Own Your Own Fighter Jet 222
gimmebeer writes "The Russian Sukhoi SU-27 has a top speed of Mach 1.8 (more than 1,300 mph) and has a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1 to 1. That means it can accelerate while climbing straight up. It was designed to fight against the best the US had to offer, and now it can be yours for the price of a mediocre used business jet."
WTB: Aircraft Carrier (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bill
Re: (Score:2)
I saw these fly at Farnborough a few years ago. Absolutely beautiful to watch - they showed a manoeuvre where the plan banks to a straight stall, then just stops and hovers. Any pursuing craft flies straight past. It was a bit old then (just there for the display, they weren't selling them), and wasn't much use as a combat manoeuvre anyway because it was introduced in an age when close dogfighting was already largely obsolete, but it looked impressive.
And, since you mention it, while I was there a girl
Re:WTB: Aircraft Carrier (Score:4, Insightful)
The cobra maneuver. Speed = Energy. In a turn and burn contest the pilot with the must energy wins, especially once it goes into the vertical. They would never use that maneuver in a knife fight. The loss of speed is death in a dogfight. Just because you saw it on top gun doesn't make it an effective tactic. It is more to show the ability of the vectored thrust to allow the plane to turn in ways a traditional fighter jet can not.
Nothing new (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Still waiting to get my own F-14.
Good luck with that. You'd have to go to Iran for spare parts, and it'd be impossible to get that through customs.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
Bull, but nice try at humor. If they were to put surplus F4s on the market, there would also be a glut of spare parts. The F4 is one of the most plentiful in the boneyard.
He said F-14, not F-4. The Tomcat, not the Phantom. The only F-14s still in operation are located in Iran, and they were the sole purchasers of F-14 spare parts after the aircraft was retired in the US. This is why the production and sale of F-14 parts was halted back in 2007.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maintaining combat aircraft isn't particularly difficult.
Maintaining them without parts is _extremely_ difficult, and requires cannibalizing (cann'ing) parts from the rest of the fleet.
Even the US Air Force has a managed cann program and each squadron normally designates one cann jet. The cann birds are normally brought back up every thirty days by using the next cann bird, which ensures they don't get torn down too far. This continues on deployments, with a cann bird being chosen out of each group deployed
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Follow Up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's usually like that around the world. Here you can buy http://lighthouse.boatnerd.com/gallery/StLawrence/PrinceShoal.htm [boatnerd.com] for 1$. The government doesn't want it anymore.
Have fun with the maintenance though.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
I remember a story from almost 10 years back that you could buy a Mig-21 for $14k
Here are some fighter jet stories from 2006: Buying A Fighter Jet? [airliners.net] and another from Wired: Building Your Own Air Force, One Mig at a Time [wired.com] [2005]
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is they cannot be operated in US airspace by a private pilot; excepting only when testing repairs or routine maintenance. Saw one a couple weeks back @ DVT. It took off, did 2 touch and go's then landed. That is probably all the flying he'll be doing this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but when you're paying $1/second for flight time, the costs of getting a waiver or finding a friendly source airport don't seem that bad.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem is they cannot be operated in US airspace by a private pilot; excepting only when testing repairs or routine maintenance.
I'm curious why. Certainly, older generations of America fighter aircraft are permitted - Michael Dorn flies his F-86 Sabre all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick glance @ Dorn's wiki seems to suggest previous and current military affiliations may allow him benefits private aviators do not enjoy?
Re: (Score:2)
It'll never happen. The Tomcats are all scheduled to be either scrapped, mothballed, or go to museums. Given the perceived risk of an F-14 in private ownership going to Iran, the US will never sell them to private citizens. For that matter, the US has almost never sold its military aircraft to private citizens even when the aircraft is no longer combat viable, and aircraft sold to other nations include requirements as to final disposition at end of service, which may include authorized resale, sale back
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
Not only that, but the US has even been pissy about salvage efforts. Technically, "Property of US Government" is a label that is legally binding unless they sell it to you. People interested in old warbirds for example will go out and drag up wrecked World War II fighters to restore. Some out of jungles, some out of the ocean - wherever they can find them, but they're pretty much all just junk heaps that will need a fortune sank into them to make them flyable again. IIRC, while the Navy and Marine Corps is somewhat lenient on the issue (there was no Air Force around back them), the Army has still been known to confiscate the 70 year old junk heaps claiming that they're still US Army Property.
If they're being that picky with piston engine prop-powered planes, they're definately not going to let you privately own a US military fighter jet.
In reality though, when you compare fuel burn and such, aside from pure coolness factor, it's not remotely economical for a private citizen to own a fighter jet for personal recreational flying. Besides, once you actually get into flying, most pilots find it more satisfying to fly much slower (since I, and most other private pilots I know, fly more for fun and scenery than to actually travel anywhere). A Kitfox for example is pretty close to my dream plane. High wing, small, good fuel economy, stalls at about 35MPH, and top speed is between 95-120 MPH depending on what engine it's using :).
Re: (Score:2)
If a plane ends up lost in the jungle, or shallowish water, or some other unplanned location, it isn't all that uncommon to find bits of whoever flew it there as well. It would only take a few people in the right parts of the armed forces hierarchy who are really pissed about their dead being dug up by souvenir hunters to ensure that legally enforceable(but more or less point
Re: (Score:2)
Fitfox rocks...Mauls too.
You can get into a hell of a lot of trouble even at just 200mph, let alone 1000 mph.
Re: (Score:2)
there is even some issues with the F-35 thats not even in production yet.
a number of nato nations pitched in on the development costs, with the understanding of buying one or more of the variants when ready. But now it seems that USA considers withholding some important systems, meaning the version sold will be inferior to the equivalent operated by US forces. And this is to nato allies.
hell, its not the first time. during WW2, britain passed people and research data on a potential atomic bomb to USA. But w
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
> now it seems that USA considers withholding some important systems,
> meaning the version sold will be inferior to the equivalent operated
> by US forces. And this is to nato allies.
That's okay. If said allies want those systems, they can fab them themselves, although they may have to purchase the specifications and other engineering documents from the Chinese.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a bunch of guys in the U.S. with their own Russian made scud missiles. I recall a guy bought one a few years ago, and it showed up at the port on the west coast with a fully functional warhead and engine that the seller in Russia failed to disable as promised before shipping.
Pain at the pump (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC Malaysia and Vietnam had a couple of these, or something similar, and they seldom flew them because of the fuel bill. It has horrid fuel consumption. The range is good because it has huge fuel tanks.
The Russians made these to fight the F-15. It is very fast and agile. The weapon systems are also very good. It had these infrared missiles (AA-11 Archer) which could hit a target at a greater angle than similar NATO missiles at the time. This resulted in a flurry by NATO countries to upgrade their Sidew
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
actually, TFA says "The jets are the “UB” variant of the SU-27, never intended for combat, so they aren’t fitted with weapons." Way to make up a quote so you could pretend like you read it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that'll be the trainer variant, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Does that mean it has two seats? The trainer variant of the F/A-18 is a twin seat aircraft.
Re:Pain at the pump (Score:4, Funny)
Your mom sure knows the difference between a mere hardpoint & an actual weapon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bill
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After acquiring the aircraft, the owner could attach nonfunctional mockups for pure show.
That's a good point, but I thought what they were getting at was does the plane merely lack the weapons themselves, as in if you could get your hands on some suitable weapons you'd have an armed fighter. Weapon systems encompasses a lot more than just the weapons or the hardpoints, so it'd be rather moot whether the hardpoints were there or not since that's a lot easier to replace than the weapon electronics which they
Re: (Score:2)
Weapons and jamming systems I can understand, but why the hell would they want you to remove the radar from a plan that can travel at twice the speed of sound?
Anything you can see you will be past before you can react, whether it will be by a wide margin, straight through or anything in-between. Essentially you're giving the buyer a legitimate excuse for it slamming into an airliner. "Well, we aren't allowed to have radar. If we had a radar, we would never have hit it."
Re:Pain at the pump (Score:5, Informative)
does it still have weapon hardpoints on the wings? TFA doesn't really address that, it just says "They don't have any weapons."
These are Su-27UBs, also known as the Flanker-C. They were not fitted with weapons and were used as trainers, and were also used in the Soviet version of the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds.
Flight HRS v. Maint HRS (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, military hardware (such as humvee) cannot legally be sold in the USA if it still has the hardpoints. (which is another debate over stupidity for another thread) I'd assume the same is true for aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
which is another debate over stupidity for another thread
Bullshit. This is slashdot.. we debate stupidity wherever and whenever we want!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The aircraft arrived here in a completely de-militarized condition -- all weapons systems and military-related hardware had been previously removed, in full compliance with U.S. and Ukranian laws."
http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm [prideaircraft.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how trigger-happy the US Airforce might get if they stumbled across an SU-27 over US soil though...
Um, not at all? This isn't like 1917 and suddenly coming across a Fokker in Cornwall. It's 2009 and people file flight plans, and there are plenty of other Migs (17s, 21s, etc.) flying privately in the US.
Now, if it was shooting across the border and painted in Russian colors and not responding to radio that might a different point.
Re: (Score:2)
Sending the air force up is pretty routine now. The US does it if a passenger argues with the crew.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The USAF routinely hosts warbird collectors at base airshows, and there are plenty of MIGs. Go to the next open house in your area, it's very cool.
Anyone wanting to blow up shit and kill people could just as well rent a cargo plane, pack it to the gills with expedient explosive, and bring MUCH more to the game than a few thousand lbs of ordinary bombs.
Range? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was curious about Concorde replacements a while back and researched some of the Soviet fighters. Unfortunately they tend to have short ranges at top speed. If they could just increase the fuel capacity of a two-seater, they'd have a Concorde substitute. The ticket would probably be a lot more though, since you've got one plane and one passenger.
If you don't have the range for a trans-Atlantic hop, having supersonic capability isn't too useful in the US. You're not allowed to fly supersonic over land here because of the boom.
Maybe it'll sell in some other country where the uber-wealthy have a shorter distance to travel, and no noise restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was curious about Concorde replacements a while
back and researched some of the Soviet fighters.
For the same money you could pay Scaled Composites to build you a brand new semi ballistic glider. I bet Branson would be interested as well. How does 30 minutes to cross the Atlantic sound?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How does 30 minutes to cross the Atlantic sound?
Impossible. Shortest distance across Atlantic is ~2500km. If you want to cover it in ½ hour then your speed must be ~5000km/h. SR-71 has (had?) top speed of over 3500km/h... and you are suggesting of making plane that goes almost 50% faster?
Thats why I said a semi ballistic glider. It leaves the atmosphere on a trajectory which will cause it to re-enter on the other side of the Atlantic. The space shuttle would cross the Atlantic in less time because it is not landing, but if the emergency landing site in Spain is used that would be about half an hour after launch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But it probably didn't do it at Mach 2. If it's just at sub-sonic speeds, it's not much of a replacement for a Concord for trans-atlantic travel.
Ben Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
An elegant weapon... For a more civilized age...
Unfortunately... (Score:2, Funny)
Ummm... hangar space? (Score:2)
Okay, now that I got it, where the heck do I store it? Under the carport? Unless the sucker has the best folding wings ever, the HOA fines are gonna be a bitch.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, now that I got it, where the heck do I store it? Under the carport? Unless the sucker has the best folding wings ever, the HOA fines are gonna be a bitch.
Wired wrote an article last week about fly-in communities.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/01/spruce_creek_airpark/ [wired.com]
Ham Radio .. Hah! A flagpole does it (Score:2)
Haven't the 'important' members of the Association committed Hari-Kari yet over 'Property Values'? That's their primary obsession in life...
If not, here's a Ham Radio Antenna to push them over the edge....
All you need around these parts to piss of a HOA is a flagpole! Henrico Medal of Honor recipient, 90, ordered to remove flagpole [timesdispatch.com]
Blatant Slashvertizing (Score:2, Informative)
There's probably a refId for Slashdot somewhere...
One can dream... (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was younger, I remember touring the Air National guard and asking the tour leader if I could by a fighter jet. He responded that to own a fighter jet, I'd have to find one in the Arizona boneyard and it would cost about 5 million dollars. In the 80's, the F16 cost 5 million each (or so I was told...)
However, even had I the money today, I'm not so sure I would buy one.
My uncle was in the Air Force, and actually flew in an F4 phantom. He had three remarks:
Today, I'm content to fly simulators because I can get a feel for the experience without the attendant risk and cost. Were I flying a 5 million dollar aircraft, I would be very reticent to try the kind of manuevers I do in the simulator, simply because of the risk involved. In the simulator, I can try spins and stalls and rolls that prudence would forbid in the real world.
But it would still be cool to own a fighter jet.
Re: (Score:2)
Remark 2 is a bid weird considering that he was flying F-4...not the most agile of fighters, too often lost, also because of that, even against subsonic MiGs. Plus #2 isn't really universally true, there were different eras in philosophy of fighter design after WW2, not always emphasizing maneuverability.
Also, I'm surprised he didn't quote "F-4 - triumph of engine power over aerodynamics" ;p
BTW, if you are willing to make a distinction between "flying" (in a sim) and owning a fighter jet - many are quite af
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I'm surprised he didn't quote "F-4 - triumph of engine power over aerodynamics" ;p
It's the same with a lot of modern aircraft, which is why I'd be more interested in something WWII vintage for fun flying. It's fun watching planes that the pilot can just point straight up, open the throttle, and hover, but it rather takes the fun away.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, and at the same time it's definitely not the case with...a lot of other modern aircraft; just a different group.
Take this SU-27 from the topic, for example. Yes, it has thrust vectoring and fly-by-wire. But the airframe, its aerodynamics, is basically shared with MiG-29, which has none of those "cheats", good old direct pilot input. And it's aerodynamically...fabulous. It can perform cobra maneuver ffs! (yes, pre-FBW MiG-29 too). And operate from improvised airfields, so it might be a better choice fo
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In the simulator, I can try spins and stalls and rolls that prudence would forbid in the real world.
You should have married Felicity, the fun sister, instead. (At least you didn't get stuck with Chastity...)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
recovering from a dive can actually be much more difficult than entering one, because the fuel shifts forward, changing the aircraft's center of gravity.
Yes, Neil Armstrong discovered that, 6000 up over Tranquility Base. I think it was part of the reason he landed so low on fuel. He waited for the slosh to subside.
Re: (Score:2)
yep, the F-16 and later have used fly by wire (basically the same as your desktop flight sim joystick) for controls, rather then the hydraulics used in something like the F-4.
btw, the claim about anything after WW2 being unstable by design is not really true. Even the F-16 was supposedly designed for being stable rather then unstable. Its the most recent generation (rafael, eurofighter, gripen, F-22, possibly mig-29 and su-27) that have that feature. And those make use of fly by wire for stability if ever t
Re:One can dream... (Score:4, Informative)
yep, the F-16 and later have used fly by wire (basically the same as your desktop flight sim joystick) for controls, rather then the hydraulics used in something like the F-4.
btw, the claim about anything after WW2 being unstable by design is not really true. Even the F-16 was supposedly designed for being stable rather then unstable. Its the most recent generation (rafael, eurofighter, gripen, F-22, possibly mig-29 and su-27) that have that feature. And those make use of fly by wire for stability if ever the pilot lets go of the stick (early accidents related to gripen was related to control computers and pilot getting into something of a race condition when trying to recover from stall like conditions, iirc).
From what i have read, the F-16, for example, is so stable that if the nose is pointing towards the horizon, and the pilot where to eject, the plane would continue on until it ran out of fuel.
You fundamentally misunderstand this.
The plane is made unstable by design. This is basically to inbuild a level of 'agility', I guess you can compare this to a car that gets a very short wheelbase or similar things that can be done to alter physics. The aircraft is then made stable by the flight control systems. Computers that continually make adjustments to keep the aircraft stable - something that can't be done by hand. The fact that a pilot ejects out is meaningless. So long as the flight conputer is working/active, the aircraft would fly on until it runs out of fuel, or until it veers out of control naturally
The fly by wire is an added area that is simply made to improve the pilot to system interface. You have no choice on this, as the computer has to have priority over control.
Re: (Score:2)
And for those about to comment on that, computers are the only reason you can fly an unstable aircrafts in the first place
Absolutely. I was at a talk a few years back describing the F117's user interface systems. In the kind of things I've flown, there's a mechanical connection between each control and some flight surface. Move the stick forward and it pulls a cable and the elevators on the tail move. Push the pedal and a cable pulls the rudder. The F117 is an extreme case in the opposite direction. There is a huge amount of software effort giving you something that feels like that's still what you're doing, but in prac
How many pepsi points is this gonna cost me? (Score:4, Funny)
Certification (Score:2, Interesting)
Good luck on getting FAA certification, and permission to fly one of those in US airspace. And I'm pretty sure its not legal for a private jet to go over mach 1
Re:Certification (Score:5, Informative)
There's nothing stopping you from owning and flying surplus military aircraft- even fighters. There are tons of them out there, especially cold war trainers from both sides (think t-38). There are even a few people out there flying their own p-51's, although each time one crashes the number goes down permanently. There are private businesses that will even fly you around in one.
Here's one:
http://millionairesconcierge.com/fighterjets.htm [millionair...cierge.com]
Here's an extensive list of businesses:
http://www.thirtythousandfeet.com/rentride.htm [thirtythousandfeet.com]
---
Yes, you are correct that you would be limited to mach .9 just like our own military. The air force stopped flying supersonic over the mainland shortly after this fiasco:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests [wikipedia.org]
The primary reason these surplus jets would be unrealistic to own is the maintenance involved. You could do it yourself, if you knew every aircraft-specific system well enough to sign off on your own repairs. You'd spend a few weeks doing maintenance for every flight hour. Finding parts would be a nightmare. The engine alone would keep you on the ground for seemingly minor issues. Or you could hire a crew to do your maintenance, and put your life in their hands. The going rate for a freelance certified NDI tech with his own equipment is about $200-400/hr. Maintenance costs many, many times the original price of any fighter aircraft.
I work in air combat combat command aircraft maintenance, fwiw.
-b
How about a whole squadron? (Score:2)
jets good, old jets better (Score:2)
Best part? I get to help maintain it for him, being a certified system technician and all.
Re: (Score:2)
you can eject at over Mach 2 and survive!
What's the point of that? TFA says the plane's top speed is only Mach 1.8
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you can eject at over Mach 2 and survive!
What's the point of that? TFA says the plane's top speed is only Mach 1.8
That's called a "safety margin".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It IS safe! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but of course it's your 5 million dollar jet you're ejecting from and not tax-payers, not to mention the bill the US gov't might hit you with for having to clean up the jet scattered over 10 acres. [74.125.95.132]
Of course this is a good deal for drug traffickers [narconews.com]. With a 4,000 kg normal payload capacity [aerospaceweb.org] and cocaine selling for $23,000 per kg [narcoticnews.com] you'd make almost 100 million in one trip, and who's going to try stopping a jet traveling Mach 2? [aerospaceweb.org]
Re: (Score:2)
These days you don't have the proper flight plan and don't respond to hails a few missiles will stop you pretty fast... and while its a good fighter jet if unarmed its not going survive long against current generation fighters + missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... who's going to try stopping a jet traveling Mach 2? [aerospaceweb.org]
I'm just guessing [airforce.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Squatting on it I suppose.
Most of the government is doing that (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is for a lot of clueless users, .com is what everything on the Internet ends with. They aren't aware there are other addresses. They are especially unaware of the .gov address, since it is fairly rare. So a lot of government agencies have said "To hell with it," and registered their .com address. The post office was one of the first I can think of. www.usps.gov still works, but just redirects you to www.usps.com which is their site now. They are still a government agency, they just use a .com address.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"who's going to try stopping a jet traveling Mach 2?"
Hundreds of pilots currently sitting alert would get a huge woody at the chance to put an AMRAAM or two into a MIG.
If it gets in, it still has to escape over water or lightly inhabited areas. It could punch off a simple pod to deliver drugs (the common USAF travel pod is an old napalm cannister with a door in the side and (obviously, because it would scatter valuable golf clubs) no fuses, but the aircraft could still be presumed hostile and shot down. Any
Re: (Score:2)
Smugglers would be far better off sending modern UAVs. Seriously, fly model airplanes across the Mexican border.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Russian fighter's ejection seats are far more safe than the US ones - you can eject at over Mach 2 and survive!
And Blackbird crews using Western seats have ejected at over Mach 3 and survived...
What really matters for ejection is dynamic pressure, not airspeed: a Blackbird ejection at Mach 3 at 80,000+ feet is equivalent to around 400mph at sea level. I doubt, for example, that a Russian fighter pilot could survive a Mach 2 ejection at sea level if they could actually reach that speed.
Re:It IS safe! (Score:4, Informative)
I think the difference in speed you are referring to is that the Russian seat is measured in kilometers and the US seat is in Knots. The Russian design is rated to about 1400kph, while the US design is 600 knots. If you do the simple math, that doesn't make them equal, until you realize that 600 knots is much much faster at altitude (because of air density,) where kilometers is a fixed distance. 600 knots at sea level is about ~1100kph, but at 35,000 feet, it is ~1400kph.
Remember, the limiting factor isn't the seat itself, it's that soft squishy part that the seat is design to hold. Russian or US designs don't differ in that respect.
Bill
Re: (Score:2)
The Aces II has a "success" rate of about 90% when operating outside the ejection envelope and about 95% within the envelope.
Thats not much of an envelope!
Re:It IS safe! (Score:4, Informative)
Civilian operated aircraft in the US aren't allowed to have ejection seats. All of the privately owned warbirds have to have their ejection systems removed or rendered inoperable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Installing modern avionics might attract more attention from your domestic security agencies though. Far better from their perspective that your aircraft is a not particularly functional fossil.
Civil GPS units stop working above a particular speed so they can't be used in cruise missiles. If you install a GPS which works above mach 1, expect some questions about your intentions.
Re: (Score:2)
Just back it up to his front door.
Knock, and when he comes to the door, hit the afterburners.
No more loud neighbor problems.
Even if he never opens the door.
Re: (Score:2)
and mow your front lawn with it - YEEIIII!!!!
As a fiddler crabs its easier - claw size is genetic, one can only wave quicker to score.
I am giving up all the moderations I imparted on this article because I have to ask:
What the fuck?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know if you're being serious or not about the first question, but the answer is no. You'd drive to your hangar or charter company, walk right in, and fly away. These facilities are usually located a good distance away from the commercial terminals. There might be a security gate or something, but that's more to protect the private property than to screen you.
I've been flying in military aircraft for years, and we never deal with that bs. Park and ride, and the only trade-off is hauling your own lugg