Warbird Information Exchange

Today Everett HERALD 02/06/2011 has a half front page and full page inside article about how John Sessions aquired and assembled the Mig 29 currently in the hangar @ KPAE.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Here's the link to it

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/201102 ... Cat=NEWS01

_________________
-Al Sauer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spookythecat

Thanks Al, my pile of refined sand has issues with doing linkages to things-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Cool article, thanks for the link. Even though the article was captivating, you just gotta love the reporter's inaccuracies. Here is the best example:

"The hot exhaust behind the afterburners momentarily turned the air behind them into molten glass."

Who knew? No wonder modern air force base runways are so slick - because they are littered with molten glass!

Also, did anyone else find it kind of bizarre that Sessions would fly on the first test flight?

I thought it was a bit daring but the man has faith in those he works with.

_________________
-Al Sauer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spookythecat

When I was an Inspector @ BADWRENCH, if I was the QC guy on the project, I went on the test flight, no big deal, I knew what my folks were capable of and it showed complete trust in their skills, talents, and abilities, had an adventure or two while on them but loved every minute! We did some serious and pretty major stuff on airplanes that left much better than when they arrived @ the hangar.
I had one Captain who while giving the 'just in case' brief to the test crew, said something like 'and if the airplane does one of these..' and flipped his hand over, Since I knew him and had flown with him several times before, I said 'Ted, if it does, the medical examiner will determine you died of asphyxiation prior to the impact'.
'scuse me, is that seat open?'.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

OK who on this board that had the chance would not fly on the plane?
Norm

But, there is a big difference between "crew" airplanes such as airliners and heavies, vs. traditional single seat tactical/fighter type aircraft. In one you can "deadstick" it for landing, in the other you can't, you must eject. It doesn't make much sense to put two people's lives at risk after a restoration, especially considering the "non-standard" modifications done to the MiG. History and tradition dictate that first flights of "non-heavy" type aircraft are done with only one person on board - the test pilot. Why endanger two people's live when it is not necessary? I realize that Mr. Sessions is the owner and he can do what he dammn well pleases. No problem there, I just see it as an unnecessary risk, that's all.

That's not the point. It's non-standard and not normally done for safety reasons, that's my point.

Seems like a awful lot of cash layed out for what???
I'm sorry but pooping around at 90 mph in a Stearman on a cool summer evening
is a whole lot much fun!
Besides how many third world countries could we'd have toppled with all that $$$?

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

That's why you can buy anything from a 4 cylinder P.O.S. with plastic and cardboard interior econobox or anything in between up to the newest Ferarri or Lambo, and it's 'just a car'. Guess that's why some of us ride big inch motorcycles and live for that long straight stretch of empty road, and some cling like grim death to the handle on a shopping cart @ the market. Once there's light under the tires, it's all the same element of risk isn't it? If stuff goes sideways, they all make a smoking hole don't they? Rather, since, eventually, I'll die anyway, other than not waking up some morning, I'd like to leave this place on my journey to the next plane of existance doing something I have a passion for and not fall off the toilet with a heart attack!

I spent a lot of time in the rear end of CESSNAS doing in flight rigging 'tweeks' while working @ ROBERTSON STOL, try laying on your back in the passengers footwell on a SENECA doing adjustments behind the panel to the yoke turnbarrel as the pilot adds flap and the nose pitches down with the trim changes and all you can see is blue sky out the top of the windshield while feeling like you're hanging by your heels.

You also don't understand that John will drive up to the field after work, jump out of the car, into his flight suit, and go blow holes in the sky for an hour with the P-51, F7F, or F8F to unwind and enjoy.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I don't have a problem with the outlay of cash at all. He has been a very successful, self-driven, self-made millionaire. Isn't that what capitalism is all about? I think it's kind of cool that he wants to spend money on a Cold War warrior. If you read the article, you'll see that the MiG-29 is not going to stay in his museum. He restored it to sell for profit. The money from the sale is going back into his museum. If that's what keeps his B-25, F7F, B-25, Spitfire, P-51, etc. flying then I'm all for it! He has to do something to keep the museum self-sufficient. Apparently he plans on doing this MiG-29 restoration then sell thing for a while as he has several more in the pipeline.

So, Jack, to answer your question, he is doing this to fund his museum. Is that not a worthy cause?

The article says that the Russians nicknamed it the Fulcrum. I thought that was the NATO name for it? Did the Russians have a name for them?

It was named that by NATO. The Soviets liked the NATO codename and adopted it.

_________________

I understand a whole lot more than you think. So in essence what you don't understand is me

I thought it said he was going to buy 2 more and restore and sell them for the museum. Which means it's
a ways down the road and also a huge tax write-off being it's a non-profit

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!