Sukhoi Su-35 Pilot Ejects for a Hollywood Movie @ Mach 2

Aviation & Simulation Topics
User avatar
Blaze
Posts: 669
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:16 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Sukhoi Su-35 Pilot Ejects for a Hollywood Movie @ Mach 2

Post by Blaze » Mon Jul 27, 2009 3:06 pm

Movie producers paid two Sukhoi Su-35 pilots to fly without a canopy at Mach 2.0, and have one of them eject in what probably is one of the most dangerous stunts ever filmed.
Are you kidding me?!?!?! :shock:

http://gizmodo.com/5323825/crazy-russia ... -at-mach-2
Design is all about finding solutions within constraints.
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:50 pm

Sounds like a cleverly written sentence about flying fast without a canopy, and (then) have one of the pilots eject. He most likely didn't punch out at twice the speed of sound, that would have been instant suicide...

Wonder how much Hollywood "stimulated" their economy? :P
Joker
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:55 pm

Post by Joker » Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:28 pm

I want to see this movie. :o
User avatar
Burner
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Post by Burner » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:35 pm

There's been some photo analysis going around the comment sections where this has been posted. Check the link source for more pics. Most compelling I've seen so far is that the pic of the pilot on the ground and the promo video of the Su-35 shows the vert. stab with a flat top. The ejection pic shows an angled top like a Su-27. The other inconsistencies can be given plausible reasons, but that one is a show stopper for me.

I say fake- sub-sonic ejection using a Su-27 trainer at best.

Though a Mach 2 ejection is not necessarily suicide, you get high enough in the atmosphere and it could be just a cool breeze on your face. :wink: Quite a few pilots are on record ejecting at Mach 2+ and living.
Image
User avatar
Panther
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 1009
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:41 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Post by Panther » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:41 pm

Edit: After reading more, the whole scheme is fake. Paintings, elevators in a pitch down altitude, seat rocket suggesting a ground ejection, list goes on.

Hmm someone paid a lot of $$$ as the heat from the seat most definitely destroyed the components in the aft compartment.

Someone has survived a Mach ejection but damn near broke every bone in his body. So the "Mach 2" part has to be fake.
Last edited by Panther on Wed Jul 29, 2009 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:59 pm

Some quick research points to the same explanation for "fastest ejection":
What is the fastest ejection on record?

Although this seems to be an easy question, looks can be deceiving. 'How fast' is an imprecise question as it can be answered in several ways, for example: speed over ground, Knots Indicated Air Speed (KIAS), Knots Equivalent Air Speed (KEAS) and so forth. For example, some SR-71 pilots are rumored to have ejected at speeds of Mach 3 at 80,000 feet. This is a ground speed of around 2000 miles per hour, yet due to the thinner atmosphere at that altitude, the speed is closer to 400 KEAS. That is more like a 460 miles per hour. An F-15E pilot survived an ejection at a very small ground speed as he was traveling almost straight down in a spin, yet he was traveling at 780 MPH. This is over 1.6 times faster in equivalent air speed. Another difficulty with answering this question is determining the exact speed. Since most ejections occur in situations that are changing rapidly, it is difficult to get an exact speed of the ejection. Most ejection speeds are calculated values based on the recollections of the crewman, and what little evidence survives the aircraft's destruction. This can lead to very imprecise numbers. In the first known case of a man surviving a supersonic ejection, George Smith(IIRC will be verified) ejected from an F-100 Super Sabre in a dive. It was known that he ejected supersonically due to eyewitnesses who heard and saw the ejection from nearby based on the sounds of the sonic booms and the visual clues of the crash.
Related threads:
Airliners.net: Can a Pilot Eject at Mach 2?
Jetcareers: Ejection at Mach 2 (re: the Su-35 movie shoot ejection)

There's a link in the second thread about Brian Udell, whom survived one of the fastest known ejections in history at more than 780 mph. Amazing story, highly recommended read! See story here.
User avatar
Burner
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 1420
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:08 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Post by Burner » Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:27 am

I was reading the Udell story earlier today. My favorite part was his wallet and water bottle getting blown out the bottom of his pockets while they were still zipped!

I read a story years ago about a Russian pilot ejecting at Mach 2 back in the 60's high in the atmosphere, believe he was in a MiG-25, and while he got royally f-ed up he survived. But who knows with Russian information gathered during the cold war.

In anycase just ejecting for a paycheck is pretty ballsy regardless of the speed. Hat's off to both pilots if it's true. Well hats off to pilot- and backseat crash test dummy. You know life is cheap in the old soviet block when you're worth less than a plausible mannequin. :roll:
Image
Rhino
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am
Location: KDVN
Contact:

Post by Rhino » Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:56 am

Panther wrote:Edit: After reading more, the whole scheme is fake. Paintings, elevators in a pitch down altitude, seat rocket suggesting a ground ejection, list goes on.
I wouldn't discount this on the pitch attitude of the elevators. IF this was real, I'm sure the pilot would want to be getting the hell away from his buddy as fast as he could, which would lead me to think the best way is to push forward.
Image
Phantoms Phorever!
User avatar
Panther
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 1009
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:41 am
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Post by Panther » Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:30 am

Rhino wrote:
Panther wrote:Edit: After reading more, the whole scheme is fake. Paintings, elevators in a pitch down altitude, seat rocket suggesting a ground ejection, list goes on.
I wouldn't discount this on the pitch attitude of the elevators. IF this was real, I'm sure the pilot would want to be getting the hell away from his buddy as fast as he could, which would lead me to think the best way is to push forward.
Pitch just adds to the list, the main one being the Ejection Seat WARNING markings on the jet on the ground but not on the jet in the air. Along with the verticals tails suggesting another aircraft than the one showed on the ground with the canopy and seat removed.
User avatar
Cobra
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: OZ

Post by Cobra » Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:32 am

When the RAAF bought the French Mirage III back in the 60's, most of them were assembled and tested in Australia.

A Royal Air Force Test pilot on loan to the RAAF, Sqn Ldr Tony Svensson, lost control of the first one to be assembled and he ejected at 750 knots (952 MPH) at 7000 feet and survived.. although badly injured.

Martin-Baker, the British company that made the seat, considered it to be a record at the time. The Caterpillar Club pin presented to all Martin Baker seat ejectees went for auction at Christies earlier this year.

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A14vmx/ ... es/131.htm

Whether this equates to ejecting at Mach 2 is a little subjective. Wind blast causes most of the injuries at high speed, and that is a function of IAS. 750 knots is an awful lot of IAS. The other cause of injuries, apart from back injuries caused by the seat itself, is the opening shock from the parachute. This is a function of True Airspeed (TAS). The TAS for this ejection was roughly 855 knots. No wonder the guy was in a coma for 10 days!!!

Some interesting facts about the Mirage III. Although limited to Mach 2 a friend of mine who flew it said the design was aerodynamically capable of Mach 3; the Mach 2 limit came principally from blade creep in the turbine and metallurgic problems.. i.e. the airframe would start to melt.

The Mirage used no thermal anti-icing, the airframe temperature was never low enough to require it when flying.

The standard climb speed was mach 0.9.

Australia wanted to operate them in Vietnam but the French threatened a spare parts embargo if we did so... this is one of the main reasons the RAAF went for the F-18 in the 80's.

The fuel system was a nightmare apparently. It was difficult to know at all times how much fuel you had on board at any one time. An acqaintance of mine was doing a practice ACM ride and thought he was flying a real dog. It turns out he flew almost the entire fight in A/B but with the speedbrakes inadvertently extended. This was a sure way to land without much fuel.. in fact he declared an emergency, landed and flamed out on the taxi-way on his way back in! :oops:

It was one of the last true fighter pilots aircraft, similiar in many ways to the F-104.... Glided like a brick but had only two speeds... fast and faster!

I had two back seats rides in them and the experience stays with me to this day. I also lost a very good friend when two of them collided but that is another story.
Image
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:49 am

Interesting read Cobra!

Whether a few pilots have or have not ejected at speeds approaching Mach 2 or above and lived to tell about it, I'd recon it's safe to say it depends more on max Q (maximum dynamic pressure) than a measure of speed that changes with temperature in the atmosphere. Close to, or above 600 knots KIAS/KEAS and the pilot is in a world of hurt, regardless of the Mach number...
User avatar
Gunner
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:01 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by Gunner » Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:10 am

Caught this thread a little late - as a graphics design guy, it's so obvious that photo is photoshopped - and not very well! :wink: The "condensation" around the ejecting pilot is simply the blending tool all editing programs have. The flame looks fake as well.
Rhino
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am
Location: KDVN
Contact:

Post by Rhino » Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:43 am

Seeing as how this is for THIS movie, umm........yeah...



http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/07/the-s ... e-cowboys/

Plot:

In 2001 in Iraq, two American NAVY pilots - Butch Masters and Tom Craig - are ordered to bomb an abandoned plant. The order appears to be false. American experts get killed in the plant. A secret chemical device, called “Rainmaker”, designed for oil fields destruction, gets stolen. Military court cannot prove pilot’s intention, and gives them dishonorable discharge. After 7 years Craig is reach [sic] and famous. He manages a private pilot team, working for Top Gun and for movies. Masters is a “grease monkey” in a small airport. He still tries to investigate his old case, and dreams of his own pilot’s team. In order to get a licence to fly Russian jets, Masters goes to St.Petersburg… At the same time, Kurdish terrorist group plans to capture a part of Northern Iraq … They plan to use “Rainmaker” to destroy oil fields… Terrorist’s base is located in Northern Iran… NAVY intelligence offers Masters chance to “clean his name” by performing a secret … mission … Using unmarked planes, they have to bomb the base and destroy “Rainmaker”. Doomed to death, betrayed by friends, left in Syrian desert, Masters and his team finds unexpected support from a side of “Russian Nights” jet fighter aerobatic group. Russians and Americans go to final battle side by side, and leave no chance to terrorists.
Image
Phantoms Phorever!
User avatar
Gunner
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:01 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Post by Gunner » Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:56 pm

Hot Shots part Trois? :lol:
User avatar
STRIKER
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 2:02 am
Location: Amarillo, TX

Post by STRIKER » Wed Jul 29, 2009 5:53 pm

I've seen it all now. What in the world compells folks to put these films into thought, let alone production?
Image
Post Reply