The best display I've ever seen. Filmed to perfection! Nice work! Must visit MAKS and Russia one day. Greetings from Canada!
@hocndinemahfoud23134 жыл бұрын
Mig 29 the most awesome and manoeuvrable Fighter Jet in the world...
@sgtgrash14 жыл бұрын
Now there is a pilot who knows his airplane. He is an outstanding pilot and fully demonstrated the handling capabilities of the Mig 29OVT. I am very impressed... ;) p.s. Gorgeous livery too by the way...
@RED_STAR_8911 жыл бұрын
this MIG 29 OVT aircraft is doing impossible maneuvers . what an aWESOME ART.
@TheRooverdoor8 жыл бұрын
Wooow.....what a beautiful performance......
@myazleoful6 жыл бұрын
Stunning double somersault lukily we have 12 Mig 29SM and 18 Sukhoi SU30MKM best regards from Malaysia
@schneiderjakob2595 Жыл бұрын
Когда то я эти самолёты обслуживал, миг 29 четвёртого поколения, отличные самолёты. 84по 86год в Белоруссии Гродно Россь. ❤
@Foreigner69111 жыл бұрын
Великолепная машина и великолепное исполнение! мои аплодисменты! Спасибо за видео, Константин!
@ПумБаюн6 жыл бұрын
Один из самых запоминающихся полетов на МАКС 2009
@503stick9 жыл бұрын
Awesome display. Thanks for uploading .
@ApocalipticToaster11 жыл бұрын
The MiG-29 is a smaller lighter SU-35 baseline fighter with a few differences. Combine that small light manouverable package with heavy thrust vectoring and you have a jet more manouverable than anything seen before. Bravo
@dacotw12 жыл бұрын
5:49-6:02, the best maneuver of them all!
@AvinashKumar-dr2bm3 жыл бұрын
Exceeding all limits.Great machine coupled with amazing flying skills of the pilot.👍
@vasilvalchev58539 жыл бұрын
Это класная машина. Для свою время и сейчас она доказалась свой боевой качестве.Я лётчикам МИГ-29.
@ibyvideo2 жыл бұрын
Спасибо, вдохновляет! По твоим видео, пробую повторить на своем EDF с ОВТ. Наши ребята самые крутые. Пару раз ходил на американские шоу, такой красоты там не увидишь, групповое еще нормально, а одиночных таких крутых нет.
@sumitsachan952712 жыл бұрын
absolutely no AOA limitation... amazing... beautiful.
@gindai0011 жыл бұрын
Absolutely, I believe that this pilot was a player of gymnastics!!
@vikruss12 жыл бұрын
You'll get tired of waiting for that man, MiG is standing strong and will be always.
@dron877610 жыл бұрын
Mig 29 i jego pilot po prostu PIERWSZA KLASA.
@casmigovt2912 жыл бұрын
Parabens!! Que manobras lindas digno dos Mig´s os reis dos céus.
@Phazeus11 жыл бұрын
Что-то запредельное. Просто слов нет. Это не самолёт, это НЛО, как говорят французы :) Наши Птицы :)
@gsadvanced14 жыл бұрын
great video I want to go to MAKS 2011 so bad!!
@HackerSzabolcs10 жыл бұрын
Mig 29 the best machine!!!
@ahmadtheaviationlover19374 жыл бұрын
Damn the Russians know how to build badass aircraft! Mind you their larger counterparts like the an225 etc are hellishly sounding machines which is music to my ears
@yurimanuylov283311 жыл бұрын
Красивая работа летчика и оператора!!!
@Archer28M10 жыл бұрын
When hi turns around his Axel while falling down ? l thought this was possible just in movies. Top Gun and shit. And we dan,t want to talk about Cobra maneuver and stuff.
@андрейегоров-ж8ф7ч11 жыл бұрын
я восхищен!!! Слава Русским летчикам!Слава ВВС!!! Это достойно звания Героя России!
@FreeManIraq5813 жыл бұрын
wow this aircraft is amazing. I love it.
@МирланЭргешов-г6п3 жыл бұрын
Молодцы братья вы лучшие
@tigarsimultiyasa13869 жыл бұрын
I don't think the 360 degree vectored thrust jet was enough to support this performance. It must be some kind of secret anti gravity machine inserted in this amazing plane ! :)
@on30sg9 жыл бұрын
Niesamowity pilot i wspaniała maszyna!
@SkyLifeFlyer13 жыл бұрын
WOW look at that on 2:56 this aircraft is amazing...I have to buy one lol
@mrrolandlawrence7 жыл бұрын
what happened to the OVT machines? Ive not seen them at a display in a long time!
@CamilleRatel7 жыл бұрын
bravo!!!! le156 c'est l'apothéose de la démonstration en vol!!!!!
@ApocalipticToaster11 жыл бұрын
It's pulling 8+ G w/ Missiles on the wings...good lord....
@КритикКритикович-ы8ч7 жыл бұрын
Харошая машина миг 29 овт жаль всерию непашол .
@Sayo21-e5w10 жыл бұрын
!! impresionante !!
@vikruss12 жыл бұрын
THIS IS TRULY MASTER OF CLOSE AIR COMBAT
@GamOBEP11 жыл бұрын
Честь и слава нашим конструкторам и пилотам!!!
@PabloPerez201611 жыл бұрын
impresiona la estabilidad y versatilidad en las maniobras, cual es su contra parte en USAF?
@cesarquiron538310 жыл бұрын
YF-22
@jorgerivasnieto20016 жыл бұрын
Cuantas toneladas pesa el avión? Porque para que pueda hacer esas maniobras, las turbinas deben de ser muy poderosas.
@rowemm9 жыл бұрын
Impressionnante présentation,mais existe-t-il en France des moteurs à poussée vectorielle ?
MIG29 is still ahead of its time. Nobody not made a plane with such maneuverability capabilities. You Recall when it was made! All began from him for the Russian military aerospace industry. Pilot is an artist, only the Russians this can. What is gravity?
@TheChoktube11 жыл бұрын
Amazing
@harryheiligenberg972611 жыл бұрын
Fabulous, thanks for sharing
@erikarmenian742610 жыл бұрын
давай россия вперед! It takes skills and big balls to do that !
@dron87764 жыл бұрын
Najlepszy akrobat na Świecie.
@terry1232711 жыл бұрын
They were allays looking at the American pilots and saying we should be able to be that good and here they have shown that they have done so and our in there own AMAZING.
@nettolitaliano10 жыл бұрын
BUENISIMO.
@muhammadindra90905 жыл бұрын
Amazing....
@stefanpaulitsch21669 жыл бұрын
Ja eindrucksvolle Maschine die Mig 29
@ПЕТРПЕТРОВ-й6ы9д6 жыл бұрын
суперский клипп !!!
@TheFukuzener9 жыл бұрын
нет слов.
@Zbyszkoz12 жыл бұрын
Kramnik’s OPK source sees 20 or 24 MiG-35s being produced each year, for about 25 billion, to replace 150 or 160 MiG-29s in Russia’s inventory. He cites Konstantin Makiyenko who sees the MiG-35 as important not just as a MiG-29 replacement, but also to keep Russia in the light- to medium-, $60-million-range fighter export market and not leave this industry segment to China and its J-10.
@ИгорьВеличко-к1д11 жыл бұрын
класс!!!!!
@КонстантинПронин11 жыл бұрын
Есть у этого красавца старший брат. МиГ-31. Изначально предназначался для перехвата крылатых ракет во всём диапазоне высот и скоростей, а также низколетящих спутников. Не такой эффектный, но...
@rai-kyper3 жыл бұрын
Миг25/31 это перехватчики, миг29 самолёт для завоевания господства в воздухе в близи линии фронта, предназначен завязывать маневренный бой с другими истребителями
@wusong796611 жыл бұрын
Even birds can't do this.
@ahmadtheaviationlover19374 жыл бұрын
Yes some birds can hover like the humming bird can
@ВалентинКучеров-ч7э3 жыл бұрын
Я восхищон.
@Komarov0711 жыл бұрын
Ну как он падает - это что-то.... :))))
@ElektroMessTechnik9 жыл бұрын
C.C.C.PoweRussia Greetings From Greece
@funnyrabbitadventures10 жыл бұрын
every time i see this video i keep blaming my country officials for buying the f16 shits instead of mig-29
@gryf496 жыл бұрын
Duże osiągnięcie techniczne tego samolotu, jak również wielki kunszt pilota samolotu.
@pawebober59704 жыл бұрын
technika koniec lat 90tych
@ПоЛитрукПавел-ъ8ч4 жыл бұрын
Летуны супер!!!
@SandorDaroci5 жыл бұрын
Geez. Dancing like an UFO!
@Omar14211810 жыл бұрын
Love the T-50 PAK FA
@georgebush2798 Жыл бұрын
The best display out there
@blandetto7 жыл бұрын
на сегодня лучший "легкий" маневренный истребитель.
@hocndinemahfoud23132 жыл бұрын
The best manoeuvrable Fighter Jet in the world... MIG 29
@eljay83111 жыл бұрын
nice vid
@daongoccuongdao142310 жыл бұрын
mig that tuyet
@Sweetblood77711 жыл бұрын
Russian designers put all they have into their designs. American designers put new tech into theirs but don't do the very best that they can, because they want to use that in future aircraft contracts. The mindset of the two peoples are totally different. The Americans want more money, while the Russians want what is the very best for their country. Americans need to remind themselves what JFK said, 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country. The difference can be really seen when aircraft fly almost as if they are UFOs.
@Leon-Hardt11 жыл бұрын
Oh My God!...Russia rule!
@ДимонДизель-г8е11 жыл бұрын
Чёткий дрифт аппарат.
@ThanatosSGD111 жыл бұрын
too bad MiG bureau is nearly dead nowadays... Sukhoi took over all big jobs
@SkipperSancho11 жыл бұрын
... and this fly is a very great russion ballett...
@ОлегКравец-з8щ4 жыл бұрын
Слава МИГу и его создателям.
@saptono9 жыл бұрын
Beyond league!
@rowemm9 жыл бұрын
Eindrucksvolle Vorführung.Ich glaube nicht,dass es in Frankreich Triebwerke mit Vektordüsen gibt,oder vIelleicht eins in Versuch.Wie gross ist aber die Lebensdauer einer solchen Düse.Ist das Fluckzeug einsatzfähig oder nur eine Experimentalmaschine ?
@Kayzef20035 жыл бұрын
Sorry to say this... But the is NO NATO aircraft capable of doing stuff like this. 😮😮😮
@eulereix11 жыл бұрын
And this "thing" pilot vas Pavel Vlasov.
@henry423711 жыл бұрын
eso si es un Sr. piloto
@majidsaeed74294 жыл бұрын
BUTY & THE BEST. SUPERB.
@istvanvarga349812 жыл бұрын
Mouch better in aerobatics than F-18 Super Hornet. Not to speak of Eurofighter or Gripen. However the MIG Industries aren't far to bankruptcy.
@saptono10 жыл бұрын
say goodbye to western jet fighters!
@bouncer666thesatan10 жыл бұрын
すげぇ~!!!!
@eulereix11 жыл бұрын
In terms of maneuverability this "thing" is better then any other modern aircraft, to name a few : SU35S, SU30MKI, T50-PAKFA, F22. Only other aircraft that could do all this was SU37 "terminator" (with Evgeny Frolov ofcourse). Too bad that project was canceled and the only prototype ( 711) crashed in 2002.
@gordongekko47664 жыл бұрын
UFO mode on
@voldav66919 жыл бұрын
Против такого в небе ничто не устоит!
@grozd10211 жыл бұрын
Вдох глубокий, руки шире, не спешите три- четыре!
@coll56511 жыл бұрын
Mig is a part of russian defence concern, which is founding from russian military spendings. it cant be buncrupt.
@olivieraero2 жыл бұрын
Coool👍👍👍👍💪💪💪💪😃😃😃
@Mach1Airspace10 жыл бұрын
Great plane for an air show but let's be practical: the Dogfight Era is gone, long since replaced with today's Stealth Era. If you don't have it, then hey, you ain't got it. This jet's maneuverability is phenomenal but it's modern era fighter capability is no match for cutting edge stealth aircraft and no one even comes close to the level of US stealth technology.
@bahnstormero10 жыл бұрын
There's a thing called elecronic warefare - in case the radars don't work, the maneuverability remains. Stealth is more a trademark, than a real technology - all modern missiles don't distinguish between a stealth and non-stealth target - they all reflect the radiowaves in meter range absolutely equally. You also can hit the stealth aircrafts even with very old soviet missiles from 60ies - like it happened once with the F-117.
@Mach1Airspace10 жыл бұрын
bahnstormero It's delusional (with all due respect) to attempt to include US Stealth technology in your 'trademark' category that granted most other country's level (including Russia) appropriately do fit. The breakthrough came when the Raptor was in design mode. The Raptor wasn't shelved because it's stealth didn't work (as many jealous 'experts' love to claim) but because maintenance for it wasn't cost effective. But US stealth? In a word: 'scary'. It consistently and reliably reduces the aerodynamic footprint of any jet to the size of a small bird. Now the same 5th generation US technology has been applied to the F-15 and F/A-18 Hornet. It always comes down to the same basic equation: you simply can't kill what you can't see. In summation: the current level of US stealth technology makes every other country's 'modern' jet fleet obsolete.
@ЮрийСм-н1т10 жыл бұрын
а зачем тогда на F-22 используется управляемый вектор тяги?
@Mach1Airspace10 жыл бұрын
Юрий См Good question. The Raptor was initially intended for stealthy air dominance but YES it is still vulnerable to detection at certain times such as when they carry external store, rejoin with tankers or talk on the radio (secure or unsecure ones). Then they DO become more vulnerable to detection. Better to have TVC (Thrust Vector Capability) and not need it then to need it and not have it.
@Mach1Airspace10 жыл бұрын
Ognjen Davidovic Hey, like I said, it's awesome technology - but only for an airshow. It's totally useless in practical applications. Bottom line? Russia mastered thrust vectoring, the US mastered stealth. I'll take stealth over a cool airshow toy any day.
@thorstenschuchort8524 Жыл бұрын
💘👋🤟
@SuperSStanley8 жыл бұрын
Красиво!!!!Но всё для шоу,в бою все эти выкрутасы не особо нужны,манёвр при котором самолёт резко теряет скорость не нужен.Если бы он мог бы резко её набрать это другое дело,или тоже манёвр,но без потери скорости.А для шоу конечно красиво.
@hpopov12 жыл бұрын
5:52!
@thethirdman22510 жыл бұрын
***** This assumes a few things and none of those assumptions is actually safe. Stealth is of limited value and relies too heavily on the reliability of BVR missiles. Stealth aircraft are optimised against the X-band radar used in fighters but there are plenty of others like S-band, C-band, I-band, J-band and Ku-band, most of which can see and even track a "stealth" aircraft. The second thing you need to know about stealth is that even an F-22 is only stealthy from certain angles and pilots have to be very careful with the profiles they fly in order to avoid detection. Thirdly, it relies too heavily on BVR missiles. If a force package of F-22s was flying towards an oncoming force of Su-27s at a closing speed of say, 2500 km/h, the pilots would only have a few seconds to acquire and fire on the incoming EA. This assumes a Pk of 1.0 for the AMRAAM (the only BVR missile left in the US inventory) and does not go into F-pole and A-pole tactics. Closing is the real problem. The real Pk for an AMRAAM is 0.59 which is not bad but it means that nearly half the missiles will miss their targets so there will almost certainly be some survivors. Once the surviving EA get through the fighter screen, stealth is essentially useless because we're down to guns. History shows that WVR, the F-22 is vulnerable to non-stealthy aircraft like Euro canards. The next assumption people tend to make is that the EA pilots will become totally defensive, like the Syrians at the Bekaa Valley did and obligingly get themselves shot down. Any enemy pilot worth his salt in that situation would ignore the F-22s, hit the afterburners and press on to other high value targets like AWACS and tankers. So you can see that few, if any, of the assumptions about the value of stealth are actually safe ones. And stealth has nothing whatsoever to do with what you called the "aerodynamic footprint". BTW: remember the F4 in Vietnam? A USAF-sponsored study in 2008 investigated the 588 shoot downs since 1950 and found that only 24 of them took place BVR. The era of the dogfight is not over; not by a long way.
@Mach1Airspace10 жыл бұрын
Your points although well-intended are useful primarily only in a vacuum. You're over-thinking the 'what-ifs' and therefore missing the main concept of the Raptor's 5th gen Stealth Technology which is to avoid the typical 50km Radius (100kv diameter) dogfight engagement arena in the first place. True, any advantage stealth provides the F-22 during WVR (Within Visual Range) conditions are neutralized and then it comes down to pilot & machine close-sequence tactics such as superior Helmet Cueing, Thrust-Vectoring Control, AoA and target tracking, pilot training, etc., during which both fighters could very well end up in a never ending 'rate fight' - exactly what the designers of the F-22 built it to avoid.
@thethirdman22510 жыл бұрын
***** Overthinking? Vacuum? The art of tactics is to put yourself in your opponent's shoes and assume he's not stupid and that he won't fight the way you want him to. That said, all I did was to precis the Rand report. I wouldn't call that overthinking. Any assumptions made within the 50km radius were in the F-22s favour. I did not allow for jamming or use of stealthy EA either. What I am doing is showing that the value of stealth - which was extremely effective in 1991 when used for deep penetration strike mission - is less so in air superiority missions. I also pointed out, as does the Rand report, that the AIM-120, on which so much of this depends, has not been anywhere near as effective as the "one-shot-one-kill" slogan claims. The WVR scenario is only useful if your opponent decides to engage. If he ignores the F-22 and pushes on at top speed, there's not a lot the Raptors can do about it.
@Mach1Airspace10 жыл бұрын
TheThirdMan The Rand report? What am I missing? The Rand Report on this subject was explicitly directed to determine a 'what if' dog fight scenario that will never happen. No offense but you need to update your understanding to the correct perspective: During the Civil War the moment the two ironclads (Merrimack vs. Monitor - Battle of Hampton Roads, 1862) finished their battle every other 'Modern Navy' on earth became OBSOLETE. It no longer mattered to even discuss the 'what-ifs'. In post WWII after the Cruise Missile was developed all future Battleship vs. Battleship encounters became OBSOLETE. Discussion of which battleship would win a theoretical fight no longer had value. See where this is going? Beginning to grasp the rules of the new era? See the aforementioned 'vacuum' now? The moment 5th generation Stealth Technology was achieved (US has it, no one else does) every other jet fighter on earth became OBSOLETE. The only viable manner of thinking that matters now is to recognize and limit dependance on meaningless data and update realization instead to not only the fact that the dog fight era is dead but discussion of it (Eurofighter vs. F-22 etc., etc.) no longer even matters. I'm not suggesting you think outside the box - I'm telling you the box no longer exists. And yes, 5th Gen Stealth Technology IS that effective.
@thethirdman22510 жыл бұрын
***** No offence mate but you sound like a Lockheed Martin spin doctor. If you have not read the Rand report in its entirety, it is difficult to see the implications and they are not dependent solely on the scenario they outlined. Otherwise you are just putting a telescope to a blind eye. If you don't want to offend, stop using so much invective and patronage. Otherwise, go right ahead but don't expect a polite response. The Rand report shows that in the 50 years BVR has been around it has not worked except on rare occasions. The USAF, up to 2008, had fired 17 AMRAAMs for a total of 10 aircraft destroyed, including one "own goal". Four of those targets were WVR and the others were mostly non-manoeuvring. In none of those cases did the EA have any advantages at all, including functioning coherent radar, jamming support, numerical superiority or any AWACs support. It should have been a cake walk but it wasn't. The F-22 does nothing to change that situation. The US teen series fighters are all capable of BVR combat and have been since inception. The only difference is detection. (I guess you are familiar with the Boelke Dicta). I'm interested to hear your counter-argument on the Pk of the AIM-120, the very missiles these invincible weapons depend on. The hard data is out there. I'm interested to hear why you think the Rand report is wrong. Why will that scenario never happen? Don't forget the invincible battleships Japan built in WWII or the Maginot Line. They relied on assumptions that their opponents would fight a certain way. They relied on the assumption that they would be able to bring their weapons to bear on their enemies. The F-22 makes exactly that assumption. Like the Maginot Line, it only works if your opponent takes you on in the manner you want him to. Invincible weapons have a history of turning into hyper-expensive white elephants. It has already been demonstrated that there are ways around the scenario where the F-22 shoots down an enemy before the enemy pilot knows it's there and there are even ways to defeat it, even if that goal is more difficult to achieve. The scenario proposed doesn't even allow for the possibility of a coherent enemy force with jamming and stealth of its own. It asks you to use your own imagination. That's what war planners do. I'm not actually interested in the Typhoon vs F-22 argument either because it's too much fine detail in a debate which requires a big picture view. I only mentioned it in passing. If you had read either of my previous posts you will know that. You would also know that for any incoming aggressors, the targets are not the F-22s. In short, the F-22 has been built for a fighter vs fighter scenario which is the product of a bygone era. The only difference is the standoff range but if it has to happen, at a macro level, history has already shown that dogfights are still the most common way by which these conflicts are resolved. You will doubtless argue that it will not happen because of BVR etc. In a small, localised combat, like what the USAF has been doing for the past 40 years that is true. In a larger theatre conflict, it most certainly isn't.
@Mach1Airspace10 жыл бұрын
TheThirdMan I'm not sure why you're not understanding there simply is no such thing as a jet fighter vs jet fighter dog fight any more. 4 years ago when the Raptor was still prime time they tested the best fighter jet (the never been defeated F-15) on earth against it 5 to 1 over the desert sands of Utah in an all out 150 mile by 150 mile hard deck arena. In less then 30 minutes all 5 F-15's were 'shot down' and everyone of the pilots said the same thing: we simply couldn't see the Raptor - not on our radar screens and certainly not visibly. It didn't matter what they did. Nothing worked. It doesn't depend on what the Raptor pilots 'wanted' them to do because there isn't anything they could do. That was Stealth Gen 4 Technology. Gen 5? Even more insane. A new era. I'm not going to spend too much more time on this discussion. Some things you just can't teach. This is the stealth era. Dog fights are a by gone era. You either realize this and 'shelve' all those data oriented arguments and scenarios or get left behind. Good luck.
@Encrouter5 жыл бұрын
Следуя пожеланиям Жириновского, нужно было назвать модель - ВПДНС (вам п*да, даже не суйтесь). И это было в 2005 уже. Ещё бы внутри страны порядок навести.
@abowisam582210 жыл бұрын
Yes Russian keep it up & beat the USA aviation technologe.