you have!
LarS1963 7 months ago
@LarS1963 Well I haven't flown one, but I'm from Romania and we had about 200 of these fighters and I had the opportunity to talk to a pilot who piloted one of these and overall he was quite pleased of the aircraft and it's ruggedness except it's turn capability which is poor, it loses a lot of air speed when you want to turn it hard. But if we pay attention to the documentary (it's old) so the guys who made it, they could of compared it to the f-104 who has also a bad turning capability.
ionuttamasan 7 months ago
that mataince statistic is incredible
addys 8 months ago
I asked an USAF pilot at an air show one time if he flew any other aircraft besides the F-16 that he flew and what was his favorate...He said the Mig-21...You just kick the tires and light the fire in that airplane.
megashegem 8 months ago
those old MiG-21 F13
pasakari 9 months ago
If you really want to learn of the MiG-21's abilities bing/google: unexploited MiG-21's agility: Phantom vs MiG-21.
It doesn't only explain how well MiG-21s fair against Phantoms but also F-15s, F16s, and F-18s! Its 2 pages but if you really are interested to know the limits of the MiG-21 there it is :)
VegaSec 9 months ago
India ran into problems/accidents cause their techs and pilots are not well trained compared to russian/romanian pilots. India and other middle east and african airforces that use MiG-21s need to upgrade their training standards. A few hours in a flight simulator then they get into an MiG-21?! You ARE expecting accidents. So sad, giving this beautiful and durable craft a bad name :(
VegaSec 9 months ago
@DavisCampbell MiG-21 is still widely used, for example Bulgarian Air Force used it as a main interceptor till like 10 years ago, now the MiG-29 is the main one but MiG-21 is still in service! Egypt and Indian Air Force use them too and countries from ex USSR!
aurora7641 9 months ago
I was flying a flightsim model of this in X-Plane, spot on characteristics, exactly like the guy says.
SingularlyDatarific 10 months ago
the mig 21 was the phantom killer in vietnam. thi was a good adversary to any of our vietnam war planes.
nrmejia 1 year ago
I wish i had a Mig-21 =D
chomper720 1 year ago
@chomper720 well, china makes the chengdu J-7 which is a cheaper version which they also can sell to civilians. probably many US migs are actually chinese knockoffs, but they still have the same capabilities as their Russian counterparts!!! :=D
harris3693 8 months ago
I don't think comparing Lightning to Mig-21 is very fair, better to compare it to the F-106 considering their roles.
However, the BAC aircraft despite being designed as a 'Bomber Swatter' did have very impressive all round performance, it's real limitations, like many post war British aircraft, was lack of development from confused procurement policies, after the 1957 Defence Review the aircraft was only grudgingly allowed to continue.
Mig-21 did not perform well against IDF/AF Mirage III's.
SSCFPA 1 year ago
@SSCFPA Most of the Arab pilots didn´t have the training level the IDF pilots did. They were masters of dogfighting. And off course the Mirage III was no pushover compared to the Mig-21.
bfahren 11 months ago
@SSCFPA
Is not the machines... Arabs never performed well, no matter how good are their weapons.
bogoid 10 months ago 14
@bogoid And the IAF shot down 4 russian pilots in one combat with zero loses.
ORKSIZDABEST 8 months ago
@ORKSIZDABEST
when and where?
bogoid 8 months ago
@bogoid July 30, 1970, just google Operation Rimon 20.
ORKSIZDABEST 8 months ago
@ORKSIZDABEST
ok i checked
but that doesn't change the fact that Arabs performed bad.
bogoid 8 months ago
@bogoid That actualy puts quite a question: who the hell ever performed well with a mig? Well, arabs may have been undertrained, but the soviets actually didn't make any difference.
ORKSIZDABEST 8 months ago
@ORKSIZDABEST The vietnamese did, those MIG-21 cause the USAF alot of trouble, often downing the far more advanced F4 phantom. Both sides claim favourable air to air ratios, but considering the MIG-21 was already dated at the time, it's a great acheivement.
addys 8 months ago
@addys The Mig-21 is 3 years older than the phantom 14 February 1955 comparied to 27 May 1958 so it wasn't that dated. It simply ahd a differnt design pholisphy than the F-4 it was built around heat seaking missles. It would be about on par with comparing the Zero to a P-47
The mig-17 though was dated it first flew in 1950 and was basicly a souped up Mig-15. the fact they were not simply missle fotter though was amazing.
upyr1 7 months ago
@bogoid Well. It wasn´t the machine during 1967 and 1973 (Mirage III/Nesher vs Mig-21 are more or less equally matched). But you can´t say the same about 1983, the F-15A was faaaaar superior to the export version of the Soviet Mig-23 used by the Syrians.
bfahren 4 months ago
@bfahren Little wonder---OKB Mikoyana-Gurjevna built the E-231 in the 1960's, and later the production MiG-23, to match the F-4 Phantom at a time when the F-15 didn't exist. I'd have considered USMC/Chance Vought F-8 Juliett vs. VVS-FA MiG-23MF a fair fight in the late 1960's.
bcschmerker 1 month ago
even the IAF would agree with them
langkaers09 1 year ago
My Dad used to fly the Mirage III and then converted to F/A-18 before he left the RAAF. As he said, the newer the technology the more maintenance heavy a plane is. Remember though these things were built when there was a very real risk, if not expectation, of a sustained high intensity war. That risk doesn't exist any more. Modern wars with air combat are now over in months if not weeks.
gnarkillkicksass 1 year ago
50 years on this is still an impressive aircraft. Pretty much an AK47 of the skies.
Like it or not, but I believe in the long run these simple MiG21's would come out victorious.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
@McLarenMercedes I believe that too. Kind of like with the T-34 vs tigers in ww2. T-34 wasn't the best, but it was easy and simple. And most of all cheap to produce. That has been the Russian strategy since WW2, cheap, reliable and easy to produce. MIG-21 fits that perfectly:)
evildeathmonkey1 1 year ago
@evildeathmonkey1 All modern tanks are basically descended from the T34. It was a phenomenal design, only problem was that the production quality was not the best.
kop4321 1 year ago
@kop4321 Quality, they say T34 at times would not even fire at Tigers and drive straight into them to stop it right there.
jasjotsingh44 1 year ago
In fairness to the English Electric/BAC Lightning, itis airframe design goes back to 1948. It was primarily a home-based defence interceptor which was designed to get off the ground fast, intercept enemy bombers and shoot them down. Although it was plagued by engine fires and a short range, it at least out-performed most other fightrers of the day with an incredible rate of climb, superb maneuverability and improved missiles (Red Top) complimented by two 30mm Aden cannon.
bgibb101 1 year ago
The Soviets built some interesting planes. The MiG 21 was, like other Soviet types, built to fly in all weathers with minimal maintainence, which also made it a popular aircraft with Third World countries. The Mirage family was comparable and were wisely chosen by isreal as a potent opponent to the MiGs flown by Syria and Egypt. However, The F-4 Phantom, although bigger, was a more sophisticated aircraft with the most advanced weapons system and radar unit, plus it had a crew of two.
bgibb101 1 year ago
@bgibb101 I dont get it, you will never praise the ingenuity and design of any aircraft other then those built by the US? I dont know if thats becuase you just dont like to admit the fact that soviets had better planes in the cold war era, or if you dont know that much about the subject. alot of americans will always find ways to try to insult something without doing it directly. give praise where its deserved. we do the same for any otehr Aircraft. american or Russian.
KitchenSpeclol 1 year ago
@KitchenSpeclol - First off, I am not an American, I'm from the UK and now live in Canada. While the USSR built and flew some excellent aircraft they were often not as technologically advanced than US and British Aircraft. Otherwise they were tough, durable and built in huge numbers. Note the kill ratio between MiGs and US aircraft during the Vietnam War.
bgibb101 1 year ago
@KitchenSpeclol - First off, I am not an American, I'm from the UK and now live in Canada. While the USSR built and flew some excellent aircraft they were often not as technologically advanced than US and British Aircraft. Otherwise they were tough, durable and built in huge numbers. Note the kill ratio between MiGs and US aircraft during the Vietnam War.
bgibb101 1 year ago
@shvaky you know it is true!!.the Russians kept the best for themselves like the ak-74,Dragunov,portable sam and Sukhois, they designed the cheap and simple for simple socialists friends in jungles&desert warzones which is why you call them 'monkey exports',i am right.
drfan2004 1 year ago
mig 21 is great but this fighter plane has been crushed by israeli airforce in yum kippur war.
grvc44 1 year ago
@grvc44 Mig-21 introduced in 1959. Yom Kipur war was 1973. this plane was outdated already. had Israels enemies used the MIG-25 instead, im sure it would have been a different story. (MIG-25 was introduced in 1970 by the way).
KitchenSpeclol 1 year ago
@KitchenSpeclol well its a hearsay mig 25 has no defference from mig 21 in terms of design, only in the avionics has a little change.
grvc44 1 year ago
@grvc44 um what? have you seen pictures of the mig 25? its a completely different aircraft lol. wow you really are ignorant on this subject.
KitchenSpeclol 1 year ago
Comment removed
grvc44 1 year ago
@KitchenSpeclol okay my mistake. yes it would be a defferent story! but these crappy mig 25 is probe to useless against the f-15 who went into services in 1976, during the israeli lebanon war these mig 25 fly by syrian pilot's trained by russian instructors 30+ of these were shoot down by israeli airforce. the f-15 with over 100 victories with no losses in dogfights.
grvc44 1 year ago
@grvc44 now it seems like we are just comparing aircraft to each other. well in that case look at the MIG-29, it went into service in 1977, and was the counterpart of the F-15. but the F-15 wasnt used in the Yom Kipur war was it? and the thing about training pilots to fly is you need certain canidates, and you need sufficent time to train them. which wasnt the case for syrian pilots in YK war. look at korean war, Migs flown by russian pilots where deadly. listen to stories of korean war pilots.
KitchenSpeclol 1 year ago
@grvc44 The Federation of American Scientists claims the MiG-29 is equal or better than the F-15C in some areas such as short aerial engagements because of the Helmet Mounted Weapons Sight (HMS) and better maneuverability at slow speeds. This was demonstrated when MiG-29s of the Luftwaffe participated in joint DACT exercises with U.S. fighters. The HMS was a great help, allowing the Germans to achieve a lock on any target the pilot could see within the missile field of view.
KitchenSpeclol 1 year ago
@KitchenSpeclol and the mig 29 did not achieve the achievement of the F-15, yeah they are the same or equal but the the f-15 has a lot of combat experience.
grvc44 1 year ago
@grvc44 combat expirience? this is a plane were talking about not a Boxer or MMA fighter. it's the pilots who count. if the MIG-29 was praised by WESTERN officials as bieng superior to the F-15. i believe them. (becuase usually even if the russian counterpart is better, they wont admit it) when they had simulated dog fights ( mig vs f 15) the mig would win. this isnt me bieng nationalistic, but from reading archives from lockheed martin testers etc.
KitchenSpeclol 1 year ago
@KitchenSpeclol you must be under delusion you say earlier that the f-15 and mig 29 are equal or better! but i can say the mig 29 lucky it did not meet the f-15 in the air to unlock who is better.
grvc44 1 year ago
@grvc44 um actually i read this in avionics archives from testers who bought MIG-29's from east germany after the collapse of the soviet union. they said the MIG-29 was better then the F-15. more manuverability, just better performance overall. the fact that you argue against this shows that you are very nationalistic, which is understandable, but it also proves your ignorant on the subject. its been a real hoot chatting with you, enjoy yourself now.
KitchenSpeclol 1 year ago
@KitchenSpeclol if i am nationalistic its because its because in reality the F-15 is battle tested! but the mig 29 can you show me a combat scene? in reality the capability of mig 29 so far is a hearsay means showbiz issue.
grvc44 1 year ago
@grvc44 During the Soviet occupation of Afganistan, Bosnia (flown by shitty pilots with crappy service records), the Russian counter attack in Georgia in 2008, and many more small skrimishes around the world. and uh, show me your source for the "in reality the capability of mig 29 so far is a hearsay means showbiz issue". statement. becuase once again, i think thats your nationalism and ignorance speaking.
KitchenSpeclol 1 year ago
@KitchenSpeclol now i ask you did the mig 29 fought with the f-15 in georgia? huh no right so that is the problem today it is just a display it is like you are another day dreamer bleep..:P
grvc44 1 year ago
@grvc44 see, now thats weird becuase i think i told you about 4 times now that when the Fed of American Scientists compared both aircraft, (and had them run tests against each other), they said that the MIG-29 was a better plane. this is coming from americans. i dont know if you just skip over this, becuase your in denail or what but really, pull your head out of your ass.
KitchenSpeclol 1 year ago
@KitchenSpeclol an ignorant person believes is so much saying.!!
grvc44 1 year ago
@KitchenSpeclol The MiG-25 couldn't dogfight to save its life. It was strictly a bomber-killer/recon aircraft. Sure it could outrun a Phantom or Mirage III, but it couldn't bring one down.
fantom58 10 months ago
@KitchenSpeclol I suspect that it might have been more of a walkover for the Heyl ha-Avir than against the MiG-21. Having been engineered as a brute force interceptor for one-shot kills on the Victor and B-70, the -25P is an extremely heavy fighter that can barely turn with an F-105, whereas the -23 can turn with an F-8 with the wing at mid-sweep. The -23 can pack a 23mm Gardner cannon; not so the -25.
bcschmerker 2 months ago
Mig 21 is a crap-to average rate aircraft which seems to have been designed primarily for export to 3rd world Soviet client states in Africa,Central/South America and Asia,where air to air combat against better designed and more expensively maintained Western fighters would have been unlikely.It is the poor man's Cold War bomber,it's unlikely the soviets would have used it themselves as a front line aircraft if the cold war had went hot even in the late 50's given the choice of better aircraft..
drfan2004 1 year ago
@drfan2004 In the late 1950s those few Mig-21 F-13s that were just entering service were the best fighters in the VVS/VPO-Strany. The rest of the fighters in the Soviet inventory were subsonic MiG-17s and supersonic but low-tech MiG-19s (both were good "knife fighters" though). The best fighter in the USAF at the time was the F-100, which wasn't the most agile bird in the sky by far.
fantom58 10 months ago
this is footage from Area-51
cptVLK 1 year ago
You hit this with a cannon shell, it just goes, meh. Indestructible, low mantainence killing machine with a GSH-30 rapid fire cannon and 4 K-3 Atoll heatseekers.
Anything in the way of this thing better consider its position.
Plawranc 1 year ago
@Plawranc Not to mention it is tiny! Makes it difficult to spot (as long as it's not belching out a smoke trail!) Wouldn't mind to have one of my own!
jpatt1000 1 year ago
Holy crap. This is awesome. Check out the book "Red Eagles: America's Secret Migs" by Osprey Publishing if you want to know more about the evaluation and training program the USAF did. Great find on this video!
Eihort 1 year ago
this thing SUCKS, during the many wars between Israel and the Arab states the Israeli American made F-4,F-15 and F-16 blew these soviet pieces of shit out of the sky to almost no loss(no loss of F-15 or 16, some F-4 lossed)
tHeWasTeDYouTh 1 year ago
@tHeWasTeDYouTh As you agree, this result isn't result of an airplane but a pilot in it ;)
teknobug 1 year ago
@teknobug I guess the USSR sold planes to countries that had the most retarded pilots ever, guess that is everyone in the comecon countries
tHeWasTeDYouTh 1 year ago
@tHeWasTeDYouTh Take for example conflict NATO vs. former Yugoslavia. They got 11 MiG-29, wastly downgraded version withou RWR, some navigation and other part of avionics as they wanted to safe some money. They flyed against hunderst of allied aircrafts under AWACS control of the situation. Do you think that on base on the result, you can compare MiG-29 and F-16?
teknobug 1 year ago
because in all the wars there were no russian pilots flying the plane.. the Arabs didn t have the experience and the training of the US or the Russian pilots..Even today the Americans and the Europeans think the Russian planes suck but when the su-37 was first shown at the air show .the Russians wanted to proof the superiority of the fighter by asking all the company that were present at the air show for a training dogfight between the Sukhoi and any other jet.. gees what nobody wanted to fight
podgurski1989 1 year ago
@tHeWasTeDYouTh It's the pilots & training. In late 1960's era Vietnam War the US losses to experienced northern Mig 21 pilots were too high, & directly led to USN & USAF Top Gun & Red Flag programs. During limited War of Attrition with Isreal, Egyptian pilots contrastingly had poor results in Mig 21's, so they asked for USSR help. Well trained Soviet pilots (&SAMs) downed 21 Isreali aircraft, before ceasefire. Alsot note Soviet arms doctrine was always about economics & large scale production.
100milnic 1 year ago
the mig-21 was the main fighter in the egyptian compacts with israel
of course ,it was less than the french mirage ,sky hock and f-4 used by israel air forces,but in the same time it was able to achieve thundering victory in MANSORA air battle by ratio 3:1 . it can launch at 2 mack velocity ,and its maneuvering options re crazy but its fire power is limited and its fuel tank small.
so its a defensive plan with limited power to launch attacks.
alwadmazica 1 year ago
the BOSS
xraidedlok 1 year ago
mirage lll was so much better. Just ask Israel
pakruy 1 year ago
Kalashnikov of the sky!
mbura1991 1 year ago
MiG-21-93 upgrade. MiG-21-93 re-engined with the Klimov RD-33 engine. The Russians have claimed that the evaluation at Ramenskoye Airport had shown that this version has beaten simulated F-16 in a mock dogfight with a score of 4:1.
Zbyszkoz 1 year ago
Sounds like the Honda Civic of fighter aircraft! Cheap, reliable and agile.
AccordGTR 1 year ago
@AccordGTR :D That is the best description I ever read in my life! Two thumbs up bro for this comment! _O_ :D
Respect!
masternippleblaster 1 year ago
They were a very good weapon for their day.Britain had the EE Lightning , America was trasitioning from Super Sabre to Phantom.Equal pilots ,hard to call.
xfire7 1 year ago
wat interseting abt mig 15 n mig 21 is that they have high turn rate at low level flights .this make them a letthal weapon against thier adversaries
fareed801 1 year ago
A mig-21 with USAF markings???? and in the other vid there is an F-5 with Russian markings??? WOW!!
markvinas31 2 years ago
@markvinas31
Tonapah Test Range USAF evaluation squadron ------ F-5/T-38 Aggressor squadron.
They've flown everything from Hind gunships to MiG-29's.
rampking1 2 years ago
MiG-21's were the most popular with 3rd world nations because of its simplicity, reliability, and performance. Even the poorest country could go to the Soviet yard sales and buy them.
InfiniteMushroom 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One hundred flights with nothing more than an oil filter change, new tires, and an EGT sensor malfunction - that's beyond impressive. Someone should remind our Lightning fanatic that by comparison it needed in excess of 100 maintenance hours for a single flight hour. But that, combined with its almost completely ineffective pair of missiles of course made it the best fighter in the world. The Mig-21 could rightly make that claim, as could the Mirage III.
WinchesterRanger 2 years ago 37
@WinchesterRanger Do you stand by the Lightning facts you have quoted there whole heartedly? In particular the "Ineffective" Missiles? Think carefully how and before you reply pls...
Ecthaelyon 1 year ago
@Ecthaelyon As I happen to be reading "Lightning From the Cockpit" and "Venom" (Firestreak trials aircraft) at the moment I'm happy to oblige. Firestreak was actually the better of the options (the other being Redtop which was les reliable) and preferred by many pilots, it required 2 minutes to warm up, a slow stern overtake speed, a non or minimal maneuvering target, max angle off of 30 degrees, and a launch range of more than 1000 yards and less than 2000 yards at sea level - more to follow...
WinchesterRanger 1 year ago
@Ecthaelyon ..2000 and 4000 yards at 55000ft. When faced with Iranian MiG21s during a disupute over a small island in the Gulf during the 60s, RN Sea Vixens decided that their only chance of success was to use 2.75"RP !! To be fair, the Frightening was never intended to mix it with fighters, and its missiles were bomber killers. Only the British tend to view it with reverence, it was never on a par with the likes of the Mig 21 or Mirage III, superior to the disastrous F104 yes, but that's all
WinchesterRanger 1 year ago
@Ecthaelyon There's a lot more I could add about rolling restrictions with Red Tops, or the limitation to 3G with one missile fired, or the average 50 minute sortie time on everything except the F2A and F6 (without guns), or how the Lightning with 4 Aden cannon (or even the theoretical maximum of 6) would have made it a better aircraft, but in the end you're always left with the fact that is was fast, and had delightful handling qualities, but not really much else. May Roland Beamont forgive me
WinchesterRanger 1 year ago
A good airplane is not only his flight characteristics!
What should be the fighter plane?
1. Powerful, fast, more fire power.
2. Reliable.
3. Cheap to repair and maintenance.
4. Easy to manage. What would have been able to fly any novice pilot.
5. Inexpensive to manufacture.
6. Interchangeable, universal basic units of construction.
7. Safe.
Mig 21 meets all the requirements (7) points.
Djafar00 2 years ago 16
@Djafar00
You forgot no range/ excessive take-off run / huge energy losses on turns and weak offensive load.
Though a very good "point interceptor" ...even in
typical Soviet export form.
It's successor, the MiG-23 only qualified for #1 on your list, #2 thru #7.... it flunks.
rampking1 2 years ago
This just goes to show that good basic engineering and design will beat technology every time. That's how R.A.F. Lightnings used to win in air combat excercises against the much more modern F-15s.
PenzancePete 2 years ago
@PenzancePete You know, the RAF has been peddling that crap for decades, just as they are now trying to say that the Typhoon has beaten the F-22 in simulated combat. In actual combat the entire Lightning force would have been swept from the sky by a single squadron of F-15s - why? Because the damned things were barely armed, unmaintainable gas hogs, with a fire control system that belonged in a museum. It was far from an effective combat aircraft, except to the British of course.
WinchesterRanger 2 years ago
Well if used to it's strengths the MiG 21 was VERY effective; it was small & hard to see and if properly used(IE: the ground control guided hit & run tactic) it could zip in fire it's Atoll missiles & blow past the strike package often before the escort could even see them...but if it mixed it up in a dogfight then there would be problems;
nickmitsialis 2 years ago
@nickmitsialis
In terms of design, two major problems: a) Poor canopy (cannot check one's 6 o'clock effectively), b) Delta wing (a trade-off: good speed, but at the expense of payload and dogfighting).
An additional problem is the way most MiG's (not just the 21) have been built: They are not built for long life. The Indians found that out with their MiGs. They have ran into problems as they tried to use MiGs like Western air forces: Higher accident rate & inadequate maintenance.
Waterflux 2 years ago 2
I actually heard that it's very hard to see out of the front of the canopy due to a thick bullet proof pane AND the other stuff up front like the sighting plate & radar;
Personally I preferred the MiG19 because if it's three HUGE 30mm cannon, but I heard that it had reliability & range issues.
nickmitsialis 1 year ago
LOL. Indian Fishbeds are 40 years old. They sure have to have high accident rate.
zipacna1980 1 year ago
@Waterflux yeah, its not a good idea for a third world country to try and build their own aircraft. i believe the russians supplied them with the r-11 turbojet engine and then left them to their own devices.
neilandrewporter 1 year ago
Laser anti-missile weapons were and still are jokes: short range, very vulnerable (to air defence) platform, big in size, not very reliable, expensive,
Soviet Union tested laser weapons since 1960s, before USA, BTW.
ukrainesuperpower87 2 years ago
The Chinese are doing a lot of research in that area
CVKent317 2 years ago
At least I remember reading that
CVKent317 2 years ago
What ground-speed would you be doing if you were doing 500 kts at 15,000 feet?
CVKent317 2 years ago
wao!!! el símbolo americano en un Mig, es una imagen muy rara de ver
ferchopar 2 years ago