Top Gun...

I've seen this too. It's wild to watch. During the pull up, it appears as if the tail of the airplane might hit the runway. It never does.

 

Minimum Altitude Capable (MAC) depends on a lot of things... training/proficiency of the crew, terrain and obstacles, day vs night. For training purposes there are things like birds, during migratory periods a flock of geese can kill you just as fast as anything else.

I have been down to 50 feet in some training ranges, the Herk is slower than a fighter but it’s pretty big and you have to watch things like wing dip when maneuvering. With a 132’ wing span the wing tip gets pretty low if you are at 50-100’ and start pulling a 60 degree turn.

Terrain also plays a big part in the perception of speed / altitude . Over a flat desert or ocean being super low doesn’t give you that much even if extremely low. Flying down a canyon you may be 1000’ from the bottom but if it’s tight and you have canyon walls above you on both sides it feels really fast and low.

 

I’m pretty certain that more than a couple pilots have learned the hard way after having the jet settle a bit and coming down on the belly or striking the tail.

 

Never say 'never'.... it's happened.

 

Some of the old Hun jocks I flew with would take an F-111D down to 25' with the range officer's permission. Usually at around 540 KTAS. Just a blur to me when I was a lieutenant. Flatter than a flitter in Eastern NM on Melrose Range. Most ranges were limited to 100' and you got fouled if you went below that. During Fighter Weapons School, we flew F-111As at 100' and Mach 1.1 on the Nellis ranges.

 

Is there still ground effect when supersonic that low to the ground? Just one of those things I wonder about...

 

Mark- Not that affects something 70,000 lbs or so with very limited wing area at 54-72.5 degrees wing sweep.