MiG-29 Flying at 18,013 m (59,100 ft)

Nov 3, 2017 1:32 AM

Entartika

Views

125004

Likes

2030

Dislikes

50

this is gonna trigger the flat-earthers..

They now offer rides for anyone brave enough:

http://fly-mig29.com/programms.html

(The World Altitude Record is held by Alexandr Fedotov in a MiG-25 Foxbat, the E-266M. He climbed to 37,650m (123,520 ft) on August 31st, 1977.)

Seee!!! It's flat!! Right there!! It's like flying over a plate or something...

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

Nice use of fish-eye lenses to make the horizon look curved.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There r no real flat earthers I am sure. They know it's false but just for fun they keep this charade of ignorance

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Well... There goes my "Earth is flat" theory.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

The dumbest cheeto of them all

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

We should send flat earthers into space. Not to show them the Earth isn't flat. Just to get rid of the idiots.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG!!!!! SPPPPPAAAAAAACEE!!! YEEEEEEHHHHAAAAA!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Most of these records are ballistic lofts and pilots shut down engines around 60k ft. Not so much flying as falling with style.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Hard to keep those engines alive with little oxygen

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You can do it too for the low low cost of $17,500 freedom bucks

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

"Just look at that disc." - Flat Earthers

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

What limits the height, air too thin for lift, or oxygen for combustion, or just run out of fuel.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Engine power. More AOA for lift adds drag.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oxygen. Lift is meaningless if you have no thrust.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'm guessing they supply brown pants as standard for the passengers?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yeah they spray you with skunk odor a little too.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Do flat earthers just think these pics are faked? What an existence!

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

They say it's the lenses. In this case they're right the curvature we're seeing is an artifact. Have to get into orbit to see it that curved

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

That first one you wouldn’t see till half way to the damn moon

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That record is only because the max height of the U2 is still classified though. So grain of salt.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

that's crazy. wonder how long it took to get up there?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Its travelling at almost twice the speed of sound, so not long at all.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That "curve" is just the edge of the disc. Shame you can't see the turtle underneath

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Fake, everyone knows the Earth is flat

8 years ago | Likes 41 Dislikes 16

I'm a flat Earther. I don't think it is flat currently but I'm advocating.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Turtles, all the way down

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Don’t forget about the elephants

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

don't worry, i am sure it was a fish eye lens on that camera

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

False. The sun is flat. Not the earth.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

Nah man, get with the times. It's teacup-shaped.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

BUY MY BOOK!

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Your book is flat, too

8 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Has anyone requested the prices? I'm curious how much those flights are.

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 1

.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

3.5

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I'm curious too

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Tree fiddy

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

They've been offering them for a while now, I remember reading about them in the late 90's. The trip to the edge of space was pretty pricey.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Priceee?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

Holy shit. Four flights and they pay for the jet.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Did anyone manage to find out the price?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Yeah, I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to win the lottery

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Fisheye lenses make everything look round. Fuck you all the earth is a pyramid.

8 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 3

Are you insane? It is very evidently a squircle

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 1

Yeah! Everyone knows pyramids don't exist

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ow my brain hurts

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Actually it’s a squiranglogram.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Fuckin sucks if you have tp eject. XD

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Full pressure suit required over 17km. Pretty much what that balloon jumper was wearing.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Nah, you just get hypoxic, then euphoric, then you die. A bit chilly too. And the pressure would probably blow your ear drums.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nah, you get cannedO2 and you would break the sound barrier coming down, so you wouldn’t be in the hypoxia zone long. You’ll live.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Pretty sure world altitude record would be Armstrong on the moon. Just saying.

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 4

Apollo 13 was further away when the slingshotted around the moon.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

And surely if we talk about terrestrial aircraft the sr71, u2, and x15 would top this? Even if we limit to jets sr71 and u2 would win?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Those planes max altitudes are still classified hence no record. The U2 flies higher than anything that doesn’t use rockets, but classified

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The pilot of a U2 literally has to wear a fucking space suit.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Both of those regularly operated at 80-90k ft, unclear how high they went.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

So uh.... how does the engine keep working without air? I'm sure at that altitude the compression-stages has a VERY hard time to find air...

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

~5% oxygen. It's low but not that bad. Intake ram adds a lot.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Some get around this by having an engine 50x stronger than it needs to fly, like a U-2. So that even if it has almost no air still works

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They do. Hence the height limit

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

almost 24 miles down is a loooooooong time before impact to think about your bad decisions

8 years ago | Likes 156 Dislikes 0

Getting to see a view like that is the exact opposite of a bad decision.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Just aim for a bush or cart of hay, you'd be fine!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You mean flying above 13 mile hole in the ground?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

This is counterintuitive. The higher you jump from the faster you reach the ground when jumping at high altitudes. 125k jump takes about >

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

4 min, 100k jump takes about 4.5 min. Reason is at higher altitudes you build up more speed because terminal velocity is faster up higher

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wouldn't you slow down as you get Lowe and encounter more resistance though? That is- wouldn't the terminal velocity change as you fall, so

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

that the increased height would still take longer? Or am I making a silly mistake?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Where did you get 24 miles from?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Not if u pass out first. I remember that guy who jumped from a weather balloon passed out

8 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 1

Felix!

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Was the other dude before him. Baumgartner was in a pressure suit during his supersonic drop and didn't pass out.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

~11-12 miles, still plenty of time though!

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 5

....just saying

8 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

Yeah? And that has what to do with the ~59k ft @OP is at? World record isn't what this is taking about

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

for the record

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

The plane in the picture is flying at 59k feet, not 123k feet.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Isn't it only a 6 minute freefall?

8 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 2

Hey vsause, Michael here. What is down?

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 2

v

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

‘Only’ 6 minuted is still a long time to be falling to your death!!

8 years ago | Likes 75 Dislikes 0

Ugh, tell me about it. I still have like another three minutes. Hurry up, gravity.

8 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 0

He ded... it's been 18 minutes since @Strostkovy posted their comment.

8 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

May he rest in pieces. Likely in the ocean

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Fall faster

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Username is partially semi-accurateish

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I played this mission in Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War where you climb to avoid a ballistic cluster missile.

8 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

Ace combat 4, 5, and 0 were the absolute best. I hope 7 turns out as good of a game.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Razgriz 4 lyfe

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Game is so good. Never thought a rockets n planez game would give me feels.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I recently wanted to play the good Ace games, not that Assault Horizon, but others. Turns out none of them have suitable PC versions.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And I can't really find suitable Ace game replacements on the PC. I need something that pulls me in, not just being some random pilot.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I might try playing it on an emulator but my machine isn't suitable for emulation higher than ps1. Could get nice versions there.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Could never get those things to work. Besides the portable console emulators.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The PS2 one was hardest, imo, I had to relearn how to use homebrew license extraction from my ps2 by using exploits.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Blows my mind a design that old can go that high. But they did build them to fly, not look pretty

8 years ago | Likes 495 Dislikes 2

Im not triggered the least this bogus crap is proof that cameras lie. The lense is just making it look round.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 11

*AND* look pretty

8 years ago | Likes 42 Dislikes 0

The MiG-29? I always thought it was kind of a bucket. It's no Su-27 or F-16.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Dude this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_X-1 broke the sound barrier. I mean LOOK AT THE WINGS....

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The X-1 suffered from super sonic compression at the leading edges almost kill Yeager.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As an American, I still think it is a masterpiece of an aircraft, and is very high on my list of favorites.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

usually technology is not the limiting factor, but cost. after all, if you throw enough money at it, someone will just develop the tech.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Some ideas just run against fundamental physical limitations.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

And we've somehow not developed something that could continue to the level of the space station...hmmm.

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 11

Physics won't favor that.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Is this like a Ken M comment or something?

8 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

That you know of. The sr-71 was a secret at one point too.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Their design is really interesting, the Soviets relied on more hand calculations rather than computer simulations.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Same story in the USA. Computation was around, but most of the calculus was done by hand.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There was no computer available to run a practical simulation that time. They started to use advanced math models only in late 1980s //

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

when 286 became available for the MiG bureau.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I've always thought the Migs generally look cooler than all the NATO planes except for the F-22 and the Blackbird.

8 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Nothing beats the YF-23 in beauty. Rest In Peace you beautiful dream.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Su-47 I'd argue could compete. One of the few Russian fighters that could.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

SU's are rad.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

mig 21 is the best mig because it's extra pointy

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Balalaika they called it.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The SR-71 did that altitude at Mach 3 in the 70s.

8 years ago | Likes 185 Dislikes 5

and out run / range surface to air missiles, while looking sexy as fuck

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

correct me if I am wrong but isn't sr71 record is 85k feet?

8 years ago | Likes 51 Dislikes 0

The 71 CRUISED at 80k feet. The Foxbat couldn't physically get any higher.

8 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 1

That's not a foxbat though. Foxbat is MiG-25

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

I think they are talking about the record not the pictures.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Mig29 is 77. Same era.

8 years ago | Likes 65 Dislikes 3

SR-71 Introduce 1966 Mig-29 July 1982.. SR71 First flight 1964 Mig: 1977 sorta but not really....

8 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 2

Yes but the Foxbat, the one in the pic did that flight in 77, and both the sr and mig were developed in the same era. One just flew sooner

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

MiG-29 is "Fulcrum". MiG-25 is "Foxbat".

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

F-16 and Mig-29 same era: Definitely. F-16 Introduced 1978 & first flight 1974.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

There is a big difference between SR-71 ans MiG-29. One is a plane designed for single purpose, run high and run fast. Another is a fighter.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Actually, not quite true. MIG-25 was designed as a intercept. To fly very high, very fast and intercept bombers as far out as possible.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

That being said the MIG-25 was designed for short bursts, a sprint at mach 3 would wreck the engines. SR71 was designed for sustained speed.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

MiG-25 and MiG-29 are very different planes, aren't they?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Yep, and Mig-25's altitude record is far greater than SR-71's which is pretty mediocre anyway.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

triggered

8 years ago | Likes 94 Dislikes 2

69 updoots

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

8 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 0

BILL

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

NYE

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

THE CIPHER GUY

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This needs to happen but with the Planter's peanut instead.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I am stealing the fuck out of this. Right into the reaction gifs folder

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

When are the damn folders gonna come out on android?--"

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I already have them, get the imgur beta app

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I've been trying to figure out how but can't seem to manage it

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Where do I get it?

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Made it to the low 50s in a Tomcat once, up in the thin air & snuffed a motor. Buddy got higher and snuffed both. Long glide to relight.

8 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 0

Love that plane. I'll have to go to NYC to see one. Any still flying? Like for shows or something?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nah, all got cut up due to Iran part sales scandal. But even Bill Gates couldn't afford to keep one flying!!!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Dang. Are you still flying? I spent 2 days last summer at the museum in Dayton. Fantastic stuff. Now I need to see the navy planes.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nah, hung up the spurs in 2008, last flight in The Big Fighter was January 2000. Way fun, much speed.

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Best ride of my life was in an F-18 where we got up in the “Wikipedia numbers” to hit 1,000 ground speed.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Good one. Kind of like the "speed of heat".

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Were those motors pretty good overall and just not designed for the 50s?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

TF-30 in the F-14A was great down low (below 25K'), pretty reliable. It couldn't breathe good over 30K'. GE-110's in the B/D were ROCKETS!!!

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nice dude, were you a pilot/wso?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Front seat.....

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Pure jealousy from an -18 guy here

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Did they get mad at you?

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Nah they are supposed to do that

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Motors don't get mad. They are fine.

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

We told the older guys about it; they laughed. Told us the 46K altitude limit wasn't about motors, was about the canopy. Me: "Oh. Oops."

8 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Oh man. I thought they tracked all that stuff from the tower. So your CO didn't even know you did it? Must have been before the installed...

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

the nanny cams.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

1994. All started as a Ready Room bet. We did it over the water; no radar control. Other bets that year: fastest in the break and longest

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

According to my experience with Kerbal Space Program, one engine dying = deathspin. Do real planes automatically prevent that?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Tomcat motors are 9' apart so at that altitude, no sweat. Asymmetric thrust is an issue in a coupled departure that can induce lots of yaw.

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The 14s engines were not that far apart, even though they were wider than most fighters. All real planes are designed to fly single engine

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Though it can be fatal on landing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There are procedures of losing an engine in this scenario; she didn't follow them quickly enough and departed flight/crashed. 1/2

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

2/2: Set 10deg pitch; rudder opposite yaw; throttles full A/B; gear up. She could have flown away but stalled/crashed. RIO lived, though.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Only when you are unaware or forget one is out. You can’t throttle up on approach like normal and she hit burner. She fuckd up. We had>

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You kinda need to throttle up if your approach fails, don't you?

8 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A pilot in Korea on an a10 who forgot he had an engine out and throttled up on approach, stood it sideways and punched out. He was very old.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

HUURRRRRRRRRR THE LENSE IS CURVED HURRRRRRRRRRR

8 years ago | Likes 269 Dislikes 4

I just heard that "argument" i am in awe, why are such dumb people even alive.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

Do you want me to buy you a flight or not?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Haters will say it's Photoshop

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What you need is a video at that altitude, to demonstrate that the curvature remains the same regardless of lens orientation.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

What's funny is that you can see that the first picture actually is a fisheye lens. None of the rest are though.

8 years ago | Likes 52 Dislikes 7

Given how much of the plane is visible, I'd say they're still pretty wide-angle. (Not a flat-earther)

8 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Its funny, because all of this photos done with wide phpoto lens, and thats what gives curvature to horizon on them, or atleast, adds 1/?

8 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

the most to the effect. Above about 10000m is, true, the altitude needed to start seeing the effect yourself, but it is very hard to see 2/?

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

at 10k. And there is a stable, leveled layer of clouds which is much higher than a ground level on this photos, which negates some of 3/?

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

the planes altitude in regard to observing the effect. So in short, yea, you probably can expect to see curvature on a 15+km high mig ride4/

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

however slight and non expressieve, but on this photos, and photos in general, it tends to be more due to how lenses work. 5/5

8 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Fun fact: it actually is. For Earth to look like THAT, he'd have to climb a good hundred kilometres more. Or maybe even higher.

8 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 1

Even on the ISS you dont see the earth like that.

8 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I can see curvature from a beach

8 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 7

No that's the gov't tricking you. It's the same branch that prevents people from going to the edge of Antarctica! Jeez you round earthers 1/

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Are so silly. Believing things you can see and "science"

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Bitch, I cross Antarctica in my daily commute.

8 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0