This New Video Shows What It’s Like to Fly to the Stratosphere at Supersonic Speed in a Russian MiG-29 Fulcrum

Here’s what it’s like to prepare and fly to the Edge of Space in a MiG-29 Fulcrum.

The following footage was shot by famous aviation video producer Artur Sarkysian for MigFlug, the company that offers fighter jet flying experiences to their customers. Among them, the Edge of Space mission takes people who want to experience a kind of flying reserved to fighter pilots (or, in same cases, astronauts), with their MiG-29 Fulcrum.

According to MigFlug, the Edge of Space Flight – or Stratosphere Flight – has several unique features unavailable elsewhere:

– It’s the only possibility for everyone to break the sound barrier
– Supersonic flying with a top speed up to MACH 1.9
Altitude up to 20km/65,000ft altitude
– Aerobatics with G-Forces up to over 9g (!)

Noteworthy, the MiG-29UB climbs to such altitudes with a climb at the maximum speed in a huge parabola that helps “overshooting” the service ceiling of the famous famous Soviet-era jet (still serving in Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, Poland, Syria and Iran, among the others).

Although the flight gives also “backseaters” the opportunity to control the aircraft, the experience does not only include the supersonic zoom to the limit of the stratosphere, as customers are introduced to the mission on the ground, provided the required briefing and flight gear, and then filmed during the sortie with various cameras.

For instance, the video below shows the flight as well as the preparation to it of Canadian Ferrari racecar driver, Ferrari club president and entrepreneur Josh Cartu.

If you don’t want to see the ground part, including the preparation for the flight, skip to min. 04.00.

The flying segment of the video was shot by Artur Sarkysian, a famous aviation video producer who attached a GoPro cameras to the two-seater Mig-29UB’s outer surfaces in such a way they could withstand speed up to 2450 km/h and a load factor of 9g!

Interestingly, in a clip we have published recently, the cameras even caught the shock wave on the Fulcrum’s wing as the aircraft thundered past Mach 1.0.

 

Salva

Salva

About David Cenciotti 4450 Articles
David Cenciotti is a freelance journalist based in Rome, Italy. He is the Founder and Editor of “The Aviationist”, one of the world’s most famous and read military aviation blogs. Since 1996, he has written for major worldwide magazines, including Air Forces Monthly, Combat Aircraft, and many others, covering aviation, defense, war, industry, intelligence, crime and cyberwar. He has reported from the U.S., Europe, Australia and Syria, and flown several combat planes with different air forces. He is a former 2nd Lt. of the Italian Air Force, a private pilot and a graduate in Computer Engineering. He has written four books.

11 Comments

  1. Nice jet, it amassed its a number of combat scars.
    The MiG-29 in its basic versions is a simple jet fighter. Over the world it amassed a limited action, limited meaning time in combat compared to Western F-16s, F/A-18, Tornadoes. However it is a highly diversified combat action, with several different users, often with limited support from other assets and limited logistics. When I visited Moscow, I remember its raw finishing in its basic versions. They were hand painted and the cockpit is indeed badly outdated. Due to its roghness, it is one of my favorites, I wish a better luck for these jets.

  2. You always read someone praising the glories of the MiG-29, but if my memory serves I don’t think it has much if any of a combat record. It certainly is inferior to the Typhoon, Rafale, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. It would be a duck-in-a-barrel to F-22 and F-35. So what can you say about MiG-29? Well, it was the beginning of the end for the Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau. That’s its only point of notoriety. But as a fighter? It was never destined to achieve glory. All it’s good for now are joy-rides.

    • “The Federation of American Scientists claims the MiG-29 is equal to, 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.[89] This was demonstrated when MiG-29s of the German Air Force participated in joint DACT exercises with US fighters.[90][91] 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, including those almost 45 degrees off boresight.”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

    • All the operational history of the MIG-29 is based in the MIG-29B, which was the worst export version that the Soviets gave to the friendly countries (Iraq, former yugoslavia, etc), nothing more far than the MIG-29S and later versions with improved radar, SA, more range/fuel capacity, avionics and R-77 missiles

    • You comparing Planes that have no virtually no budget, “In April 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessed the F-22’s cost to be $361 million per aircraft, with $28 billion invested in development and testing.”
      Star wars type of technology compared to the Russians but they don’t have Unlimited money like we do. Last I heard the Russkies military budget is like 50billion a year compared to the U.S.(about 300billion) Mig-Su is cheap, simple and it works with little maintenance. The f-35 is a real drama queen.

    • You’re missing the point. I am not going to tell you the MiG-29 or any MiG is a combat marvel. Its cockpit is messy, its finishing is rough, its sensors are suffering.
      But it is simple, mechanical, rough. Where I say simple, I not saying simple in engaging a combat aircraft, but simple as it takes off, drop some bombs and comes back.
      All of that done without much support. You think it is not much right? Well, the Western jets seems marvelous due to all the circus that supports them, directly and indirectly. The MiG pilot is just a guy who jumps in a cockpit and he is nearly on his own and his ride’s sensors.

      It is ironic the fact that you read “the MiG-29 was conceived to work closely with ground control and in big numerical superiority”, while you think Western jets under siege by tons of MiGs working with their own higher quality sensor suite to gain the upper hand. The reality that came out was the opposite. Few, scarse, lonely MiGs faced tens of Western jets which could count on the support several other assets, AWACS included.
      The MiG has no fault. Soviet/Russian military doctrines proved faulty and irrealistic. They wanted to overwhelm the West with cheap jets… their cheap jets were overwhelmed by expensive Western ones.

      I know the MiG fights alone without much support. Will it lose against NATO style cohordinated attacks? Sure as hell. Can it drop a cheap bomb against a target? Sure as hell. What else do you (Thirld World Country) need?

      What would Sudan, or South Sudan or most of those states who employ the MiGs need? a uber expensive F-16I? A bumba-rumba-jango-mango Typhoon? with all that electronics and stuff? and who you think would fix it on the ground when it gets broken? And what about if you, as per your way of dealing affairs want to go a little bit to the extra mile and lose political support of the US/West? can you fix your F-16s and Apaches? well, Venezuela and Iran had some taste of what putting Western stuff back in the air without Western support means. and that was stuff from the Seventies… Imagine a F-35…

      Libyans are putting back in the air MiG-21s and MiG-23s which did not fly for the last 15 years… that tells something about what you can do if a MiG gets broken.
      Russian stuff is junk… by Western standard. You have to hammer it back to working status… and you have to do that several times. BUT YOU CAN DO THAT.
      Western stuff simply cannot be hammered back to working status, but rather you have to spend your precious dollars and refurbish properly.

    • ah and by the way, you may want to review your feeling about the combat efficency of Western air assets against real world enemies. Just try to figure out how much a single IS man costs to the West. Several months ago, some stats were published. according to the official Western source they were staying well below one guided bomb per single Enemy KIA. and that’s claim… imagine the truth. A conservative guess can easily say that we (the West) spend at least 1,000,000 USD to kill a single terrorist. In a real shooting war… is that affordable?

Comments are closed.