Slashdot Mirror


Navy Jet eBayed - Some Assembly Required?

madmancarman writes "The world's only F/A-18 Hornet in private ownership, formerly a Navy Blue Angel Jet, is for sale on eBay. The initial asking price? $1 million unassembled, or $9 million assembled and certified airworthy 'with your choice of paint' - more info is available via a Yahoo News story. I wonder how much it would cost to fully arm it? The same person selling the F/A-18 is also selling a 1950's T-33, and claims they'll soon be auctioning off an F-16 and a Mig-29 as well. Build your own air force for fun and profit!"

704 comments

  1. Assembly AND Military Experience Required by andyrut · · Score: 5, Informative

    While owning a Blue Angel would be awesome, it's unlikely a civilian would actually get any flight time in such a vehicle. To fly it, you'd need a Letter of Authorization because there's no FAA type certification for this aircraft - and unless you're an ex-military pilot, you've basically got no chance of getting an LOA.

    Even if you were to get an LOA, to fly it you'd have to get permission from the FAA to put it in the air every time you take off. So add your own private island to the total cost if you actually want to fly it without hassle.

    So unless you're ex-military, you'd have yourself a $9 million lawn ornament.

    1. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by B3ryllium · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You can acquire a private island for less than $9 million. A fair bit less.

    2. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 1

      A $9 million lawn ornament that lots of people are willing to buy.

      --
      thisnukes4u.net
    3. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by chia_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well...there ARE plenty of ex-military pilots out there. How many have $9 million is beyond me.

      I wonder what the legalities of such are. The government imposes rules on exporting software and supercomputers to other nations. Can you really buy a current military plane? Can someone buy it without a background check? Kinda scary actually...

      --

      "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    4. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1

      Larry Ellison probably wouldn't mind adding a F-18 to his collection (IIRC he already has a MIG-29). And he has enough money and clout to railroad an LOA or to buy his own island to fly it from.

      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    5. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are tons of ex-military guys out there who could fly this and afford it. Bob Lutz has a friggin MiG.

      An ex-Blue Angel told CNN that their aircraft are stripped of weapons systems before they even get them, so to answer the story poster's question: It would cost the same to arm it as it would a Cessna or anything else.

    6. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by stilwebm · · Score: 1

      You can, but that won't come with a landing strip, and like won't come with enough room for the landing strip. This is all moot though, because the seller cannot export the item (nor can the bidder).

    7. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All that aside, how much would it cost, in terms of fuel and maintenance, to get it in the air?

      I asked someone at an airshow this question, and they said a "mission" cost between $100k (just to take off and land) to $1m (to do a lot more than take off and land).

      It might be substantially more expensive than that for a private person who doesn't have the huge infrastructure needed to maintain it.

      I have to agree with the other poster on this thread - Larry Ellison is likely to be a seller. Or a buyer. He's one of the few people in the world who could actually afford to run it on a regular basis.

      Bob Lutz is another possibility, but I don't know if he's rich enough.

      D

    8. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've known a couple of folks that own a Saab Draken and Mig-15's and it turns out civilians can own and fly such vehicles. You do need LOA's, and there are other restrictions such as not being able to exceed the sound barrier (at least in US airspace).

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    9. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by aml666 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job." Yes but if you had only one woman and needed 4 children, it would take four times longer to produce the desired lot. Four women could get four children done in a quarter of the time.

      --
      www.thejulingtoncreekplantaion.com
    10. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by EverlastGobstopp · · Score: 5, Funny

      If we can't get a LOA to fly it, can we drive it on the roads? The engines would certainly discourage tailgating

    11. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hey retard - ever heard of quintuplets?

    12. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by eth00 · · Score: 1

      That sounds about right its very expensive to fly any fighter jet. I remember back in the very early 80's it was well over one million dollars to train a Air Force fighter pilot. It would be a very nice lawn ornament and unless you had alot of money would remain that. On the other hand it would be something for those people that have everything...right next to the aircraft carrier.

    13. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by djtack · · Score: 2, Informative

      So unless you're ex-military, you'd have yourself a $9 million lawn ornament.

      Perhaps, but it seems there are some vets out there with money. Here's an interesting article about the Czech-built L39 Albatros (among others) being flown as a civilian sport jet.

    14. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's a solution to a different problem. If you just want one child, there's no way to speed the process up by parallelism. Anyway, it's a joke, as I explain in this journal entry.

      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    15. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by SiliconJesus101 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Uhmmm...no. It's classified "experimental" and could in fact be flown by a private individual. This is the same thing that is done with the old warbirds, Mig 21's and bombers that private parties fly. More info can be found here: http://www.utility-aircraft.com/catalog/certificat e/index.htm

      You do need an actual special reason for flying the plane, but aside from that it is quite possible for a private party to own and fly a military jet.

      --

      "The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
      -Thucydides

    16. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Blimey85 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it supposedly comes with bomb racks according to the ebay description.

      --
      How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
    17. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by B3ryllium · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's a plane ... what are they going to do, send out an F117A and shoot you down?

      Come to think of it, they would, wouldn't they? Nevermind. Just buy the island and get out of the damned country. :)

    18. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AJWM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On the other hand, if you buy it unassembled, you could assemble it yourself and have it qualified as an experimental aircraft, plus save $8million. You'd still have to follow the rules for experimental aircraft, but that's true of any homebuilt.

      --
      -- Alastair
    19. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was perfectly legal to exceed the sound barrier in the US so long as you were not over a city's airspace.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    20. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by p4ul13 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If a private citizen has a spare 9 Million $ kicking around, then they could probably hire an ex-military pilot to train them.

      as for getting permission to take off; money could probably ease that process a bit as well.

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    21. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by pbox · · Score: 1

      Would you explain it to Travolta? Last I remember he never been ex-military.

      My guess is also that he is the one selling this?

      --
      Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
    22. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by rogerwong · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's currently impossible to get a Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the FAA, because the FAA have phased out LOAs.

      Instead, you now get certified, by an authorized instructor, for certain classes of experimental aircraft. The DC-F18 is part of Group IX, along with the F-15 and Mig 29.

      See this FAA document for more details:
      http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/news/n_8700-24.pdf

    23. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Mod+Me+God · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure a bomb rack would hurt if you dropped it on someone's head.

      --
      --

      FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
    24. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by flewp · · Score: 5, Informative

      If they sent out an F117 you'd be lucky. It has no air to air capabilities.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    25. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by sfjoe · · Score: 4, Funny

      So unless you're ex-military, you'd have yourself a $9 million lawn ornament.

      I think my next-door neighbor is hiding WMD (or so my intelligence indicates) so this fighter might be just the thing for this imminent threat.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    26. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by JoScherl · · Score: 1

      I just need toget the export rights from the USA and possibility to import it to another land with less restrictions.

    27. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Ahem this is very wrong.

      I have friends that build their own aircraft and have flown one of those non-certification aircraft.

      It's called experemential. and NO you dont have to get authorization every time you fly it.

      In fact here in my town a rich old fart owns a retired Intruder and flys it quite often. it also has an experemental tag on it.

      there are ways around the wierd FAA rules.. private aeronautics engineers have been doing it for the past 100 years.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    28. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...but aside from that it is quite possible for a private party to own and fly a military jet.

      If you don't like second-hand stuff, can you just go to Boeing and buy a new one?

      Just asking

    29. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      No - if that were true we would have had flights from NY to LA via Concorde 40 years ago, bypassing urban areas on the way

    30. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by M1FCJ · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Allegedly such (back to combat configuration) conversions are trivial. Google couldn't find me a web site but I recall reading an article on one of the rec.mil* newsgroups some time ago such a conversion was done to prove it is possible and it took less than 24 hours (provided that you already have everything you need in stock).

      A high performance military jet is still a military jet. They can be used for all sorts of purposes, recon being one.

      I live very close to Imperial War Museum's Duxford Airfield in Cambridge and occassionaly go there to have a walk. They have a number of jet combat aircraft owned by private organizations/people.

    31. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by silconous · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Jet holds 10800 lbs of JP5 without External fuel tanks.

      I know I used to work on them in the Avionics shop VMFA-232

    32. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, now Concorde's gone the US govt. will miraculously repeal that particular edict just in time for Boeing to introduce a supersonic airliner.

      Betcha.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    33. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by The+Dobber · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cept of course if they take you out while its sitting up on cinder block in the backyard.

    34. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is someone going to pull you over and give you a speeding ticket for doing so?

    35. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by treat · · Score: 0

      If this was a concern, why wouldn't they fly a few miles out, turn around, and break the soundbarrier over international waters? NY and LA are both next to the ocean.

    36. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 5 kids, smartass.
      I believe you're thinking of quadruplets.

    37. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      You don't seriously measure liquid in pounds, do you?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    38. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Funny
      You do need an actual special reason for flying the plane
      Does strafing the neighbours' backyard count as a 'reason'?

      But seriously, what would such a special reason be? Airshows?
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    39. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Cylix · · Score: 1

      Well hell...

      There goes my dream of flying an F-16. (I was hoping to win the lottery one day to afford the purchase price). Yeah, I'm a sucker for a nice plane and I probably would blow all of my winnings on something silly.

      Unfortunately, I have yet to win the lottery, but then again I have yet to purchase a lottery ticket. (The lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math)

      Maybe I could setup a paypal account and ask everyone to give me money for my very own F-16. In return, if the slashdot community would help me purchase said assault aircraft I would inturn be highly influenced to target practice over some highly loathesome corporate office. *cough* sco *cough*

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    40. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      ... I thought the B2 ("Stealth Bomber") had no Air-To-Air? Why is the F117A called a "Stealth Fighter" if it can't fight?

    41. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by M1FCJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you are flying, it's the weight that counts.

    42. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's air-to-ground genius.

    43. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      The military usually measures the fuel load on fighters in pounds. IIRC they weigh fighters prior to launching off aircraft carriers, so they can set the catapaults for the right power.

    44. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by patrick_jones · · Score: 1

      because when you are flying faster than the speed of sound the "sonic boom" happens all the time, not just when you break the "sound barrier".

      or so i have heard...

      --
      Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
    45. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can think of one, but I reckon he got his flight status revoked in 1972 due to being AWOL.

    46. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      It is very popular in England, I see one flying off Duxford airdfield once in a while. Although it is not supersonic, it is considerable faster than other warbirds located in Duxford (WWI&WWII beasts).

    47. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by ceejayoz · · Score: 1, Funny

      What, and proceed to fly from NY to LA via the North Pole or the tip of South America?

    48. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by sacherjj · · Score: 1

      aircraft carrier? Replace that "m" on the front with a "b".

    49. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      If the US government restricts the sale of G4 Macs to other countries, I'd say it's a fair bet they have a few rules for who can get an F/A-18 fighter jet...

    50. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by FlyGirl · · Score: 1

      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."

      You also didn't mention the fact that you MUST assign at least one woman because NO amount of men can EVER accomplish the task. :-)

      (of course, it's also difficult for a woman to initiate the task solo)

    51. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by nolife · · Score: 1

      Weight is the standard fuel measurement for aircraft and ships, not volume. The weight change/use/distribution is a major factor for stable travel so it is used as the figure. I guess they could multiply it out to get a gallon figure but everything else about these craft is operationally based on weight so they just use that.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    52. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think his current millitary rank might override that.

    53. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by jhunsake · · Score: 1, Insightful

      (The lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math)

      Not always. Frequently (enough) the expected payout goes above the purchase price. This is especially true of the big ones such as PowerBall.

    54. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I thought even the American military used Metric units - isn't a "click" a kilometre?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    55. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      That is not true. Maybe if you figure in the per flight cost of the aircraft (if you divide the total cost of the aircraft by the number of flights it does over it's lifetime you might approach $100,000 but I do not even think that would. Consider this: Large Commercial passenger jets are MORE expensive than your average F-16 which probably costs $20-$30 million, and maintenance costs are probably equivalent to much larger. If it cost Delta $200,000 for every round trip flight. The average Airbus 320 series costs well over $200 Million and carry around 150 passengers. Even if a roundtrip ticket cost $1000 they would still not even come close to breaking even.

    56. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Because the Air Force has a sense of humor.

      IIRC, the F117A's max loadout is a pair of 2000lb laser-guided bombs.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    57. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by CrazyTalk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thats what they tought us in school (I was an Aero Eng major a lifetime ago). Interestingly, IIRC if you go really, really fast (hypersonic, > Mach 5) the shock wave becomes so narrow and close to the plane that sonic booms are no longer a problem. Its only around the low Mach numbers that you get these really wide shock waves that still have a lot of strength when they hit the ground.

    58. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by headGasket · · Score: 4, Informative

      WHAT??!?! According to this article flying a MiG21 costs about 500 gallons of jet fuel for 15 minutes. Double that for a F18 your at 4000 gallons an hour; about 10 000$ an hour. You can do a lot more than take off and land in an hour.

      --
      6E8C 8721 B3D9 5269 5A9B 1122 00C3 C03D 99A7 1CFC
    59. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by dj51d · · Score: 4, Informative

      Typically such an aircraft would be registered Experimental/Exhibition and the allowed uses are for exhibition(airshows) and proficiency flights. Any flight not for an airshow is considered a proficiency flight.

    60. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by sshack · · Score: 1

      Could you claim it was a homebuilt?

    61. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      That's classified son, as is the whereabouts of all of your tax dollars.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    62. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by PierceLabs · · Score: 1

      More than likely - looks like someones dot com money is running out.

    63. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Because the sonic boom is heard whenever you are exceeding the speed of sound, not just the moment you exceed it.

    64. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ummm... no... It can also carry sidewinders, they jsut never do... how often have we used them against any credible military? How many Iraqi planes got off the ground 5?

    65. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by trentblase · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, he flew a Stealth Bomber in Broken Arrow. And I'm sure they kicked him out after stealing the nukes. Hence, ex-military.

    66. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the Boeing plane would be subject to the vagaries of the free market, unlike the state-funded Concorde.

      Let's face it --- Europe can't compete in the marketplace.

    67. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Yes but I believe they still measure fuel in libres. Don't ask me why. Also I think it is spelled "klicks". Still, many information about the aircrafts are given in imperial units. The thrust, weight (loaded&unloaded), lift and speed are in imperial units. Btw, the most common speed unit is knots, not mph or km/h and knots is a naval unit measured by a number of knots on a rope that's trailing the ship in a given time period.

    68. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you might be able to own the plane, and it might be "airworthy", there's no way that this plane has milspec radar, fire control systems, military comm systems, milspec engines, flight computers or other milspec avionics, so on and so forth. This plane will have been "santitized" for civilian use in a major way, and probably was when it became a "Blue Angel" vehicle. So, no "starting an air force"... it's like buying a police cruiser on Ebay: no police stuff onboard anymore.

    69. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by SiliconJesus101 · · Score: 1
      I imagine that it would be for airshows and/or possibly charity work (i.e. the last airworthy Heinkel HE-111 CASA 2.111 that crashed in 2003 I believe) which was flown to bring in money for the Commemorative Air Force. Also, my guess is that the movie industry would have a pretty good shot at having a military jet for filming purposes.

      Of course, the FAA can pretty much deny your application as they see fit, but as long as you have had training on the particular plane you are wanting to own/fly and you meet one of the special conditions required I'm sure that it would not be an issue.

      --

      "The strong will do what they want, the weak will do what they must."
      -Thucydides

    70. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      You're a chef in the National Guard, aren't you?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    71. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by chman · · Score: 1

      But that's because the L-39's are fairly cheap and come with free home delivery.

      --
      This comment was formatted for readability, but I forgot the line break tags
    72. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Never understood why aircraft speeds were measured in knots - that's a pretty strange convention seeing as military 'planes started out in the army rather than the navy.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    73. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Ah, but don't they end up selling proportionately more tickets as the jackpot increases? If multiple people hit the jackpot, you have to split it. Do you have any references to expected payout calculations of recent large jackpots? I tried to find some a while ago, but failed.

    74. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, coz Boeing has no dealings with the US govt. at all.

      Are you insane?

      BTW, is this the same marketplace that the US DOESN'T ALLOW the Japanese to compete in?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    75. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      1. Buy jet for $1 Million
      2. Hire off-duty Navy personnel to assemble and maintain it
      3. Save ~$7.5 Million by doing so
      4. Buy private island after bargaining like crazy
      5. ???
      6. PROFIT!

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    76. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by paganizer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why spend that much?

      Especially when you can have your very own Aircraft Carrier for less money!

      The Vengeance was refitted in 1998, so it's probably still in fair shape, and they WERE asking only 4 million, but now they are asking for best offer.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    77. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by ShortedOut · · Score: 1

      Pshaw, who needs FAA approval? Get the latest flight sim to get used to the instruments, then get Lou Gosset Jr. to train you how to fly it.

      When that 3'd world dictator kidnaps your dad, you'll be ready to kick ass Iron Eagle style!!!

    78. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by fm6 · · Score: 1
      To fly it, you'd need a Letter of Authorization because there's no FAA type certification for this aircraft - and unless you're an ex-military pilot, you've basically got no chance of getting an LOA.
      I don't think that the buyer is supposed to fly it. Read this part:
      The current owner will assemble aircraft making it airworthy, with your choice of paint for 9Million Guaranteed, with a lease back offer paying all maintance, parts, fuel, and an hourly rate to its new owner.
      In other words, the current owner probably does have permission to fly the beast, but doesn't have the $9mil needed to make it airworthy. So basically the buyer is paying $10mil, minus whatever they get back for flying time, for the right to put their colors on somebody else's plane. Advertising, in other words.
    79. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Don't know. because it is a fluid and you are measuring a speed that is relative to the fluid you are in? Measuring something trailing behind is easier than measuring speed relative to an object on the ground.

    80. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "So add your own private island to the total cost if you actually want to fly it without hassle."

      Or operate out of Key West. IIRC, the airspace around the island is still considered international.

      Besides, if you buy your own private island you'll also have to find one big enough for a proper runway. Or roll your own carrier-esque launch-and-recovery mechanisms, probably without a nuclear reactor to generate the required steam.

    81. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Detritus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Per hour costs are based on more than the cost of fuel. The military has extensive statistics on things like maintenance. You may have to pay for 30 man-hours of maintenance, on average, for each hour in the air. Then there are replacement parts, overhauls, scheduled inspections, consumables, etc.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    82. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by th1nk · · Score: 1

      Not always. Frequently (enough) the expected payout goes above the purchase price. This is especially true of the big ones such as PowerBall.

      True, but purchasing the winning number does not guarantee you the entire payout. It is split among everyone that has that same winning number.

    83. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by El · · Score: 1

      You do need an actual special reason for flying the plane Does "because my neighbors pissed me off" count?

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    84. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's it - maybe 'planes originally towed a little impeller on a line as a boat would to get its speed.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    85. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Cue "Street Fighter II" sonic-boom sound effect...

      --Actually I recall reading an article a few months ago where they were working to minimize the sonic-boom effect by re-streamlining the aircraft.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    86. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Fouquet · · Score: 1

      A nice idea, but a little difficult to implement. The crew size is 1000 persons. And the idea of this thing just sailing around the world owned by some corp. sounds like the plot of a Bond movie.

    87. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, his flight status was revoked due to his failure to take a flight physical. That was due to his status as AWALIWHW (absent without anyone looking into where he was). That status was probably, as I think David Lettermen suggested on his show by cropping a piece of tape from an earlier speech POTUS gave, due to his being at that time "a drinker," and being overly caught up in campaign work. As a Democrat who thinks Kerrey is right about the arrogance of the current administration's foreign policy, and Edwards is right about the arrogance and heartlessness of its economic policy, I still think this particular story has run its course and should be allowed to die a death. What are we going to do, impeach the man for a moral failing 30 years ago?

    88. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by gwjgwj · · Score: 1

      Throughput vs latency

    89. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative
      The Navy had made navigation a well-established science, well before the introduction of the airplane. The airplane was treated as a "ship of the air" in many other ways. It has a captain, with the final authority and responsibility for the operation of the aircraft.

      The nautical mile is equal to one second of arc along a great circle of the Earth, which is convenient for navigation. It isn't just some arbitrary unit.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    90. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by santos_douglas · · Score: 1

      Lutz currently flies a Soviet T-38, though not being a jet expert I couldn't say if this was in another league or not. He is a speed freak so he may be trading up, you never know. Actually, I'm not too sure where he keeps it. Right now he spends most of his time flying his chopper around Michigan between Ann Arbor and Detroit - a quick little commute.

    91. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      thanks, good info

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    92. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1

      The seller claims it has an N number. If it were experimental, I don't believe it would have an N number (I don't talk to many ultralight pilots because they're all idiots, but I don't believe ultralights--classified as experimental--have N numbers). On the other hand, I've become seriously vague on the FARs, so I could be mistaken.

    93. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by jmauro · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was santized when it was transfered out of the Blue Angels not when it was transfered in. The Thunderbirds and Blue Angels both use standard military equipment outfitted like any other military airplane. Radar, bomb mounts, etc. They could be used to drop bombs or intercept planes as long as the ordinace was onhand to do so. The only thing different is the paint job.

      My guess is that they removed some of the most critical items but by and large the plane still has its original engines, flight systems, etc. It looks like it just fell through the cracks.

    94. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > An ex-Blue Angel told CNN that their aircraft are stripped of weapons systems before they even get them, so to answer the story poster's question: It would cost the same to arm it as it would a Cessna or anything else.

      Well, considering that the Cessna wasn't designed specifically for air-air or air-ground combat, it might be just a bit more expensive to arm than the Hornet. An article I read once said that the USAF Thunderbirds' F-16s are disarmed for use in airshows, but are actually assigned to some squadron and put on reserve status. If they were ever needed for combat, they would be rearmed and repainted in the usual grey colors. Supposedly they could go back to active duty within 72 hours or so. I don't know that the Blue Angels have the same arrangement, but I'd expect they do.

    95. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by ivrcti · · Score: 1

      Ok, stop and check your basic math. The MiG21 can't burn 500 gallons for each 15 minutes. If so, it could only fly about 10 minutes at a pop. Since pilots normally calculate their fuel in pounds I suspect that's 500 pounds in 15 minutes, if your in full afterburner. That's about 62 gallons, a lot more reasonable.

    96. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've watched too much Discovery Wings. The F117A was given an "F" designation despite no air-to-air capability was to mollify the hot-shot fighter jocks who were chosen to fly the plane.

    97. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Informative

      A sonic boom is only a fixed boom for an individual observer, not a one time crack as the plane exceeds the speed of sound. Sonic booms are caused by shockwaves following along after the moving object. You'll only hear it once (unless you outrun the object and then wait for it to go by again), but it's a sustained shockwave for as long as the plane is flying fast enough.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    98. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Well, on the site description itself it says it was never de-militarized...so, not sure what all it has left on it, but, if it went into the BA with full equipment, and was never de-milled...it may indeed have stuff left on it. The ad says it comes with bomb racks and other stuff.

      It would be hard to imagine this thing slipping out with full equipment, but, it would seem hard to imagine the plane could slip out to private hads...period. Until now...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    99. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by WheatWilton · · Score: 3, Informative

      JP5 (or JP8) jet fuel is kerosene based and significantly cheaper than the gas we buy at the pump. 4000 gallons of the stuff could probably be had for under $2000. The real issue is that those 15 minutes in the air require a dozen hours or so of highly trained mechanics working on the plane before you can take it up again.

    100. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by M1FCJ · · Score: 0
      I didn't say it was an arbitrary unit... Nautical miles per hour was measured by counting knots on a piece of rope as it dragged behind... What's strange with that? Haven't you ever read Jules Verne? Even in one of his books this fact gets a reference. The young "captain" accidentally loses is parakete(sp?) and his ability to measure his speed is lost. Then some evil guy puts a magnet under his navigational compass and he ends up in Africa instead of America. More adventure follows. It's a shame I can't remember the book's name. :-) Last I read this book, it was at least 20 years ago. :-)

      Necessary google search result describing what a knot is and guess who's right.

    101. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by cayenne8 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      "I can think of one, but I reckon he got his flight status revoked in 1972 due to being AWOL."

      I haven't looked at the records just released this weekend...pertaining specifically to the flight status revocation, but, isn't AWOL a federal offense (felony)?

      If he was convicted of such, I don't think much could have been done to give him the honorable discharge that he got.

      Besides...it looks like Kerry had some stupid things he did in his 20's. Kinda hard to live a 'perfect' life and enjoy being a young man without doing some stupid things. I think we need to look more at these men for what they've accomplished and how they've acted in the last 10-15 years...that is much more relavent to how their future actions can be measured...IMHO.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    102. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The F117 supposedly can carry sidewinders

    103. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if so are they going to be held accountable when they themselves break the law? I am sick of cops driving 45 in a 25, 50 in a 35, etc. Flagrant breaking of the law when the breaker himself is supposed to be upholding the law..

    104. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 3, Funny

      As far as I know, Larry Ellison never got permission to buy that Russian MiG 29. Maybe, he can plunk down some of his pocket change for the F/A-18. I believe that given the state of the economy and of affairs in the world, one should strive to buy domestic instead of foreign. However, it seems as if he may have had an easier time getting a license to fly the MiG than the Hornet. If he can't fly it, maybe he can have a mast attached and sail it in America's Cup competition.

    105. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I like the way conservatives love to throw fire and brimstone against non-cons who do some transgression (Clinton comes to mind) but when of their own does something less than honorable, it's either "well it wasnt that bad" "it was in the past" or "well other people are doing it, look at this democrat who did something similar"

      sheesh.

      so much for "moral clarity" and "integrity"

      the comparisons between bush and clinton regarding vietnam is especially laughable. Didnt bush campaign as somone who was better than clinton, less morally ambiguous? At least clinton, who avoided war for himself, avoided war for Americans. This witless wonder not only avoided war for himself, he pushed it on to others.

    106. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by superman53142 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but these same narrow and close shock waves wreak havoc on traditional wing architecture :)

    107. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by kruczkowski · · Score: 1

      Nope - Edwards AFB is the only place in the US that you can go supersonic - and it's military air space.

      I lived there and sonic booms are a bitch - it's like a massive punch to your house (well, that is exactly what it is)

      --
      hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
    108. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      No, we should wait until he commits perjury over the incident.

    109. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Gezzwho · · Score: 1

      1.: Using up all your money on wars 2.: Selling your used-up weapons on e-bay 3.: ??????? 4.: PROFIT!!!

      --
      Never argue with an idiot. He/Shell just drag you down to his/her level, and beat you with experience.
    110. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming the Aviation mags of the early 90s is accurate, the F117 is actually a bomber. Depending on who's version of accounts you believe, the F designation was meant to throw off Soviet spies, or it was a skunk works joke that wasn't caught by the Pentagon folks.

      The plane doesn't have any guns, and it's reported to have really crappy maneuverability, so even if somebody retrofitted it to fire air-to-air missiles, it still wouldn't be much of a fighter.

    111. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now they are asking for best offer. Hmmm, like I told the guy selling counterfit shirts at the Rush concert I went to, "I'll give you a cheeseburger for it"

    112. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by kruczkowski · · Score: 1

      I have head that once your recive the Spatzz award from Civil Air Patrol (highest cadet rank) you get a check ride in a 2 seat F-16.

      And yes there are 2 seaters, used in traning.

      --
      hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
    113. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Not sure about this but.....I've heard stories of our pilots in Vietnam doing exactly this. What would happen is a pilot would be shot down in enemy territory and would get VC/NVA formations moving in on his locations. The US pilots above would do everythign they could to keep them away until a rescue helicopter could be brought in, including dropping bomb racks once they had expended all of their ordanence. Again, I have NO idea if this is actually true or not.

    114. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Sepper · · Score: 1

      Add to that the running cost:(If I remember correctly..) several hundred thousands PER DAY... If you're aren't the gouvernement or Bill Gates, just forget it...

      --
      I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
    115. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by jayteedee · · Score: 3, Informative
      You'll only hear it once


      Actually you'll hear it two or more times. Once for the leading shock wave (nose of the aircraft) and once for the tail shock wave. Very close together, and they almost sound like one boom, but there is actually two. There can also be more than two if you have sharp angles on the plane, like around where the wings are attached to the fuselage, or anywhere else that has a sharp transition.

      --
      Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
    116. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by synergy3000 · · Score: 1

      If you can afford a 9 million dollar fighter jet you can afford to fly and keep it hangared in the Bahamas.

    117. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually...I consider myself pretty much in the middle...leaning slightly right on financial issues.

      I never cared what Clinton did to get out of the war..it was very common for that war, especially after people discovered the kind of war it was, to try to do everything within their means to get out of it. Bill went the scholar/travelling way...Bush did the Nat'l Guard..etc. Heck, my Dad got out of it due to college too I think. So, I don't really hold any of that against anyone. I do have problems with Clinton after he lied while in office in a court of law...

      But, to re-iterate, I don't think things these guys did while young idiot men (like we all are at 20+) should have much to do with their qualifications today. That was my main point....

      ps. What is a non-con? Is this similar to a neo-con? I've seen these thrown around everywhere, and don't understand what it is...tia.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    118. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've also heard that the F117 could be fitted for air-to-air capability but sidewinders seems unlikely. Sidewinders have an IR sensor on the nose to seek the hot tail exhaust of enemy jets and would need to be mounted outside of the internal bomb bays to be effective. If the sidewinders are mounted outside, the low radar profile of the F117A would be compromised and the jet would lose its best asset. Mounting the sidewinder in the internal bay would preserve the low radar profile while the sidewinders are in the compartment but the would also lose its ability to carry ground ordnance. Deploying the sidewinders from the internal bays would also adversely affect the aerodynamics of the F117A and create a higher radar profile, neither of which is desirable for a relatively slow jet that will be engaging in air-to-air combat.
      Theoretically, sidewinders can be mounted on this special purpose jet, but in doing so, the F117A loses its strengths and is forced into a role for which it is less suitable.

    119. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by protolith · · Score: 1

      My old man flew F-4 phsntoms in Kansas, the phantom carried around 6,000 to 10,000 lbs (around 1300 gallons) of fuel, this lasted about an hour, with the burners lit that fuel burns in under 5 minuts, most heavy take off missions involve air-air refueling shortly after takeoff to fill the tanks for emptied on takeoff. 500 gallons in 15 mins. sounds like old jet age efficiency to me...

    120. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just curious, but what does this T38 aircraft look like? Any links to a picture of the Soviet T38?

      The only two references on I've been able to find are the T38 Talon, which is an American jet trainer made by Northop

      http://www.dillon-real-estate.com/t38.htm

      and a light Armored tank used by the Russians

      http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/t38.h tm
    121. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Wingnut64 · · Score: 1

      non-con=Non-Commissioned Officer, if IIRC

      --
      echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >> /etc/apache2/httpd.conf
    122. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Beer_Smurf · · Score: 1

      "To fly it, you'd need a Letter of Authorization because there's no FAA type certification for this aircraft - and unless you're an ex-military pilot, you've basically got no chance of getting an LOA."

      While this is a authoritative post it is just incorrect.
      LOA's are being done away with in favor of type certs for experimental jets.
      Second, plenty of rich non-military pilots are signed off to fly all sorts of exotic jets from Mig-21s to Saab Drakkens.

    123. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Falke · · Score: 1

      I believe Lutz flies a L-39, which are actualy Czech not Russian. Pretty neat little planes, I've seen a couple give demos before. Much, much slower than a Hornet.

    124. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Lazyhound · · Score: 1

      Hmm? A carrier can be had for less than four million.

    125. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Wingnut64 · · Score: 1

      When I was in 6th grade, my science teacher told us Nam stories. One of them involved members of his helicopter crew kicking spent fuel cans and ammo boxes out of the aircraft to sink boats that they where prevented from attacking under the rules of engagement.

      --
      echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >> /etc/apache2/httpd.conf
    126. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      [b]Bob Lutz is another possibility, but I don't know if he's rich enough[/b]

      I think Bob has enough shekels for this, only question would be if he would want or need it (I imagine he might). He donated his L39 Albatros to the Yankee Air Museum when he got a MiG, maybe he's looking to trade up again.

    127. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by somekindofuniguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here in NZ there's a largish fleet of private military jets flying out of Ardmore airfield. Why? Because since we ditched our Airforce's strike capability, the Army and Navy have no way to train against being attacked from the air - so they pay private operators to 'attack' them with jets like these.

    128. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by hayesjaj · · Score: 1

      Actually, when the concord used to do airshows (like the world's largest in Oscosh, Wisconsin) it would go into Canada, fly above mach 1, slow down, then come back for tourist flights.

      --
      The world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.
    129. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      IIRC, the F117A's max loadout is a pair of 2000lb laser-guided bombs.

      Actually the F-117 is rumored to have an undocumented capably of carrying two AIM-9 (Sidewinders) missiles for air-to-air.

      Obviously a lousy two missiles doesn't make a front-line fighter -- but the intended mission would seem to be an Anti-AWACS role. If you look at the stealth design of the F-117 it's primarily designed to defeat radar coming from above -- i.e: the enemy AWACS.

      Have the capability of taking out the enemies eyes in the first moments of a battle would be quite a feather in the hat of the USAF. Not that we've fought anyone recently with AWACS (or an air-force for that matter) but if the day arrives....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    130. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Theoretically, sidewinders can be mounted on this special purpose jet, but in doing so, the F117A loses its strengths and is forced into a role for which it is less suitable.

      You wouldn't use it to take on other fighters. The F-117 (like the B-2) is basically defenseless against a modern fighter -- if it's found. You'd use it to destroy airborne HVA (High-value assets) -- i.e: enemy AWACS. Basically the same mission it has in the air-to-ground role -- it's not "less then suitable" for this role -- it's tailor made for it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    131. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by dilweed · · Score: 1

      Yep- Steve Forbes owns a Draken and has been restoring it in a hanger (right across the street from me) at the former McClellan AFB, Sacramento. Skip Holm Flew it at this last Reno Air Race. I've heard rumors that he's restoring an A-4 or A-7 currently.

    132. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by silconous · · Score: 1

      I remember someone telling me it was about $6000/10000lbs

      The F/A-18 requires on avgerage about 14 man/hours per flight however this is based on having 12 jets.

    133. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by DoctorPepper · · Score: 2, Informative

      non-con=Non-Commissioned Officer, if IIRC

      Actually, that's noncom Noncoms Guide, more commonly refered to as NCO.

      --

      No matter where you go... there you are.
    134. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by w42w42 · · Score: 1

      It's not the aircraft that is so sensitive, F/A 18's have been around awhile, it'd be any specialized electronics systems. I can guarantee those have been removed (or were never on this a/c).

    135. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative
      Btw, the most common speed unit is knots, not mph or km/h and knots is a naval unit measured by a number of knots on a rope that's trailing the ship in a given time period.

      I was going to call bullshit, because it was always my understanding that a knot == 1.15mph (something to do with the distance of a nautical mile at the equator as I recalled), but it turns out that you are correct. According to this website:

      The term knot or nautical mile, is used world-wide to denote one's speed through the water. Today, we measure knots with electronic devices, but 200 years ago, such devices were unknown. Ingenious mariners devised a speed-measuring device both easy to use and reliable, the "log line."

      From this method, we get the term "knot." The log line was a length of twine marked at 47.33 foot intervals by colored knots. At one end a log chip was fastened; it was shaped like the sector of a circle and weighted at the rounded end with lead. When thrown over the stern, it would float pointing upward and would remain relatively stationary. The log line was allowed to run free over the side for 28 seconds and then hauled on board.

      Knots which had passed over the side were counted. In this way, the ship's speed was measured.

      Google also says that a knot = 1.15077945 mph or 1.85200 kph.

      So I stand corrected :) Glad I researched that before opening my big mouth. Learn something new every day...

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    136. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by DoctorPepper · · Score: 4, Informative

      He's absolutely right. In military aircraft, especially Navy aircraft, everything is measured in pounds. When I was in the Navy, I worked on the F-14A Tomcat. That plane would hold 16,400 lbs of fuel without the drop tanks, over 20,000 with drop tanks. Add that to the dry weight of over 48,000 lbs, and you've got one HEAVY airplane!

      I've seen them take the catapult stroke at over 72,000 lbs.

      --

      No matter where you go... there you are.
    137. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by DoctorPepper · · Score: 1

      Once again:

      The F-14A holds 16,400 lbs of fuel internal, no drop tanks. In the older jets, with the Pratt & Whitney TF-30 engines running at zone-5 afterburner (full AB), it could suck the internal tanks dry in 8 minutes.

      --

      No matter where you go... there you are.
    138. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      It's only purjury if it happens in court. Or in an impeachment. I don't think we're likely to see either. (Congress can't alienate the massive number of voters who support the war in Iraq.)

    139. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1

      The F117A does not have radar to seek out airborne targets, because radar signals would also give away its position. The F117A was not specifically designed to avoid radar from above. The faceted surface on the F117A is designed to deflect radar signals from most angles, mostly from below, from the sides and from the front. If the F117A were designed to attack AWACS or other "high value" airborne targets, it would be an incredibly poorly suited design for that purpose. First of all, an attack on an airborne target would most likely be launched from above the target or at roughly level altitude, which would not be practical for an airplane designed to evade radar from above. In addition, the relatively slow speed (sub-sonic) of a the F117A and its lack of radar make it a poor interceptor, not to mention previously mentioned the failings of adding sidewinders on this attack aircraft.

    140. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by batura · · Score: 1

      Actually, the auctions says it has an N number, which is not experimental.

    141. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      booga WOOO WOOO wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah WOWWIE neener neener

      abbababababababbaba

      FLEEM!

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    142. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could hear none. There are designs that dramatically reduce the boom. Only some test aircraft are designed for this but I'd imagine the US military has much more expierence in this area. It's just that they won't talk about it right now.

    143. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      I think the F-16 is like a race car and a commercial jet is like a bus. The race car goes at the highest speed but is horribly expensive to run (requiring several man hours per hour on the road), while the bus can run for a long time between services.

      Even the commercial jet requires a lot of maintenance per trip, but nothing like the Hornet.

      That's my informed guess, and I'd say it's a good one based on the other replies.

      D

    144. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by T-Ranger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Signal corps actually. So their speeds shold be measured in BAUD :)

    145. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same reason the F-15E "Strike Eagle" is called a fighter. It's not. It's a strike aircraft.

      The difference, of course, is that to maintain low radar cross-section, the F117A lacks external hardpoints for air-to-air missiles like the AIM-9 Sidewinder and the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

    146. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's only purjury if it happens in court.

      Nonsense. Any time you legally affirm something which is untrue, it's perjury. It's perjury if you lie on the stand, sure, but it's also perjury if you lie in a deposition. It's perjury if you lie on your tax return. It's perjury if you falsely claim that you have car insurance when you fill out your registration.

    147. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by T-Ranger · · Score: 1
      I remember hearing on 60 Minutes that the demo planes could be converted back to full front-line specs in 24 hours. The longest chunk of that time was waiting for the paint to dry.

      Mind you it must be a decade since I watched that, and I dont recall if it was the BE or not. But if one of the services demo squadrons could do it....

    148. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Informative
      The F117A was not specifically designed to avoid radar from above.

      Wrong, it was designed to defeat radar from above. Else it would have been useless against the Soviets who deployed their own airborne radar.

      The F117A does not have radar to seek out airborne targets, because radar signals would also give away its position.

      You don't need radar to seek out an AWACS. You can either be directed to it by your own forces or seek it out by tracking it's emissions.

      If the F117A were designed to attack AWACS or other "high value" airborne targets, it would be an incredibly poorly suited design for that purpose.

      I didn't say it was designed to do that -- I said that was a possible mission back in the Cold War when we actually stood a chance of fighting an Air Force equal to our own. It's a very moot point now as none of our recent foes have Air Forces let alone AWACS or any other airborne HVTs for that matter. The F-22 would probably be better suited to this mission nowadays anyway -- but the F-22 didn't exist back in the 80s when the F-117 was designed.

      In addition, the relatively slow speed (sub-sonic) of a the F117A and its lack of radar make it a poor interceptor

      Yeah because it's real hard to catch a converted airliner. I already addressed the lack of radar -- they would have been directed to the target by friendly AWACS or ground stations. As you pointed out using radar in this role would be stupid because it would reveal the location of the F-117 long before it was within weapons range of it's intended target.

      not to mention previously mentioned the failings of adding sidewinders on this attack aircraft.

      Sorry, but those failings only exist in the minds of those idiots that have no idea what they are talking about. Do you really think you can't use Sidewinders in an internal bay? Hint: The F-22 carries all it's weapons in internal bays and the AIM-9 is certified for use on the F-22.

      I don't pretend that the F-117 was designed for this role (anti-AWACS). Only that I've heard it rumored from knowledgeable sources that it is considered to be a possible mission for the F-117. If you look at at the capabilities of this aircraft then it makes perfect sense. Using it as a fighter would be utterly pointless -- using it to blind your enemy in the opening stages of a massive air to air battle would be ideal. Why do you refuse to admit that this is a possibility?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    149. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      erm, obviously you didn't read. the point was that the F117 doesn't have air to air ;p
      so it must have air to ground (or i assume so, what use it a plane that can't drop anything :))

    150. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by IanBevan · · Score: 1
      Yes, that's right, because everybody lives in the United States.

      FFS....

    151. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by peoria+kid · · Score: 1

      If you are looking for a more affordable high performance jet with FAA certification and insurability (which is very important, the rebuilt fighters are not insurable) one should wait for the $2.2 million Javelin Jet ( http://www.avtechgroup.com/index.htm ). It is being constructed this year for certification in a couple of years. The cost of ownership and fuel costs are low. There are many rumors of this being the next fighter trainer for the European nations as well as a patroll jet for homeland defense.

    152. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by myklgrant · · Score: 1
      Somebody is already planning to do just that (sort of). See:

      http://www.landspeed.com/

      An F104 Starfighter on wheels!
    153. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1

      It is implied that the number of women n who have been assigned to the job is an integer greater than or equal to one. It is also implied that the problem is being considered from a man's frame of reference (consider Henry VIII, for example). However, if we apply the tranformation "man"=>"woman", "women"=>"men" in order to consider the problem from a woman's frame of reference, the statement remains true.

      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    154. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      I did not know that. Fascinating! Question that perhaps you can answer (since my Googling skills apparently can't, at the moment): at that speed, can typical human hearing actually pick up the pause in the booms and distinguish them if you're listening for them?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    155. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Wrong, it was designed to defeat radar from above. Else it would have been useless against the Soviets who deployed their own airborne radar.

      That's baloney. It was designed to evade radar from all angles. Its faceting profile is most effective on radar signals from the front, sides and below.


      You don't need radar to seek out an AWACS. You can either be directed to it by your own forces or seek it out by tracking it's emissions.

      That would be really difficult because the AWACS or other airborne target would be continuously moving and the F117A would have to receive constant flight corrections. The F117A pilot would not be able to acknowledge receiving directions for fear of giving away his position from his radio emissions. Once in the general area, the F117A would still need to be able to track by sight which is incredibly difficult if you don't know if the target is above, below or behind you. The F117A does not have any sophisticated tracking devices as it has optical/IR and probably GPS devices, consistent with its mission as a ground attack aircraft.


      I didn't say it was designed to do that -- I said that was a possible mission back in the Cold War when we actually stood a chance of fighting an Air Force equal to our own. It's a very moot point now as none of our recent foes have Air Forces let alone AWACS or any other airborne HVTs for that matter. The F-22 would probably be better suited to this mission nowadays anyway -- but the F-22 didn't exist back in the 80s when the F-117 was designed.


      A possible mission, but not a probable mission given the design of the F117A. Btw, the Skunk Works started working on the F117A in the 70's, not the 80's; President Jimmy Carter alluded to it in a speech (for which he was roundly ridiculed).

      Indeed, the F-22 a dedicated fighter/interceptor is a much better suited aircraft for hunting airborne targets. The Raptor is actually designated F/A-22 (fighter/attack) because it can carry the JDAM, but it seems an unlikely attack aircraft. Given current military/political doctrine, I suppose expensive military hardware has to have a multi-role capability.


      Yeah because it's real hard to catch a converted airliner.

      A converted airliner is still a constantly moving target and the F117A is not a fast plane. It still has to hunt this thing down in the skies without benefit of it's own radar and would be easy prey for any fighter escorts whose ability to detect the F117A would be on par with the F117A's ability to detect its target.


      Sorry, but those failings only exist in the minds of those idiots that have no idea what they are talking about. Do you really think you can't use Sidewinders in an internal bay? Hint: The F-22 carries all it's weapons in internal bays and the AIM-9 is certified for use on the F-22.

      Name calling is always a good way to make your point.


      The internal bays of the F117A are different from the F-22. The F117A bays are underneath the jet, designed for holding bombs not AIM-9s. The F-22 deploys the IR guided AIM-9's only from its side bays, and although opening the bays at high speed would adversely affect the handling of the aircraft, the side bays have a lesser effect on aerodynamics than from the bottom. In addition, the F-22 can track the target with its own radar, close in enough to use its AIM-9s or select an medium range radar guided AMRAAM, which are fired from standoff distances and can be more safely deployed from the bottom bays.

    156. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by paploo · · Score: 1

      And you could outrun an F-117 in an F-18, hands down. F-117s fly slow, despite what people might want to think.

    157. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by finity · · Score: 1

      I think he means non-conservatives. Liberal. ;-)

    158. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by paploo · · Score: 1

      The fact that aircraft have captains, was invented in the early days by the airlines, in order to make their crew seem more formally trained and better dignified (as opposed to dare-devil pilots like people thought of them). The airlines also came up with the idea of slapping the crew in a naval style uniform.

    159. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      The are probably numerous avionics / warfare packages that are not nor ever where on this plane. It's a show plane; they didn't just pull it off the flightline and give it a paint job. It probably has numerous mods specific to its uses as a show plane. And to say something as ridiculous as they would not pull classified off prior to sale needs no comment at all. Get real.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    160. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the SR-71 was worthless then... since it has no air-to-air, air-to-ground, nor cargo carrying capabilities. :) note taken

    161. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any problem with Bush lying to the American public re: wars?

    162. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by petecarlson · · Score: 1

      All you would have to do is register it as an experimental aircraft. Of course the FAA might not approve your type certificate but if you have 9 mill to buy it, I'm sure you could scrape together the cash for a couple of lawyers to push the paperwork for you.

    163. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Imperator · · Score: 1

      Where? And one with a runway good enough for a military jet? Give me a link, or give me a break.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    164. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Imperator · · Score: 1

      I can see the advertising now: "more fuel-efficient than an SUV!"

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    165. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blue Angel (Navy) and Thunderbird (Air Force) show planes are ready to go to war. They have the same equipment as the non-show planes. The only difference is the paint.

    166. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by petecarlson · · Score: 1

      Where are you buying this stuff? I want 20,000 pounds stat. Call Piedmont Hawthorne at IAD (800-926-0150 or on your own dime at 703-661-0150) and ask them how much Jet A is going for today. JP5, and Jet A are essentally the same thing and Jet A is what your going to be getting at any civilian airport you land at.

    167. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could just let it float around, and ride the currents? It'd be a big circle between California and Eastern Asia.

    168. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      That's baloney. It was designed to evade radar from all angles. Its faceting profile is most effective on radar signals from the front, sides and below.

      Pointing out that the faceting profile is most effective from below when the bottom part of the aircraft isn't faceted seems a little strange. I'll grant you the point that it defeats radar from all angles -- not just head-on or above -- but it has a lower RCS when seen from above or head-on then it does from below or behind. Granted the RCS is still pretty damn small but the F-117 is easier to detect (and they can be detected -- AEGIS can track and engage them -- all stealth does is make it harder not impossible -- it's rumored that AEGIS can engage the B-2) from below or behind then head-on or above.

      That would be really difficult because the AWACS or other airborne target would be continuously moving

      An AWACS on a mission would typically be flying a set course in a set area -- perhaps even a lazy circle at low power. They only move to new areas if the battle space changes and coverage is required somewhere else. In any case intercepting one would not be that hard. The hard part is getting past their fighter escort -- for which the F-117 is ideal.

      F117A pilot would not be able to acknowledge receiving directions for fear of giving away his position from his radio emissions

      I guess you've never heard of line-of-sight transmissions and secure channels. That aside why would he have to acknowledge the directions?

      The F117A does not have any sophisticated tracking devices as it has optical/IR and probably GPS devices

      Says who?

      easy prey for any fighter escorts whose ability to detect the F117A would be on par with the F117A's ability to detect its target.

      Not at nighttime assuming the stealth of the F-117 is effective against the opposing forces radar. If it's not effective then it's a highly moot point anyway. The F-117 could detect it's target on it's own via it's EM emissions -- but it would more likely be directed to it by friendly AWACS/other forces.

      Btw, the Skunk Works started working on the F117A in the 70's, not the 80's;

      I should have said "deployed in the 80s" not "designed". My mistake.

      The F117A bays are underneath the jet, designed for holding bombs not AIM-9s

      Why is it such a leap of faith to assume that the bays can also carry AIM-9s? They might have to be modified somewhat (the AIM-120 had to be modified for the F-22 -- clipped wings and new software) but it's not as complicated as you seem to think it is. In addition the F-117 already has all of the IR/optical sensors it would need to target and fire AIM-9s.

      In addition, the F-22 can track the target with its own radar

      The minute the F-22 lights off it's radar it's revealed it's location. That seems pretty self defeating to me -- especially when the target we are talking about is announcing it's location to any interested party with a direction finder -- you don't need radar to find this target.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    169. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      700 Acre Island in Canada, 6.5 million Canadian

      700 acres oughta be enough to land an F18.

    170. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you reckon you're going to use a traditional wing structure on a Mach 5 aircraft?! :-)

    171. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Imperator · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that's just land you can buy. You don't get to write the laws or anything. It's just a big chunk of private property. If Canadian law prevents you from flying an F/A-18, you're still screwed.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    172. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by MeatFlap3 · · Score: 1

      I would rather have a F4B Phantom II, at least you get to take a friend!

    173. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by suteri · · Score: 1
      Oh my, you slashdotted the poor logfile :(

      Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e14'

      [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][SQL Server]The log file for database 'SQL9REK294' is full. Back up the transaction log for the database to free up some log space.

      /details.asp, line 49

    174. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1
      An AWACS on a mission would typically be flying a set course in a set area -- perhaps even a lazy circle at low power. They only move to new areas if the battle space changes and coverage is required somewhere else. In any case intercepting one would not be that hard. The hard part is getting past their fighter escort -- for which the F-117 is ideal.

      An AWACS that sticks to a set course would be a sitting target. Why would anyone in his right mind do that? Especially when your radar coverage is better when you move around.

      I guess you've never heard of line-of-sight transmissions and secure channels. That aside why would he have to acknowledge the directions?

      I guess you don't know that line of sight would require a directional antenna which would need to be constantly moving in relationship to the aircraft's location to preserve that line of sight. That such an antenna, like externally mounted AIM-9's, would vastly increase the F117A RCS, that such an antenna would be useless in a beyond the horizon scenario unless the aircraft flies higher as it gets further to preserve the line of sight, that radio chatter, secured or unsecured, would still give away position. The F117A has no such fantasy Star Trek technology which would allow it constant, over the horizon yet still line of sight, secure, undetectable communication with a guiding radar station aircraft, base or ship.

      As for acknowledgement of orders, it's standard procedure to acknowledge orders. Oh, let's say the AWACS or other High Value Asset/Target makes a course change like a sneaky commie rather than making constant lazy shoot-me-down loops. The hypothetical ground controller transmits course change coordinates and would expect an acknowledgement of the course change. It's just a military thing.

      Of course, the normal stealth fighter mission (attack, not aircraft hunting) is done in complete communications silence but then the normal mission involves hitting fixed targets deep in hostile territory.

      The F117A does not have any sophisticated tracking devices as it has optical/IR and probably GPS devices.

      Says who?

      Says me. The nose cone of the F117A doesn't have an antenna or dish, nor does the rest of the aircraft. Again, no Star Trek fanboi fantasy technology to detect the target.

      Why is it such a leap of faith to assume that the bays can also carry AIM-9s? They might have to be modified somewhat (the AIM-120 had to be modified for the F-22 -- clipped wings and new software) but it's not as complicated as you seem to think it is. In addition the F-117 already has all of the IR/optical sensors it would need to target and fire AIM-9s.

      Just about everything you've put forth is a leap of faith. It certainly has little semblance to fact or logic.

      The AIM-9 seeks heat signatures with its own IR sensor on its nose. You've probably seen footage of ordnance people testing the IR sensor with a flashlight (yes, it's that sensitive). In order to engage the AIM-9 it has to be sticking out in the breeze so that the IR sensor can get a lock on the target aircraft. In order to do that, the lower bay door has to be open, which really blows up the RCS the F117A as well as really messing up with the aerodynamics of an inherently unaerodynamic shape (not a good thing for a dogfight). Btw, the modifications to the AMRAAM are to fit it into the Raptors lower bay, not to make pigs fly or turn attack aircraft into interceptors. No amount of modification to the AIM-9 will make up for these limitations.

    175. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coincidently probably the same number that still believe there's WMD (or WAS WMD) in Iraq.

    176. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Where? Serioulsy.

    177. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by mpe · · Score: 1

      It's a plane ... what are they going to do, send out an F117A and shoot you down?

      Even though the F117A is often refered to as a "stealth fighter" it is in actual fact more of a light bomber. It dosn't even have cannon.

    178. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it should be measured in bits per second.

      Remember, our 56Kbps modems are still 2400 baud modems. Baud == information packet. It does not indicate how much information is IN that packet.

      The max frequency that can be sent on US analog phone likes is about 3000 Hz...

    179. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by mpe · · Score: 1

      Sidewinders have an IR sensor on the nose to seek the hot tail exhaust of enemy jets and would need to be mounted outside of the internal bomb bays to be effective. If the sidewinders are mounted outside, the low radar profile of the F117A would be compromised and the jet would lose its best asset.

      The missiles themselves also have a very hot exhaust. Launching any missile from a plane gives a nice IR signature for any AAA in the area to use.

    180. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Betcha not. Boeing was just about ready to build their SST, but killed it when the US Govment passed all the laws that effectively constrained the Concorde from flying in and out of La Guardia and Dulles airports, before the Concorde was even in service.

      Add to that, that 747s were much more profitable for trans-Atlantic and other long-haul flights, so that is what airlines ended up wanting.

    181. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Alright, well, pretend I said "Joint Strike Fighter" then. ;-)

    182. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1
      In order to engage the AIM-9 it has to be sticking out in the breeze so that the IR sensor can get a lock on the target aircraft.

      I'm not arguing about the F-177 either way (though I remember the speculations about anti-awacs capability in the eighties) but while the preferred mode of operation of the Sidewinder is to acuire a lock before firing, it's not strictly neccessary. The AIM-9 (from the first version and on) will happily fly off the rail when the launch command is given and track any target that comes within it's seeker cone until it runs out of fuel.

      One of the more famous AIM-9 deployments was cobbled together to work that way. In the Falklands a British Nimrod ('AWACS') aircraft came accross it's Argentinian equivalent. None of them had fighter cover, and none of them had any ordonance, so they resorted to flying agressive circles around each other. The British woved to never let that happen again, and fitted the Nimrods with a make shift Sidewinder mount that consisted of bolting the rail to the outer portion of the wing, wiring the firing circuit to a switch in the cockpit, and using a felt tip pen to draw a circle on the cockpit glass to give the pilot an idea of the seeker field of vision, and that was it. The Nimrod of course lacked the electronics to make even rudimentary use of the seekers feedback (even the growl). Naturally they never saw another plane in the sky.

      In the old days the Sidewinder was even packed with a make shift rail in the crate, so that ground troops could fire it in an airdefence capacity. That never worked terribly well, but could be done, and offset the indignity of being bomed freighting a load of air-to-air missiles without having much to shoot back with.

      The main problem with an F-117 deployment must be the neccessity of a rail, I've never heard of a modification to the AIM-9 to allow drop firing, but if anybody knows otherwise, I'll be happy to be corrected on that point.

      P.S. And what's up with the bold quoting man, you're hurting my eyes. :-)

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    183. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Great planning, dumbass.

      Why am I not surprised that it's a Microsoft admin...

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    184. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I've also wondered why the F-111 has the F, when it was primarily (maybe exclusively) used in non-fighter roles, like ground attack, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare (jamming).

    185. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by will_die · · Score: 1

      This is based on an uncle who build his own plane.
      You could get the letter as an experimental aircraft, the FAA would need to do inspections on it to approve it but after that you would be ok until a certain number of hours had been flown(same as any other aircraft).

    186. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AlecC · · Score: 1

      You don't seriously measure liquid in pounds, do you?

      Definitely. Fuel has a pretty large coefficient of expansionm, so that the same weight of fuel will have very different volumes in Arizona and Alaska. But it is the mass of the fuel which (a) delivers energy to the engines and (b) increases aircraft weight at takeoff. Fuel bowsers have converters to convert gallons-at-temperature into pounds (metricate to taste).

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    187. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Even if you were to get an LOA, to fly it you'd have to get permission from the FAA to put it in the air every time you take off. So add your own private island to the total cost if you actually want to fly it without hassle.
      actually, a couple weeks ago Ebay had an argentinian air craft carrier (a British Colossus Class). if the refitted catapult could handle an F/A 18... you'd be able to cruise out to international waters for the weekend and fly your plane without an LOA or a flight plan.

      http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ewItem&category=26432&item=2454839870

    188. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      It's possible that it could have been used for an air to air type role, but it never will.

      The F-117A is designed for one specific role. Infultrately air space with active radar guided anti aircraft defenses and destroying high value hardended targets.

      Now that we have the F-22, it would be better suited for attacking an AWACS type system better than the F-117A.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    189. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Late answer...but, at this point, I don't think he lied. I think we have a serious intelligence agency problem. We've had funding cut to if so much over the years...and the 'rules' about not working with 'undesireables' has wasted our human assets in these places...

      If we'd had people on the inside, we'd have known better. However, I don't think that WMD should have been used as the reason for the invasion. We were already justified in going in because Saddam never complied with the treaty he signed at the close of the first Gulf war...so, technically, to me, that war never ended. If Germany, at the end of WW2 hadn't disarmed and complied...I can assure you we wouldn't have given them 12+ years, we'd have started bombing the next day...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    190. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      An AWACS that sticks to a set course would be a sitting target. Why would anyone in his right mind do that? Especially when your radar coverage is better when you move around.

      If you move around too much you are going to lose coverage in the area you are attempting to cover. They would typically fly a lazy circle or a set box course within a specific area. As for the sitting target argument the AWACS is defenseless anyway -- it's defense lies in keeping the enemy away from it -- if they get within weapons range it's dead no matter what kind of course it's flying.

      I guess you don't know that line of sight would require a directional antenna which would need to be constantly moving in relationship to the aircraft's location to preserve that line of sight.

      Other aircraft have it -- I don't think it's a leap of faith to assume the F-117 does. There's also other options -- encrypted burst transmissions (they typically last a few microseconds), satellite communications (secure unless your enemy has sensors directly above you), or the aforementioned "Just receive the orders and not acknowledge them".

      Oh, let's say the AWACS or other High Value Asset/Target makes a course change like a sneaky commie rather than making constant lazy shoot-me-down loops. The hypothetical ground controller transmits course change coordinates and would expect an acknowledgement of the course change. It's just a military thing.

      Your still ignoring the fact that it is possible to receive updates and not acknowledge them. Your also ignoring the fact that the F-117 would actually be able to hunt down the AWACS on it's own by homing in on it's radar transmissions -- assuming it's transmitting and an AWACS that isn't transmitting isn't much of a threat anyway.

      Again, no Star Trek fanboi fantasy technology to detect the target.

      I guess you've never heard of RWS (Radar Warning System) and direction finders. Guess those aren't going to be invented until the 24th century.

      In order to do that, the lower bay door has to be open, which really blows up the RCS the F117A as well as really messing up with the aerodynamics of an inherently unaerodynamic shape (not a good thing for a dogfight).

      The lower bay door has to be opened for any type of mission sooner or later. In the bombing role it needs to be opened so the PGM can see the laser beam that's designating the target (not to mention so you can release the weapons which is the whole point after all). The doors wouldn't need to be opened until the F-117 was within easy weapons range of it's target -- they would only need to remain open for the few seconds required to acquire the target and fire the missiles.

      The "Not suited to a dogfight" argument is getting old. I never said the F-117 would dogfight with anybody -- if it comes up against a modern fighter and it's detected then it's pretty much dead meat no matter how you cut it.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    191. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      Sorry. No. But then, Hell, I've only been in the AF for 15 fucking years.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    192. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by HokieJP · · Score: 1

      Well, if one takes the density of the fuel to be constant, there's no difference between measuring weight and measuring volume.

      Just to further confuse you, we measure thrust in pounds (of force) too.

    193. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen the Blue Angels perform several times at air shows in the past decade or so which means that I've probably seen the actual plane in question pretty close up and stationary on the tarmac. I've also seen "real" F/A-18s just about as close up.

      These planes are specially modified for show use, and it's pretty obvious that the Blue Angels planes don't carry any sort of weapons. For one thing, there's just a blank panel where the holes on the nose that the machine guns fire out of should be. I didn't pay attention to the pylons on the wings, but removing the pylons reduces drag and gives you a cleaner look. No pylons, no stores (aka bombs and crap). Lastly, for the missiles on the wingtips, there are also dummy sidewinders for training that track but don't launch, and it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to put a dummy tracking unit on one of those.

      And, without the weapons, there's a whole mess of avionics you don't need. Most likely, they took the RADAR out, too. There's probably a lot of ballast to replace the missing (and heavy) parts on that thing to keep it flying level. Probably still much lighter than a regular plane, and less drag to boot, so I'd expect this one to fly like a hot rod.

      Speaking as someone who's worked with aircraft, but not with F/A-18s.

    194. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the latest war, 0. In fact, disassembled and buried many of their MiGs hoping to avoid getting bombed.

    195. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by mpe · · Score: 1

      Says me. The nose cone of the F117A doesn't have an antenna or dish, nor does the rest of the aircraft.

      The problem with fitting radar to a stealth aircraft is that a radar dish itself has a fairly high RCS.

    196. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Really? Some one should probably inform the Blue Angels then. They seem to be confused on their own planes.

    197. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by mansemat · · Score: 1

      Experimentals can have an N-Number. In fact, if they are non-ultralight experimentals and you expect to land at any kind of an airport (or fly through Class B, C, D, etc. airspace) you *must* have an N number.

      An N number is akin to a car registration. If you wanted, you could build your own car and drive it in your backyard, but as soon as you want to drive that car on a public road, you will need to get it registered, and in most states, insured as well.

      Same goes for the airplanes.

      Check out Experimental Aircraft Association, eaa.org, for more info.

      --
      --
    198. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe in another 15 years you can understand what, "able to return to combat duty aboard an aircraft carrier within 72 hours" means.

      Link.

      We understand they don't necessarily go up with cannons mounted for your average airshow, but that doesn't mean they're stripped down that far either. I can't imagine that they're building a whole new plane in three days.

    199. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1
      P.S. And what's up with the bold quoting man, you're hurting my eyes. :-)
      Laziness. It's easier to just type the bold tag.
    200. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by jayteedee · · Score: 1

      You won't really hear the pause as a pause given the way our ears work (which basically ignore or can't discern the sound following a spike). You can hear the double peaks though and I've heard the double boom myself (40ft rockets and military planes in my younger days before the ban). Math example - a 55 ft aircraft flying parallel to the earth surface at 1100 ft/s (Mach 1 at sea level) would have the pulses placed at 0.05 seconds apart. Think of two snare drum hits at 20 beats per second.

      --
      Religion and science are both 90% crap..but that doesn't negate the other 10%.
    201. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1
      If you move around too much you are going to lose coverage in the area you are attempting to cover. They would typically fly a lazy circle or a set box course within a specific area. As for the sitting target argument the AWACS is defenseless anyway -- it's defense lies in keeping the enemy away from it -- if they get within weapons range it's dead no matter what kind of course it's flying.

      No AWACS pilot flies in lazy circles during a real conflict. The range of AWACS radar is huge. Coverage will not be lost unless it was already poor.


      I guess you don't know that line of sight would require a directional antenna which would need to be constantly moving in relationship to the aircraft's location to preserve that line of sight.
      Other aircraft have it -- I don't think it's a leap of faith to assume the F-117 does.

      Assumption. Assumption. Assumption.

      Is everything posited based on a leap of faith? That's just patentedly false. What aircraft actually has a directional antenna? And why on earth would you stick a protruberance like that on an aircraft designed for stealth? Have you ever seen a F117A or B-2 with a directional antenna sticking out of it? Why bother building stealth aircraft if you are going to put a gigantic radar reflecter on it? Even if anyone did stick a direction antenna on an aircraft, you know that the signal itself widens by the square of the distance. And let's not even forget about the problem of the losing line of sight when beyond the horizon.


      There's also other options -- encrypted burst transmissions (they typically last a few microseconds), satellite communications (secure unless your enemy has sensors directly above you), or the aforementioned "Just receive the orders and not acknowledge them".

      Oh, brother. This is really grabbing at straws.


      I guess you've never heard of RWS (Radar Warning System) and direction finders. Guess those aren't going to be invented until the 24th century.

      Maybe in the 24th century, RWS technology can be used to track a target, not merely warn the pilot that the aircraft has been painted by radar. Maybe in the 24th century, RWS technology wont require the addition of antenna or sensors attached to a stealth aircraft outer hull (hint: big RCS penalty). In this century, Mr. Sulu, RWS technology is not so advanced.


      The doors wouldn't need to be opened until the F-117 was within easy weapons range of it's target -- they would only need to remain open for the few seconds required to acquire the target and fire the missiles.

      You assume that the target can be acquired in a few seconds. That's never a given, especially in an air combat role.


      The "Not suited to a dogfight" argument is getting old. I never said the F-117 would dogfight with anybody -- if it comes up against a modern fighter and it's detected then it's pretty much dead meat no matter how you cut it.

      An AIM-9 is an aircombat weapon system and an air-to-air engagement is a dogfight. When there are much better alternatives for shooting down an aircraft, it makes no sense to outfit an F117A with AIM-9's and expect a slow jet to take down an even slower BUFF.

    202. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Is everything posited based on a leap of faith?

      I could say the same thing about your arguments. You are assuming that the F-117 doesn't have some means of secure communications. That's a pretty big assumption.

      And let's not even forget about the problem of the losing line of sight when beyond the horizon.

      You can see pretty far from 30,000 feet.

      Maybe in the 24th century, RWS technology can be used to track a target, not merely warn the pilot that the aircraft has been painted by radar.

      Sorry, it's a bit more advanced then that. It gives you a signal strength and a line of bearing to the radar source. If you have two aircraft in different locations you can even triangulate the emissions and get an exact location.

      Maybe in the 24th century, RWS technology wont require the addition of antenna or sensors attached to a stealth aircraft outer hull (hint: big RCS penalty)

      So now your saying the F-117 doesn't have RWS because it would require external antennas? Wrong on both counts. RWS is extremely important the mission of the F-117. As stated before Stealth technology doesn't make it impossible to be detected -- it only makes it harder. They need to know where the radar sources are so they can evade them. If you take an F-117 and fly directly at a radar source (airborne or otherwise) sooner or later you will be detected. To use your sarcastic Star Trek analogys "It's not a cloaking device".

      You assume that the target can be acquired in a few seconds. That's never a given, especially in an air combat role.

      How long do you think it takes to target and fire an AIM-9? It would be a pretty pointless weapon if it couldn't be targeted and fired within a few seconds. This isn't Top Gun where you need to fly around and wait until you've "got lock". You pretty much point the AIM-9 in the right direction and pull the trigger. The new generation Russian IR missiles (the R-73 -- AA-11 to you NATO types) are even cooler -- they have helmet sighting -- i.e: look at the target and pull the trigger. Doesn't matter where it is. Read this post for an interesting story about a British patrol craft during the Falklands War. (The Nimrod is a Maritime patrol craft/ASW craft -- not an AWACS though)

      When there are much better alternatives for shooting down an aircraft

      Name a better alternative (prior to the advent of the F-22) for taking out an AWACS. Any other aircraft is going to be detected and jumped on by fighter escorts. You can fight your way past them if you are willing to pay the price in aircrews and hardware -- the whole point of the F-117 (in this role or the ground attack role) is to avoid doing that. You take out the AWACS and then deal with the fighters -- whose effectiveness was just cut in half (if not more) by the loss of their eyes plus command and control. It's all the more effective if you consider that the Blue Force (in this case NATO) would still have their AWACS functional.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    203. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that it does. Multiple winners is an easy calculation. Even taking that into account, the expected payout still frequently exceeds the purchase price.

    204. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      Where did I say anything about one winner? Just because that's the first thing you thought of, don't assume I'm stupid. Even taking that into account, many times the expected payout exceeds the purchase price. To check it, all you need to do is find the odds (or calculate them yourself), find out the jackpot, and find out the number of tickets sold. Usually the states take a fixed percentage, so it's easy to determine one of the last two from the other.

    205. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by trentblase · · Score: 1

      ok, so the answer is "no I don't have any references or proof whatsoever".

    206. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      What are you, a child? The formula is linear. We're not talking complex math here buddy. Go to any lottery website, say ialottery.com, and do the calculation yourself. Don't expect other people to do your research for you.

    207. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by KrispyKringle · · Score: 1
      Ah. I thought experimental planes had different tail numbers.

      Meh. Like I said, I don't talk to ultralight pilots ;)

    208. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1

      I could say the same thing about your arguments. You are assuming that the F-117 doesn't have some means of secure communications. That's a pretty big assumption.

      No such assumptions have been made, only dismissals of implausible Star Trek technology and kludgy tactical reasoning. The issue isn't secure communications. It's stealthiness, which would be lost by a stealth aircraft broadcasting away in the middle of a mission.

      You can see pretty far from 30,000 feet.

      Not nearly far enough unless you are a member of the Flat Earth Society. The only way to assure a line of sight is to be in a low earth orbit. All this is nonsense, anyway, because a stealth aircraft is not going to have an directional antenna grafted on so as to bounce back radar signals and give away its position. This is a totally ridiculous argument. Give it up!

      Maybe in the 24th century, RWS technology can be used to track a target, not merely warn the pilot that the aircraft has been painted by radar.

      Sorry, it's a bit more advanced then that. It gives you a signal strength and a line of bearing to the radar source. If you have two aircraft in different locations you can even triangulate the emissions and get an exact location.

      Hogwash. RWS can discern frequencies and signal strength from which a pilot (or the RWS) would deduce the type of threat (radar guided missile or ground radar tracking). The best that RWS is going to give you is a crude indicator of direction of the radar signal. If an aircraft only has antenna/sensors at the front and rear, the pilot will only know if the front or rear sensor has been painted by radar. That is how RWS really works.

      Triangulation requires three points (think triangle). So, now the premise is that three F117A would have to be dispatched to get a triangulation on an AWACS? This is getting to be a complicated mission to knock out an AWACS (but loads of fun to skewer).

      So now your saying the F-117 doesn't have RWS because it would require external antennas? Wrong on both counts. RWS is extremely important the mission of the F-117. As stated before Stealth technology doesn't make it impossible to be detected -- it only makes it harder. They need to know where the radar sources are so they can evade them.

      As I've previously explained, RWS is blind without the antenna/sensors attached to the hull of the aircraft. That is a fact. Even if the sensors are perfectly flush with the skin of the aircraft, the F117A is painted with a special radar absorbant material (RAM) which would insulate sensors from the radar signal. Of course, leaving those sensors unpainted gives you a nice radar reflecting surface. Knowledge of radar sources is part of pre-flight planning for all combat pilots, not just F117A pilots. Doesn't mean that you'll know where all the radar sites are located or that sites could not have been moved since the last report was compiled. Such is the nature of warfare.

      If you take an F-117 and fly directly at a radar source (airborne or otherwise) sooner or later you will be detected. To use your sarcastic Star Trek analogys "It's not a cloaking device".

      What's the difference from the first pass to the tenth (or whatever iteration you like) pass. This is comical. What's the point?

      How long do you think it takes to target and fire an AIM-9? It would be a pretty pointless weapon if it couldn't be targeted and fired within a few seconds. This isn't Top Gun where you need to fly around and wait until you've "got lock". You pretty much point the AIM-9 in the right direction and pull the trigger. The new generation Russian IR missiles (the R-73 -- AA-11 to you NATO types) are even cooler -- they have helmet sighting -- i.e: look at the target and pull the trigger. Doe

    209. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by trentblase · · Score: 1

      I am just expecting you to back up your claim. One example is all it would take, but since you keep sidestepping the issue, it's obvious that you can't support your statement.

    210. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The SR-71 is not an attack aircraft, idiot. You could have said the same thing about airliners -- not that they haven't been used in air to ground attacks in a pinch.

    211. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Triangulation requires three points (think triangle).

      Umm, says who? If you have two platforms (far enough apart) with sensors that can figure out a line of bearing to the signals they are receiving (radar, radio transmissions, or what have you) you draw a line from each platform out along the line of bearing. Where the lines intersect is the approximate location of your target.

      Having three platforms might give you a more accurate location but I assure you that you can pull off this exercise with two. Ever used ham radio?

      As I've previously explained, RWS is blind without the antenna/sensors attached to the hull of the aircraft. That is a fact. Even if the sensors are perfectly flush with the skin of the aircraft, the F117A is painted with a special radar absorbant material (RAM) which would insulate sensors from the radar signal.

      Actually the F-117 (like the B-2) also relies on wire mesh (it's actually a bit more complicated then that but that's the basic theory) to disappiate any radar signals that pentrate through the RAM. Recall the previous discussions on /. about using chicken wire to block cell phone signals. If some of the signal has gotten past the skin of the aircraft it could be detected by internal sensors. In any case the F-117 does have a few external sensors -- all your arguments about RCS aside. The "whiskers" on the front of the F-117 are actually sensors (airspeed, laser designator, etc). In this way they are useful without damaging the RCS by an unacceptable amount.

      One of the few things that Top Gun got right is the maneuvering of the fighters to get a missile lock

      The AIM-9 doesn't get a "missile lock". You do need to be pointed in the relative direction of your target -- and you'll hear a growl as the IR sensor picks up the heat emissions of the bandit you are going after. "Missile lock" implies radar guided weapons -- in the case of the F-14 that would be AIM-54 or AIM-7. Tom Gun was a laughable movie -- the F-14 isn't used as a dogfighter except as a last resort, the Exocet missile would be useless against an American Carrier Battle Group (unless you wanted to deploy a couple hundred of them), and the Red Force in the movie was using F-5s -- err I mean "MiG-28s".

      US/NATO military doctrine calls for gaining air superiority over the enemy.

      A task made easier if they don't have their airborne radar and command and control operational.

      When the enemy's fighter jet fleet has been attrited to the level of ineffectiveness

      Try wargaming that scenario if both sides have equal numbers of aircraft and technology (i.e: 80s NATO and Warsaw pact). Your forces are going to be drawn down just as badly as theirs are. Hint: We don't fight attrition style warfare (on purpose anyway).

      Without the AWACS, opposing fighters can still put up a credible threat with just the ground control.

      Ground control is helpful but it's not the same thing -- otherwise why would we bother with AWACS in the first place? AWACS is more or less immune to the line-of-sight problems that affect ground based radar. AWACS can paint radar into valleys and hidden approaches that ground based radar can't hope to cover.

      I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge this is a possibility -- even though it's one I doubt we'll be using anytime soon. It was rumored back in the 80s (I'm not the only one that has heard this), it is theatrically possible and it would go a long way towards explaining the 'F' designation of the F-117. Otherwise it should have been designated 'A-117' (I don't think the 'B' would apply either).

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    212. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't want my air space to be "Infultrately hardended"... whatever the fuck that means.

    213. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by jhunsake · · Score: 1

      No, the only thing that's obvious is that I have more important things to do than "prove" stuff to you. You're worse than some of my students.

    214. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1

      Theoretically Possible.

      I am not engaging in fanciful suppostion with non-existent Star Trek technology to turn an excellent attack jet into a poor excuse for an aircombat jet by bolting on AIM-9's. Make no mistake about it, a military jet tasked to eliminate another aircraft is a fighter (no matter how poorly suited to the task). Perhaps in its embryonic stage, the F117A was conceived as aircombat capable. However, the technological reality of designing an aircraft in the 1970's for stealth (poor aerodynamic shape, no radar, restricted air intake and exhaust, etc.) forces a rethinking about the role of such an aircraft.

      I am pleased that there are no longer protestations about directional antenna mounted on the F117A. However, the fanciful supposition continues on other fronts.

      If you have two platforms (far enough apart) with sensors that can figure out a line of bearing to the signals they are receiving (radar, radio transmissions, or what have you) you draw a line from each platform out along the line of bearing. Where the lines intersect is the approximate location of your target.

      There seems to be a concession that RWS needs sensors to detect radar signals. Progress. But we're still in the Middle Ages where alchemy is the leading edge of scientific thought, because current RWS cannot pinpoint a radar emitting target. What would be required to get RWS to get a directional fix? First, the aircraft would need to be covered by thousands of sensors to get a better fix on the direction of radar signal (think dpi on your monitor). The best way to deploy the sensors would be in a spherical configuration but spherical shapes are good for hot air balloons, not fighter aircraft tasked with hunting down other aircraft. Fortunately, radar signals deploy in a sweeping motion so that the thousands of sensors would get multiple hits. With advanced software and the computing power available on the Starship Enterprise, the RWS system would determine the pattern of radar sweep against the sensors registering a hit, the signal strength and duration over the period of the sweep, model a virtual sphere of sensors to extrapolate the direction of the radar source. Of course, a virtual sphere is really not good enough and the more distant the radar source, the more inaccurate the result (maybe if you had millions of sensors). At least one more sensor encrusted F117A would be need to get a fix on the target. Not only that, there needs to be a central system to link up and to process the data from these F117A's (which could resemble flying porcupines if you go with antenna). This central system may require the computing power of multiple HAL's, minus the dementia, because it must continually process data of multiple moving sensors tracking a moving target. The math is making my head hurt. All the while, these sensor covered F117A's which are constantly broadcasting targeting data are still somehow radar invisible.

      Actually the F-117 (like the B-2) also relies on wire mesh (it's actually a bit more complicated then that but that's the basic theory) to disappiate any radar signals that pentrate through the RAM. Recall the previous discussions on /. about using chicken wire to block cell phone signals. If some of the signal has gotten past the skin of the aircraft it could be detected by internal sensors. In any case the F-117 does have a few external sensors -- all your arguments about RCS aside. The "whiskers" on the front of the F-117 are actually sensors (airspeed, laser designator, etc). In this way they are useful without damaging the RCS by an unacceptable amount.

      The mesh used in the stealth aircraft cover the air intakes. Radar signals reflect very well off the rotating blades of the engine and the concave shape of the intakes. Radar signals may be able penetrate cloth skin (like in a Stearman biplane) but it reflects off metal surfaces, the reflection is picked up by the radar antenna and that's how rad

    215. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      because current RWS cannot pinpoint a radar emitting target.

      Alright, maybe I erred by using the term "RWS". How about ESM? Electronic support measures. If you think it's impossible to get a line of bearing to an enemy radar station (and with two different platforms in different locations draw a line and locate the approximate location of the transmitter) then you've never played Harpoon or studied modern warfare. Wargame a few scenarios in Harpoon sometime -- the decision to use your radar is always a tough one to make because the minute you do use it you give away your exact location (and more then likely the types of ships or aircraft in your force) to your enemy.

      All the while you maintain that the F-117 would be instantly detected and located if it used radar or radio but you simultaneously ignore the fact that the F-117 could use similar systems to locate it's quarry. You also ignore the fact that the F-117 does use these systems in it's primary mission to evade radar.

      Now I'll grant you that this mission was probably always a long shot. But it was discussed and is theoretically possible. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this fact? I'm not the only one that's heard these rumors. Rumors usually have some sort of basis in fact. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

      The Tomcats fought and downed Libyan MiG's over the Mediterranian when Reagan and Khaddafy had their pissing match over the "Line of Death". That was dogfighting. Until after the first Gulf War, the F-14 has been a dedicated air-to-air combat aircraft, whether its task was downing Soviet strategic bombers, Libyan aggressive MiG's, providing cover for attack jets, protecting the fleet or whatever.

      Yes, but the F-14 was envisioned as an interceptor. It's primary weapon (the AIM-54 Phoenix) was designed to take out missile carrying Soviet bombers before they could get close enough to the carrier to launch their missiles. Until the more recent updates the AIM-54 was ineffective vs smaller targets (i.e: fighters). The F-14 can dogfight and will win nine out of ten times (once the long-range missile element is removed winning in aerial combat has as much to do with pilot training as it does with technology -- and we have the best trained pilots in the world -- not to mention the best technology), but it was not originally designed with dogfighting in mind. There is a difference (albeit a blurred one) between the concept of the interceptor (the F-14 or the MiG-31) and the classical fighter (the F-16 or MiG-29). The interceptor usually trades agility for longer-range and/or a more powerful weapons/sensors suite.

      Exocet missiles? MiG-28s? What the heck are you talking about?

      I was making fun of the final combat scene in Top Gun. Specifically the MiG-28 (a fake aircraft that only existed in that movie -- they were actually F-5s) and the implied threat of the Exocet missile to the USS Enterprise (CVN-65 not NCC-1701 -- but then I doubt Exocet is much of a threat to Kirk and his crew either ;) There's simply no way in hell that Exocet missiles penetrate a carrier battle group's defenses (all the moreso since the advent of AEGIS) let alone that any aircraft carrying them would survive the outer air battle long enough to get close enough to fire them (max range of about 65km according to FAS). The only way you'd be able to pull it off would be to saturate the group's defenses -- and to do that you'd need dozens (hundreds?) of aircraft carrying hundreds of missiles -- and you can write off the vast majority of them to the F-14s and F-18s before they even get close enough to fire the Exocets.

      Even if you managed to put an Exocet into an American Aircraft Carrier the damage would in all likelihood not take the Carrier out of action (let alone sink her). The Exocet has a 165kg warhead. In contrast the Russian air-launched anti-ship missiles of the Cold War (which had a much longer range, superso

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    216. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1
      This line of absurdity began when I responded to a posting that the F117A can be fitted with sidewinders. I, too, have heard this but I opined that the F117A far from an ideal platform for the AIM-9 and stated my reasons. That posting spurred a reply about how ideal of a platform the F117A would be for hunting down AWACS and other high-value airborne targets. Now, I think that is an inconceivably bad pairing of aircraft abilities to task. I have no idea how playing Harpoon (whatever that is), Exocets and F-14's got into the mix. Basing the capabilities of the F117A on an flightsim game (assuming that's what Harpoon is) is not a credible argument. Not understanding the fundamental idea that radar works by reflecting back from, not penetrating, the subject aircraft, does not lend weight to an argument. Neither does ascribing fantastic capability to RWS (or is it ESM? How about BVR - Beyond Vague Ranging system?).

      Now, one can always harp on what is theoretically possible no matter how improbable or how bad an idea. But I am trying to keep things rooted in the world as it exists now and away from the pie-in-the-sky Star Trek technology which does not exist. Modern warfare is not the same as skirmishing with Klingon battle cruisers. Modern weapons systems are limited by existing technology and the laws of physics, not magic not mysticism. I think I've addressed all pertinent arguments but there is still persistence on the mystical powers of the F117A to track and shoot down airborne targets while still maintaining a low radar profile.

    217. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by trentblase · · Score: 1
      What? A student who doesn't blindly believe anything their teacher/professor/typing tutor tells them? Blasphemy!

      If you are going to make a factual claim, you should be able and willing to back it up with a modicum of evidence. If you have time to get into a stupid flame war with me, then you have time to provide a reference.

    218. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Not understanding the fundamental idea that radar works by reflecting back from, not penetrating, the subject aircraft, does not lend weight to an argument

      You missed my point. My point was that a radar return off the F-117 (or B-2) is more likely then not going to be bounced off the internal structure of the aircraft -- since the external structure either absorbs radar signals or reflects them back away from the intended receiver. My other point being that an RWS system could work in theory without external sensors by picking up the transmissions that weren't absorbed by the external structure -- since transmissions that were absorbed (or reflected elsewhere) are no threat. Try reading my statement before you jump all over it. Neither does ascribing fantastic capability to RWS (or is it ESM? How about BVR - Beyond Vague Ranging system?).

      In that single comment you reveal your ignorance and arrogance about modern military technology. This has nothing to do with fancy Star Trek style technology. Most of this stuff has been around for decades. The concepts are nothing new -- they go all the way back to WW2.

      To quote from this military site:

      ESM is the area of Electronic Warfare (EW) that evaluates passive electronic devices used for signal intelligence (SIGINT) collection. These types of systems are RF based. ESM system evaluations include but are not limited to: SIGINT library validation, direction finding array calibration and validation, target fixing algorithm validation, intercept capability, and evaluation of special signals.

      Here are some other interesting websites that you should consider reading. Google is your friend.

      None of this is "fantastic capability" or 24th century technology. None of this implies mystical powers on the part of the F-117 (or any other modern aircraft or ship).

      Now, unlike you, I don't pretend to be a know all expert on modern military technology. But I also don't pretend that just because I don't understand something or haven't heard about it that it must be magical Star Trek technology clearly beyond our current means.

      I have no idea how playing Harpoon (whatever that is), Exocets and F-14's got into the mix.

      Harpoon is an all encompassing sea-air battle simulation coined by Larry Bond that is played on paper rules or with PC software. If your interested (it's really quite good) I suggest you check it out. Exocets and F-14s got into the mix because you made the asinine comment about how realistic Top Gun was -- I was blowing this argument out of the water. Talk to any real Naval aviator (or Air Force for that matter) -- they think it's one of the funniest movies ever made. Though they would probably agree with you about the flight instructor sleeping with Tom Cruise part ;)

      Modern weapons systems are limited by existing technology and the laws of physics, not magic not mysticism

      No disagreement. You just don't seem to have an understanding of what modern technology is capable of. Read up on ESM/RWS technology sometime -- I think you'll be surprised at what it's capable of -- and it's hardly new -- it's been around (albeit in more primitive form) since WW2.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    219. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1
      Some people don't understand radar. And some never will.
      My point was that a radar return off the F-117 (or B-2) is more likely then not going to be bounced off the internal structure of the aircraft -- since the external structure either absorbs radar signals or reflects them back away from the intended receiver. My other point being that an RWS system could work in theory without external sensors by picking up the transmissions that weren't absorbed by the external structure -- since transmissions that were absorbed (or reflected elsewhere) are no threat.

      Convoluted and wrong. The faceting deflects the radar signal away from the source antenna. The RAM is a coating (like paint). Think of a mirror reflecting light (that could be like a normal airplane) and think of a mirror that is tilted from the light source and coated with a varnish dulling its reflective surface (that's what would be the stealth aircraft). It is not entirely invisible but it's got a low profile. The radar signal does not get absorbed through the skin of the aircraft only to be reflected off by the internal structure. Hell, the radar signal can't penetrate crap. This is a total misunderstanding about radar and stealth technology.


      None of this is "fantastic capability" or 24th century technology. None of this implies mystical powers on the part of the F-117 (or any other modern aircraft or ship).

      It is fantasy if you think that the shipboard and submarine based equipment you've cited can be fitted on an F117A and to further expect it to work without a antenna arrays or any other sensor device for picking up signals.


      Now, unlike you, I don't pretend to be a know all expert on modern military technology. But I also don't pretend that just because I don't understand something or haven't heard about it that it must be magical Star Trek technology clearly beyond our current means.

      Pretending is all you've been doing. Pulling these pie-in-sky systems out of your ass and bolting them on an F117A outfitted with AIM-9's to hunt AWACS is borderline delusional. I am debunking this masturbatory military fantasy and you are still desperately clinging to your Star Trek technology. Citing shipboard and submarine based systems as support for your arguments is really pathetic.


      Harpoon is an all encompassing sea-air battle simulation coined by Larry Bond that is played on paper rules or with PC software. If your interested (it's really quite good) I suggest you check it out [harpoon3.com]. Exocets and F-14s got into the mix because you made the asinine comment about how realistic Top Gun was -- I was blowing this argument out of the water. Talk to any real Naval aviator (or Air Force for that matter) -- they think it's one of the funniest movies ever made. Though they would probably agree with you about the flight instructor sleeping with Tom Cruise part ;)

      I knew it. A gameboi. Learned everything he knows about military tactics from the God's eye view of a computerbased battlesim. Not bored with the game yet means you haven't figured out the algorithm. As for my Top Gun comments, you'll have to get an adult to read them and break it down into tiny little easily digestible bits for you.


      No disagreement. You just don't seem to have an understanding of what modern technology is capable of. Read up on ESM/RWS technology sometime -- I think you'll be surprised at what it's capable of -- and it's hardly new -- it's been around (albeit in more primitive form) since WW2.

      Kinda funny that you mentioned WWII. I had a physics professor who worked on radar research during WWII. He actually knew Albert Einstein and related a story about his time at Cal Berkeley in the 1930's where he held in the palm of his hand one of the first ever cyclotrons. Now, that's fantasy stuff, only it's real.

    220. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      It is fantasy if you think that the shipboard and submarine based equipment you've cited can be fitted on an F117A and to further expect it to work without a antenna arrays or any other sensor device for picking up signals.

      You have a serious "I know everything" attitude problem. Whereas I've admitted to cases where I've been in the wrong you still refuse to do any such thing. About what I'd expect on /. but still disappointing.

      There are several examples of airborne ESM systems. You still refuse to understand the technology or admit that it's in everyday use. Why is it so hard to understand? It's only a minor step above a fucking radar detector for crying out loud. Are radar detectors Star Trek technology too? Maybe the next time I get pulled over I'll just phaser the bastard when he asks what that little black box on my dash is.

      I knew it. A gameboi. Learned everything he knows about military tactics from the God's eye view of a computerbased battlesim. Not bored with the game yet means you haven't figured out the algorithm.

      Actually I haven't touched it in months -- I'm too busy with the real World. Sorry to debunk your image of me as a 17 year old geek in my parents basement. I actually served in the US Coast Guard to put myself through college. Two friends of mine and ex-roommates are graduates of USAFA. Another friend of mine is in her fourth year at Annapolis. Does this make me an all knowing expert on military tactics and technology? Hardly -- but then where does your knowledge come from? CNN? Naw probably Fox News based on your "I know everything and you are automatically wrong" attitude.

      As for my Top Gun comments, you'll have to get an adult to read them and break it down into tiny little easily digestible bits for you.

      As far as I can tell (no outside assistance required) your Top Gun statements boiled into two parts: A) One of the few things they got right was the maneuvering of the fighters to get a missile lock. While it's true that any fighter needs to maneuver somewhat to gain a firing position Top Gun took it completely over the top. If you are pointing at your bandit and illuminate him with fire control radar you have a missile lock -- you don't have wait five seconds for the green reticule to magically turn red. With IR missiles (the type they would have been using in a dogfight btw -- not Sparrows) you wouldn't even hear a radar lock -- it's a growl.

      Your other Top Gun comment was about promiscuous flight instructors that sleep with hot looking pilots like Tom Cruise. Had you actually been busy reading my replies you would have noted my humor at this -- trying to keep the debate civil. Unfortunately you were too busy thinking you should show off and make me look like an idiot to notice this.

      Does it give you a good feeling to spew your know-it-all attitude on an Internet forum? I agreed to disagree you -- you came back with a wise ass comment (that's wrong btw, but I won't try disputing it because you won't believe me anyway) about Radar and implied that I was a child who spent too much time playing warsims. If you had bothered to research the technology behind ESM you would have found airborne versions -- apparently I need to finger-feed you and point you in the right direction. Likewise if you had bothered to research Harpoon before bashing it you would have discovered that it's actually used by several real Naval forces the World over (Australia uses it) for training purposes. It is hands-down the most realistic war-sim that you can get outside of actually joining the service. It started out as a paper-rules game before being written for the first PC platform in 1989. It has almost 20 years of support and development from ex-Naval officers backing

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    221. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1

      You have a serious "I know everything" attitude problem. Whereas I've admitted to cases where I've been in the wrong you still refuse to do any such thing. About what I'd expect on /. but still disappointing.

      You have a serious "know nothing" problem. Ceasing to promulgate the more fantastic claims after its complete debunking seems a rather pale admission of error.

      You still refuse to understand the technology or admit that it's in everyday use. Why is it so hard to understand? It's only a minor step above a fucking radar detector for crying out loud. Are radar detectors Star Trek technology too? Maybe the next time I get pulled over I'll just phaser the bastard when he asks what that little black box on my dash is.

      Yeah, you've cited technology that is is in everyday use on ships, submarines and AWACS, which is vastly different from the F117A (I can't believe this needs to be pointed out). You still seem to think that these systems don't need sensor arrays or antenna to pick up radar waves which, in your bizarre world, penetrate the skin of the F117A as if they are gamma rays, get reflected off the internal structures of the F117A only to be trapped by this chicken wire mesh underneath the skin (must work like a roach motel, lets radar/gamma waves check in but not check out). To cope with radar waves that strong, I guess pilots must don lead-lined flight suits with double thickness at the crotch to protect the unborn. Also, the single seater F117A can't carry a radio operator to do the tracking and sychronization of information from the other F117A's as they triangulate the enemy position. No matter, the computer on the Starship Enterprise can talk, a vui, voice-operated user interface. I am a bit concerned that one of the cited systems uses Windows NT, probably running bogus voice recognition software. There's nothing more unfortunate than closing in for the kill and getting the infamous BSOD.

      I actually served in the US Coast Guard to put myself through college.

      That explains your preference for bolting marine based systems onto the F117A. My grandfather served in the US Coast Guard during WWII. He worked in the kitchen and spent most of his time peeling spuds for the war effort; radar was pretty crude in those days and Harpoon didn't even exist so his services as a cook were more valuable than his mad skills as a radar operator or master theater strategist (talent on loan from Halsey). Had Nimitz spent more time below deck, I'm sure he'd have recognized the brilliance of this humble tater grater. My family's military history could really have been illustrious.

      With IR missiles (the type they would have been using in a dogfight btw -- not Sparrows) you wouldn't even hear a radar lock -- it's a growl.

      You still think the AIM-9 is a dumb fire weapon. Just pathetic.

      Your other Top Gun comment was about promiscuous flight instructors that sleep with hot looking pilots like Tom Cruise. Had you actually been busy reading my replies you would have noted my humor at this -- trying to keep the debate civil.

      Believe me, I was laughing. Probably more than intended.

      If you had bothered to research the technology behind ESM you would have found airborne versions -- apparently I need to finger-feed you and point you in the right direction.

      Hmmm, this "research" is desperate attempt to shore up a discredited argument by Googling for websites. Never mind that these were marine-based or special purpose aircraft based systems. Never mind that these systems require sensor arrays or antenna. Never mind that the F117A is unsuited for the air-to-air role.

      I'm done debating this with you.

      Promises, promises.

      You'll never budge from your position. That said it was an interesting argument -- until you went an

    222. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      That explains your preference for bolting marine based systems onto the F117A. My grandfather served in the US Coast Guard during WWII. He worked in the kitchen and spent most of his time peeling spuds for the war effort; radar was pretty crude in those days and Harpoon didn't even exist so his services as a cook were more valuable than his mad skills as a radar operator or master theater strategist (talent on loan from Halsey). Had Nimitz spent more time below deck, I'm sure he'd have recognized the brilliance of this humble tater grater. My family's military history could really have been illustrious.

      That's a nice way to insult someone between the lines when you don't know anything about them. My hats off to you. Must make you feel real big and powerful to insult people you've never met.

      You still think the AIM-9 is a dumb fire weapon. Just pathetic.

      No, I think the AIM-9 senses infrared emissions from it's target and responds with a growl in the cockpit of varying intensity based on how strong those emissions are. Radar doesn't enter the picture -- thus no "radar lock". Where did I say "dumb-fire" weapon? I said there is no "radar lock" required to use this weapon. I also said that Top Gun's portrayal of F-14s dog fighting with AIM-7 Sparrows was complete bullshit. And for the record the AIM-9 can be used in a dumb fire mode -- albeit with a much smaller chance of success -- recall the previous story about the Nimrod patrol aircraft.

      AIM-9s have been hung off lots of non-fighter aircraft for self-defense -- Nimrods, P-3 Orions, A-6s, A-7s and A-10s all come to mind. This doesn't make them into dedicated fighters or even mean they are likely to survive an encounter with a modern fighter but as they say "A 15% chance of survival is better then 0%".

      You, however, keep insisting that non-existent physics-defying technologies

      Why do you keep coming out with your arrogant "physics-defying technologies" statements? If you want to make an argument against the F-117 being able to carry these technologies (due to bulk, cooling concerns, overburdened pilot or external antennas) then fine. I just made your case for you without being arrogant or using sarcastic Star Trek references. Calling technology that's been around since the 40s "physics-defying" is arrogant and short sided. Moreover it makes you look like an idiot when you actually seem somewhat knowledgeable (albeit while refusing to concede any points) on the subject.

      then admit you have been pulling it out of your ass

      Like you've been pulling your attitude out of your ass? Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? I maintained a civil discussion without resorting to name calling or insults. Every point of yours that I proved wrong (is this really the first time you've heard of ESM systems?) you either refuse to accept or completely ignored. Then you resorted to mudslinging and name-calling. I'm not going to stoop to that level for a stupid offtopic discussion about the F-117.

      I'll close it out by saying that according to some friends of mine it was seriously discussed within the Air Force back in the 80s. It was apparently dismissed as an idea because of the speed limitations of the F-117 and the fact that it would probably have been a suicide mission -- they would probably have made it to the target and shot it down but afterwards they would have been pounced on by dozens of fighters using radar and IR sensors. Escape would have been very hard indeed. It wasn't dismissed as an idea because of a lack of an ability to track the target down or because of an inability to carry AIM-9. Indeed when I asked them if the F-117 could carry Sidewinders they refused to answer yes or no. That's answer enough for me.

      I don't know what I did to warrant being on the receiving end of your attitude and insults but I'm through with you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    223. Re:Assembly AND Military Experience Required by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1
      That's a nice way to insult someone between the lines when you don't know anything about them. My hats off to you.

      Thanks, but that was a true story. So much for your sense of humor.


      Radar doesn't enter the picture -- thus no "radar lock". Where did I say "dumb-fire" weapon?

      I never said "radar lock." You seem to think missile = radar. I gonna tell you and you'll just have to believe it or don't: missile != radar, radar = radar, missile = missile. Hell, I put in a modest discourse about the the variablity of time to acquire a target with IR systems. How on earth could anyone (except you) think I was talking about radar? And regarding your understanding of radar....


      Why do you keep coming out with your arrogant "physics-defying technologies" statements?

      Why do you insist on making completely idiotic statements about how radar works? It's fairly obvious you are clueless in this area by the way you ascribe to it properties akin to black magic. Then there is the delusional rationale requiring military hardware souped up to Roddenberryesque specifications and cobbled onto the F117A to bolster a flawed premise.


      Like you've been pulling your attitude out of your ass?

      It seeps from every pore of my body. My pores beat your ass. j/k


      I maintained a civil discussion without resorting to name calling or insults.

      When posting to an Internet board, one must infer the tone of the poster. When you started by calling me an idiot, I was too narrow minded (as opposed to simple minded) to realize you were engaging in civil discussion. Of course, as your persistent claims about technical capabilities became ever more bizarro, I was being a bit sporty.


      I'll close it out by saying that according to some friends of mine it was seriously discussed within the Air Force back in the 80s. It was apparently dismissed as an idea because of the speed limitations of the F-117 and the fact that it would probably have been a suicide mission -- they would probably have made it to the target and shot it down but afterwards they would have been pounced on by dozens of fighters using radar and IR sensors. Escape would have been very hard indeed. It wasn't dismissed as an idea because of a lack of an ability to track the target down or because of an inability to carry AIM-9. Indeed when I asked them if the F-117 could carry Sidewinders they refused to answer yes or no. That's answer enough for me.

      I'm assuming this discussion took place after my initial posting that the F117A was not an ideal platform for the AIM-9. Because it sure sounds a helluva lot like what I've been saying, and if you accepted it from your friends, then there was no need to transform an F117A into a Rube Goldberg device.


      I don't know what I did to warrant being on the receiving end of your attitude and insults but I'm through with you.

      But I'm just warming up.

  2. Ellison? by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hmmmm. This sounds like the owner might have been Larry Ellison. There have been a number of Mig-29's available in private hands over the years as well as a couple of F-104 Starfighters. I don't know if Larry owned an F-18, or an F-16 but I talked to him at a Java conference (at least I'm pretty sure it was Ellison) years ago and he expressed an interest in obtaining fighter jets like the Mig-29. Someone told me that he recently married, so perhaps his wife would rather he not go "jetting off" and would like him to calm his lifestyle a bit?

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Ellison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh I see. Its like trading in the corvette, for a station wagon or in this case, trading in the jet fighter for the family cessna.

    2. Re:Ellison? by the+melon · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is actually a doctor who owns it. I saw a program on Discovery Wings a year or two ago that had him and the plane in it. They gave his name but I cannot remember what it was.

      He said the only real restriction that was on the plane was one that is on all civilian aircraft: No supersonic flight over US airspace.

    3. Re:Ellison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hmmmmmmm. I think BWJones doesn't know much about Larry Ellison and the outcome of Ellison's bid to purchase and fly his own Mig-29 can be found relatively easily on the interweb.

      Isn't this post a lot more informative?

    4. Re:Ellison? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Its being sold by rohn towers though - all the other auctions in the seller history are antenna and tower parts. For those who don't know they are big in the amateur radio community and they declared bankruptcy last year.

  3. And they wonder why... by DaLiNKz · · Score: 1, Troll

    Blue Angel for sale Navy plane shows up on eBay Nicole Lozare @PensacolaNewsJournal.com After almost 50,000 hits in two days, no one is buying what Mike Landa is selling on eBay. Everyone just wants to know how he acquired the Navy Blue Angels' F/A-18 Hornet. Landa and Associates of Washington state is selling the jet for $1,050,000 - some assembly required.

    Maybe the lack of people buying implies not everyone has a few million sitting around?

    --
    I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
    1. Re:And they wonder why... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm calling it an investment. I figure when the *IAA sees my hard drive it'll be cheaper to have a kitted up fighter jet to deal with the problem than it would be to pay what they ask.

    2. Re:And they wonder why... by Webmoth · · Score: 1

      I see three possible options with this scenario:

      1. The coward's way out: use the jet to fly to a non-RIAA supporting country and defect.

      2. The wimpy way out: sell the jet and use the proceeds to pay off the RIAA.

      3. The preferred way out. Turn the engines on the RIAA. Full afterburner.

      --
      Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
  4. Two weks from now... by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Funny

    Positive Feedback: A+++++++++++++!!!! Bomb racks work great! Thanks!!!!!11

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Two weks from now... by I'm+Spartacus! · · Score: 2, Funny

      That sounds just like Dubya.

      --
      "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
    2. Re:Two weks from now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and when he/she gets arrested:"whazzzuuppp!

      isnt it allowed to buy military stuff and attack people?"

    3. Re:Two weks from now... by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      A++ they all say.
      They love me on eBay.

      or

      I am the type who is liable to snipe you,
      With two seconds left to go, whoa

    4. Re:Two weks from now... by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      More likely:

      (-) do nto buy seller misleeding auction THOUGHT IT WAS MODEL, now wants me to pay $2million!!! ebaynoob14 (1)

      Reply by mdlanda: Item delivered via flatbed to buyer's parents driveway within one week, did not tell me anything was wrong. Refuses to return merchandise although bank transfer never came through. STAY AWAY FROM BUYER!

      --
      ...
  5. i bet osama is bidding on it now by fozzy(pro) · · Score: 0, Troll

    you know it's true

    1. Re:i bet osama is bidding on it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, create an eBay account with the name before someone else does!

  6. Government oversight? by warlockgs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Interesting. Are there any sort of government oversights as to how these can be sold and to whom? I would hate for some wack-job with money to get a hold of one of these, get some armament via the black market, and use it to do something regrettable.

    1. Re:Government oversight? by glpierce · · Score: 1

      These kinds of weapons are already available on the black market to the highest bidder. This is just the first attempt to use eBay to make the process legitimate. You can be sure the gov't is going to keep tabs on the buyer.

      --
      G
    2. Re:Government oversight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gosh, maybe if you clicked the link you'd see the oversights mentioned right there.

    3. Re:Government oversight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yez. The sellers are also "checking out" the potential buyers. The Blue Angels fly more or less demiliterized planes anyway, and those auctioning this one took it's radio out. The buyer will likely be either a corporation, or association that uses it essentially as a sculpture because of some affiliation with F-18, a museum, or maybe a group of people including a former navy flyer who purchase and pay to assemble it so they can fly it around to air shows, and rent it back to the government at a premium for photography work and the like. Osamma will not be flying an F-18. That is just a goofey monster in the closet fear.

    4. Re:Government oversight? by kahrhoff · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I wasn't trolling. Trolls don't post using there names and linking to their weblogs. I meant every part of what I wrote. It's retards like this who want ever little decision made for them by the government that knows best that are running this country into the ground. And I was being serious I wish he would just kill himself

    5. Re:Government oversight? by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      All systems nto related to getting the thing flying with reasonable safety are removed. No gun, no fire control computers, no weapon mounts. I imagine you could righ something onto it, but it would be a shitload of work.

    6. Re:Government oversight? by pyite · · Score: 1

      It's no more a weapon than a regular airplane. Anything can be a weapon if you want, but we don't go around calling most airplanes "weapons."

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    7. Re:Government oversight? by sfjoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would hate for some wack-job with money to get a hold of one of these, ...

      Too late - he's already got 'em. And I don't think you should be calling the President of the USA a "wack-job".

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    8. Re:Government oversight? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny
      I would hate for some wack-job with money to get a hold of one of these, get some armament via the black market, and use it to do something regrettable.

      I would imagine that most wack-jobs would choose to save about $8,990,000 by mounting their black market arms on the back of a pickup truck instead of on this jet.

    9. Re:Government oversight? by Neurotoxic666 · · Score: 1

      and use it to do something regrettable

      Don't worry. Potential terrorists would need an LoA. They can't even take off! Now that's a safe country!

      --
      You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
    10. Re:Government oversight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      someone needs to get laid. and that person is you, ya bitchy everything-hater!

    11. Re:Government oversight? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      Converting training aircraft to combat is very easy. A gun pod or unguided missiles are the easiest things to install. Usually training aircraft like BEA Hawks are converted to military use in many third world countries. If you are looking for bombing and strafing some gerrilla hideout, that's all you need. If you are thinking of bombing from high altitute with laser guided bombs, using fire-and-forget air-to-air missiles, (even infrared and radar guided missiles), those systems are expensive but still not impossible to get in the black market.

      Countries like Israel make a living out of upgrading old aircraft with the latest avionics. I heard that their F-4 renovation project is brilliant and adds 20 more years to the airframe and weapons systems.

    12. Re:Government oversight? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Mate, buying an airband radio should be least of your worries. The most second hand units cost under 100 pounds.

    13. Re:Government oversight? by Wanderer2 · · Score: 1
      I would hate for some wack-job with money to get a hold of one of these

      Well Jeremy Clarkson has an old RAF Lightning in his garden...

      --
      I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
    14. Re:Government oversight? by EverDense · · Score: 1
      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
    15. Re:Government oversight? by IdleTime · · Score: 2, Funny

      I guess you didn't check the link, did you?
      If you had, you would have seen that Bin-Laden is one of the bidders!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    16. Re:Government oversight? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      Are there any sort of government oversights as to how these can be sold and to whom? I would hate for some wack-job with money to get a hold of one of these, get some armament via the black market, and use it to do something regrettable.

      Like what? There are plenty of civilian aircraft you can buy for a lot cheaper than an F-18 that can carry substantially larger payloads, and you'd have more money left over for explosives. The only advantage to the jet fighter is that it goes real fast, but the downside is that an F-18 attracts suspicion and a garden-variety small cargo plane does not. The F-18 is a lot harder to fly, too.

      Now, if you want to engage professional military pilots in air combat, this is the plane to do it with, but there are also much cheaper methods of suicide available.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    17. Re:Government oversight? by warlockgs · · Score: 1

      But who would keep your mom company if I did go off and kill myself?

      But seriously, military-grade hardware should be watched to make sure we don't wind up with Joe Schmoe flying a weapons-ready aircraft and doing something horrible with it. I don't look to the government regulation of everything, but there is a REASON why these aircraft are not available in your local aircraft dealership. These planes were designed to do several things, all of which involve aggressive action. Like I said previously, I hope someone is watching and makes sure we don't wind up with some screw-up owning one of these things, and doing something like... ohhhhh repainting it to match current military insignia and using it to perform atrocities on another country, landing us square in the middle of a conflict we don't want or need right now. Think about it, and pull your head out of the 9/11 gutter. I don't think one would get very far in the US trying to fly one of these into a building or anything, I am just worried that it could be used as a tool to get us involved in something larger.

      As an aside, what would you suggest as an alternative to government oversight (note the word OVERSIGHT, look it up in a dictionary sometime) that would keep this plane in safe hands?

    18. Re:Government oversight? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Define "these kinds of weapons". I suspect an F-18, or even a cheap F-16 won't be available to anyone but many italian, british and russian makes are. In many cases it's no use to have a strike aircraft. Mortars, RPGs and machine guns are more useful. Bombing gerilla forces is not effective, sending some soldiers to wipe them is. Former is for propoganda/morale reasons, the latter is a solution to the problem. Of course carpet bombing (as the USofA does) is not the same thing. Their blanket and/or precise use of air power is different than any other country's implementation.

    19. Re:Government oversight? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" did you not understand?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    20. Re:Government oversight? by warlockgs · · Score: 1

      The right to bear arms, I fully agree with and why, yes, I am an NRA member. I won several handguns and rifles, and they are in my house for the defense of my life and property, be it from would-be criminals or an overbearing government.

      A military aircraft on the other hand...

      If the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, why can't I pick up a .50 cal fully automatic weapon? Or how about an M1 tank with full armament? Rocket launchers? Frag grenades? Depleted uranium shells?

      More like the right to bear arms shall only be infringed enough that law enforcement can provide proper order for the citizenry.

    21. Re:Government oversight? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate here, because I think it's an interesting question.

      "More like the right to bear arms shall only be infringed enough that law enforcement can provide proper order for the citizenry."

      I missed that clause in the Constitution.

      It seems to me that the base assumption the Founders made is that the American people are trustworthy. I agree with them.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    22. Re:Government oversight? by warlockgs · · Score: 1

      Good discussion point though. How far DOES the right to bear arms go?

      Does it go as far as owning a military (yes, it doesn't have the more militarily-based equipment, but that can be bought) grade aircraft?

      I do not disagree with the availability of this aircraft for sale, but I do agree with such things as the Brady law, and limiting WHICH arms we are allowed to bear, lest we wind up in anarchy.

    23. Re:Government oversight? by kahrhoff · · Score: 1

      OH mom jokes, boy that was both original and on topic, Your comedic timing is second to none. Pull my head out of the 9/11 gutter? I'm not the fuckwad that keeps coming up with doomsday scenarios. How about punishing people that actually commit crimes? Instead of, you know, telling people that they can and can't do because you think they may do "bad ( I say that in the most infantile, condesending way possible) things."

    24. Re:Government oversight? by warlockgs · · Score: 1

      And telling me to go kill myself somewhere when I suggest a tad bit of caution in the interest of the public is on-topic? I fail to see how that relates to the selling of a military aircraft.

      If we don't have boundaries on what people can and can not do, we have anarchy. Now considering that we live in a semi-ordered, semi-civilized society, I would hope that you of all people would be glad that my freedom to swing my arms ends at your face. Apparently not.

      That all aside, I was wondering about government O V E R S I G H T, *NOT* regulation. Please, do us all a favor, and shut the fuck up for a minute and go to dictionary.com and look up the word before you reply. I don't want them to say who can and can not own this fine aircraft, I just want them to make sure it doesn't wind up being carted away to the black market.

      P.S. Go get laid. I think you need it.

    25. Re:Government oversight? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because having a pistol grip on a rifle makes it FAR more dangerous.

      The Brady law is absurd.

      and, keep in mind, the aircraft being sold has the weapons pylons installed. Don't know about the electronics, but it has not apparently been de-militarized.

      How far does the right to bear arms go? I think it "shall not be infringed".

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    26. Re:Government oversight? by kahrhoff · · Score: 1

      Keep talking, you just sound dumber by the second. As if oversight and regulation are ever two different thngs when talking about two different things. That has got to be the most niave thing I've seen on slashdot. The government should have NO say at all in who buys what aircraft, or guns, or fertilizer and diesel fuel. UNTIL someone commits a violent act against someone. That's when our government should act. I know it's a strange concept; it's called FREEDOM So take your "Do it for the children" attitude and shove it up your ass.

    27. Re:Government oversight? by kahrhoff · · Score: 1

      two different thngs when talking about two different things Should read The Federal Government

    28. Re:Government oversight? by kahrhoff · · Score: 1

      I don't see why the government should have any say what so ever in who buys this aircraft or anything at all for that matter. This could be my most libertarian entry yet, but it's none of anyone's damn business! Assuming I were to purchase this plane (I can dream can't I?) How does it concern anyone else? There are two people that have any stake in this transaction; Me and the person selling it. His views about public safety and his responsibility for it are not much as evidenced by his posting it on eBay for sale to the highest bidder. From there, the only concern is: Can I pay for it! No one else's concerns as to my intentions mean squat. This is the quintessential meaning of freedom. Mind Your Own Damn Business.

    29. Re:Government oversight? by T-Ranger · · Score: 1
      1. 1 @ Lockheed C-130 with T-56A-11 engines, $4,800,000.00 USD
      2. Sheet metal to build Big Tank, $5000
      3. Industrial grade castors. 50 @ $200/ea = $10,000
      4. Welder 10hr @ $50/hr, $500
      5. 60,000 Pounds fuel (6.5lbs/gallon) = 9230 gallons. @ $1/gallon: $9230
      6. 36,000 lbs gasoline (8.66 lbs/gallon) = 4157 gallons. $1.75/gallon = $7275
      7. 1 match. (less then a penny)
      Total $4,832,005.01
      Result: One mega wepon that is quite possibly in violation of the Geneva Convention.
    30. Re:Government oversight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you're bothered about that, then be very worried indeed - there's a small country with a history of false-flag operations that has lots of them already, and the US is still subsidising them.

      Naming no names, just think of land thieving bastards whose country was founded on terrorism.

    31. Re:Government oversight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most intelligent sounds made during that video came from the dog.

    32. Re:Government oversight? by Banjonardo · · Score: 1
      Oversight? THe Dep. of the Navy needs money, dude! Just set up an anon broker and sell away! Just like the lottery is tax on the stupid, this is tax on the really, really, ridiculously rich people.

      Talk about fundraising.

      --

      -----

      Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton

    33. Re:Government oversight? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      "Carpet bombing" is a loaded word used only by journalists, and has no military meaning.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    34. Re:Government oversight? by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      I am not military. Bombing without any regard to civilians, targets and soldiers is a crime. USA is the master of this since 1942. Vietnam, Munich, Dresden, lately Afghanistan clearly shows how effective this is for killing people but not necessarily winning a war.

  7. weee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    apparently the FBI knocked on his door to see where he got it...

    1. Re:weee by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      According the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II, the FBI doesn't need to ask him... They can just check his phone logs, computer usage, bank information, and anything else they want, and don't need a warrant... USA: Land of the Formerly Free :)

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:weee by jo42 · · Score: 1


      Damned FBI, who do they think they are, the KGB?

    3. Re:weee by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a good idea for the FBI not to investigate people selling military technology to the highest bidder.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  8. cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    cool! i can fulfill all my 'top gun' fantasies in one fell swoop!

    if i can only find my own cybill shepard...arghh.
    but that would require me to give up slashdot!

    1. Re:cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was Kelly McGillis, not Cybil Shepherd, you dumbass.

    2. Re:cool! by darth_MALL · · Score: 0

      Kelly Mcgillis I think.

    3. Re:cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cybill shepard? Actually, it was Kelly McGillis.

    4. Re:cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if i can only find my own cybill shepard...arghh.
      but that would require me to give up slashdot!


      It was Kelly McGillis, not that I'm stalking her or anything. ohhh kelly, sweet kelly.

    5. Re:cool! by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Correction... Kelly McGillis was the actress in Top Gun...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  9. Yeah. eBay. by superdan2k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most things on eBay seem to go for damn-near retail price, so I'm guessing that a MiG-29 would get bid through the roof and have a value near to that of its Western counterparts (despite its less-than competitive combat avionics). You could probably get the MiG cheaper by just going to Russia to buy it. Like the price of a Hummer H2 (~$50K), I'm guessing. Some underpaid Russian general or mobster would probably jump at the chance.

    --
    blog |
  10. Very cool, if i were rich... by Squeezer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd want to own one of these...Heinkel HE-162

    http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 &oe=UTF-8&q=heinkel+he-162&sa=N&tab=wi

    German WW2 jet fighter, fought in the last weeks of the war. Top speed of 521 mph. None left are light worthy though. The BMW-003 jet engine used in it had a lifetime of 10-12 hours, unfortunately.

    --
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    1. Re:Very cool, if i were rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you have 4 million lying around you can buy a Me262 - top speed circa 520mph, and they are building 5 replicas, some of which are for sale up in Everett, Wa

    2. Re:Very cool, if i were rich... by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      The first replica crashed weeks after its first flight. Nice going. :-)

    3. Re:Very cool, if i were rich... by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      Also to my knowledge the location of the engine was quite unpopular with pilots trying to bail out of a flaming machine.

      Early jets' flight characteristics were just a nightmare. No serious acceleration, if you push the throttle too much or too little flame-out occurs. The flight characteristis were a bitch as well, never mention the amount of fuel they could carry.

      Give me a MkV Spitfire any day, any time.

    4. Re:Very cool, if i were rich... by w42w42 · · Score: 1

      An amazing aircraft given the limitations they had at the time. One instead of two engines - same type as in the ME-262. Wood construction, designed to be easy to fly - as there was a serious shortage of experienced pilots.

      Amazing, but I wouldn't want to be flying in one.

  11. Yeah, right... by kemapa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll park it right in between the Bentley and the "In your dreams..."

  12. Flight Hours on Airframe by DaRat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    3700 odd flight hours, many of Blue Angels type maneuvers. Probably some significant stress and wear on that airframe due to the type of flying. There probably was a good reason that aircraft was retired.

    Also, the article should have read "F16 Fighting Falcon" for one of the upcoming aircraft, not "F16 Hornet"

    1. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by stilwebm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually 3700 flight hours is fairly small for a plane of this age. Most commercial planes have a 20,000 operating hour overhaul schedule.

    2. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by dontbgay · · Score: 1

      Funny thing but, with some nondestructive inspection and the little assembly, it SHOULD be ready for flight. Contrary to popular belief, with the right test sets and publications, militry aircraft aren't all that hard to work on. Hell, I believe that particular aircraft has such instrumentation that it actually tells you what's wrong with it. It's probably missing all of it's spook gear and i wouldn't want to be the one who did the checkflight on it.

      --
      Sig not found.
    3. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most commercial planes have a 20,000 operating hour overhaul schedule.

      When was the last time your Delta pilot did a barrel roll?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by HardCase · · Score: 5, Informative
      3700 odd flight hours, many of Blue Angels type maneuvers. Probably some significant stress and wear on that airframe due to the type of flying. There probably was a good reason that aircraft was retired.


      Not at all - the maintenance schedule on military aviation is extraordinarily rigorous, because of the type of flying that is done and because much of the equipment (for its time) is cutting edge, at least mechanically speaking.


      The maneuvers that the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds do are the same maneuvers that all of the pilots of those aircraft perform. It's just that the demonstration teams perform them as a group. My old naval aviation buddies tell me that the Blue Angels' jets actually get easier use than the regular jets. They certainly don't have to make any arrested landings or catapault takeoffs!


      -h-

    5. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by stilwebm · · Score: 1

      Hahaha

      Ever seen the Far Side comic with the pilots announcing they are approaching some turbulence, then "creating" it themselves?

    6. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by silconous · · Score: 1

      Marine Corps has jets that are younger Lot 11 with more hours on the frame over 4000+ in 1999. The Blue Angels are also not flying F/A-18 E's and they won't be for a very long time. There are plenty of Lot 9 and below aircraft in the rag squardons they can take for the air show. My guess is that the aircraft had a fire and was repaired or the airframe had and over stress. It's very rare that the navy would just get rid of an airplane without letting a Marine Rag squadron squeeze another 1000 hours out of it.

    7. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by Kombat · · Score: 3, Funny

      When was the last time your Delta pilot did a barrel roll?

      December 26, 2002.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    8. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by visgoth · · Score: 1

      The Thunderbirds, the USAF team fly F-16s. The Blue Angels, the Navy team fly F/A-18s. Where in the article does it say "F16 Hornet" by the way?

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    9. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Thunderbirds don't actually exist in real life, man.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    10. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by FlyGirl · · Score: 1

      When was the last time your Delta pilot did a barrel roll?

      Actually, barrel rolls don't put a lot of stress on an airplane. Try an outside loop or an Immelman. :-)

    11. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time he was shouting "praise jesus!!!"
      through the intercom.

    12. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by Rone · · Score: 1

      When was the last time your Delta pilot did a barrel roll?

      "Please use caution in removing items from the overhead bins, as contents may have shifted during the flight. Buh-bye."

    13. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by hoofie · · Score: 1

      On doing some research on the Mig-29, one article pointed out that the DESIGN life of the airframe was 2500 hours.

    14. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by KrispyKringle · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes they do. Obviously it depends on the type of airplane, but if you put a Cessna through a barrel roll, you'd better be ready to retire it (when I was getting my training, some guy did exactly that with a 172R--they didn't discover who did it or when, but noticed during a routine inspection that all the control surfaces were out of whack). The maximum stresses on that plane are something like +3g -1g, if I remember right.

      Regardless, the FA-18 was undoubtedly built to take a good bit more stress than a Cessna. I can't see why the airframe would necessarily be any bit the worse for wear after so few flight hours, so long as it wasn't pushed past its limits (which I doubt the Navy would tolerate on a multi-million dollar piece of equipment like that).

    15. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The design lifetime is probably closer to 8,000 hours.

    16. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I find when you're buying ex. military fighter jets, try to buy one with only a single previous owner who was preferably a little old lady... 'cos they don't really thrash them. Typically, they just take them out once a week to do the shopping and such... so they're definately the best ones to buy!

    17. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A barrel roll, unlike a loop, can be performed without noticably exceeding the normal 1G. There are endless tales of slow rolls being done without the knowledge of passengers, not in modern jetliners but in smaller planes. The force on the airframe is due to the wing's ability to generate lift and is not dependent on orientation. This is why we occasionally here of a VFR pilot "flying into the ground". Consider the Missouri politician Carnahan (sp?) during instrument failure or the young Kennedy a couple of years ago.

      While something may have caused the 172 to need to be retired, simply having a control surface 'out of whack' would not be sufficient


      A Wichitan.

    18. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by transient · · Score: 2, Informative

      Max load factors for utility category airplanes are +4.4g -2.2g. Aerobatic category airplanes are certified for +6g -3g. I believe there is a 150% safety factor built into these numbers as well, so a utility category airplane (such as a Cessna 172, when loaded properly) must be able to actually withstand +6.6g -3.3g. Now, bear in mind that the real-life numbers match the book when the plane rolls of the assembly line, and decrease with age. You sure as hell won't catch me pushing a '77 Skyhawk to its design limits.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    19. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    20. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by RockyMountain · · Score: 3, Interesting
      A barrel roll, unlike a loop, can be performed without noticably exceeding the normal 1G.

      Quite true, in many aircraft types.

      slow rolls being done without the knowledge of passengers

      Not quite true.

      Don't confuse barrel rolls and slow rolls. A slow roll, properly executed, involves minus one G (a.k.a. hanging upside down from your seatbelt). It also involves significant sideways G during the knife-edge portions.

      By the way, "slow" in "slow roll" isn't really a measure of the speed of the roll, only the type of roll. (And, roll-rate isn't a judging criterion in aerobatic competition.) The name came about because slow rolls are inherently slower than snap/flick rolls.

      In a nutshell:

      Barrel roll: Corkscrew-shaped flight path. Curvature of flight path during the inverted portion keeps the pilot feeling positive G force.

      Slow roll: maintain a constant, level, undeviating flight path, while rotating around the longitudinal axis.

      Snap/flick roll: Snap=US term, flick=UK term. Combined use of yaw and rapid pich change to cause one wing to stall (stop producing much lift). Rotation results from the unbalanced lift generated by the other wing. Rotation is usually quite rapid.

      Aileron roll: Lazy pilot's slow roll. Like a slow-roll, but the flight path is a freefall-like parabola rather than a straight, level line, which makes it much easier to coordinate.

      Rolling turn: Like a slow roll, but the flight path is a curved, turning, level path.

      Only snap/flick, slow, and rolling turns are used in IAC sanctioned competition, other than in freestyle where anything goes,

      RockyMountain.
      (Competition aerobatic pilot, Pitts Special).

    21. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by rv8 · · Score: 1

      Actually 3700 flight hours is fairly small for a plane of this age. Most commercial planes have a 20,000 operating hour overhaul schedule.

      Apparently the F/A-18A was designed for a 6,000 hr life, assuming a particular load spectrum that the Navy specified. There was a fair bit of air combat manoeuvring (ACM) included in that load spectrum, but they also assumed quite a bit of straight and level, 1g flight while transiting to and from ACM training areas. The USN training areas are typically off-shore, so there is a fair bit of transit time in any given ACM training mission, so the percentage of time at high g is fairly low.

      Canada was shopping for multi-role fighters a couple of decades ago, and Canada was looking for an aircraft with an 8,000 hr life. The Canadian ACM training areas are very close to the fighter bases, so there is only a few minutes of transit time at each end of an ACM mission, which means a higher percentage of the time is spent at high g. McDonnell Douglas said the F-18 would meet the Canadian life spec, and they won the contract.

      Canada started finding major airframe cracks a few years after the jets went into service. Some of the jets that had seen a lot of ACM were found to be near the end of their useful life with only around 2,000 hrs on the airframe. Canada had to do some major airframe overhauls, replace some of the major fuselage bulkheads, and adding reinforcements.

      If this jet spent a long time with the Blue Angels, it might be at the end of its useful life.

      --
      Kevin Horton
    22. Re:Flight Hours on Airframe by FlyGirl · · Score: 1

      Yes they do. Obviously it depends on the type of airplane, but if you put a Cessna through a barrel roll, you'd better be ready to retire it

      No... if you do it right, barrel rolls should not do that.

      Now, if you screw up ANY maneuver, you can overstress the airframe. I suspect whoever did that to your poor 172 had no idea how to properly execute such a maneuver.

  13. I wonder how much it would cost to fully arm it? by baywulf · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I wonder how much it would cost to fully arm it?"

    I would guess it would cost about 5 years in camp X-ray.

  14. Dorn? Is that you? by memoryhole · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to IMDB, Michael Dorn owns (or used to) a T-33 and an F-86, among others. I wonder if it's him. Imdb link

    1. Re:Dorn? Is that you? by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...breathes new life into the "Commander Worf, fire at will....no! not at Ensign Crusher!" joke...

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    2. Re:Dorn? Is that you? by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it's him

      Probably not, impulse drive is sold separately.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    3. Re:Dorn? Is that you? by dj51d · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I doubt it. He sold the T-33 to buy the F-86, and later Sold to F-86 to Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman. Last I knew Mr. Dorn was flying a North American T-39 Sabreliner

    4. Re:Dorn? Is that you? by istewart · · Score: 1

      They're all right next to the cloaked Bird-of-Prey he stashes in the back of his hangar.

  15. Pepsi will buy it... by Deathlizard · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...So they can give it to the guy that turned in all the pepsi points for the Harrier Jet.

    Of course a Hornet is not quite a Harrier, but I dont think the guy will care.

    1. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 0, Troll

      True, it's a much better aircraft than a Harrier. It just doesn't have VTOL capability. I'd take the Hornet.

    2. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What does "better"mean, exactly? Both are brilliant 'planes, but the Hornet (while a more high performance machine) didn't break ANY engineering ground with its design.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    3. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by hoofie · · Score: 1

      There were a few fast jet Argentinian Pilots in the Falklands war who found out the hard way that whilst the Harrier is a lot slower, the fact it can stop very fast and go backwards ('viffing') tends to mean the Harrier has a nasty punch for a small, relatively slow jet.

    4. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Hornet (while a more high performance machine) didn't break ANY engineering ground with its design.

      Nor did it capture the minds of a generation of boys like the Harrier.

      (Wonders vaguely why all the "great" military aircraft designs seem to be British - Spitfire, Lancaster, Harrier... America's military is stronger, but somehow it's never been as stylish.)

    5. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Maybe because they always had better names?

      Seriously - the Royal Navy calls a ship "Invincible", the US Navy calls one "Ronald Reagan" - the Royal Air Force calls a 'plane "Typhoon" the US Air Force calls one "Warthog".

      Anyway, this schoolboy always dreamed of the "Blackbird" and "Valkyrie", and I'm British.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    6. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      What does "better"mean, exactly? Both are brilliant 'planes, but the Hornet (while a more high performance machine) didn't break ANY engineering ground with its design.

      The Wright Flyer broke all kinds of engineering ground with its design, and it's certainly not, by any definition of the word, "better". Innovation is highly time sensitive. Performance is a pretty static reference point. When people say "better" they're usually referring to hard metrics like "performance".

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      The Hornet kills a lot fewer of its pilots, for one.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    8. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by perrinkog · · Score: 1

      From
      http://www.snopes.com/business/deals/pepsije t.asp

      Claim: A jocular Pepsi "offer" obligated them to provide a $33.8 million Harrier jet to a consumer who claimed it for $700,000.

      Status: False.

      "...On 28 March 1996, Leonard forked over 15 original points plus a check for $700,008.50" (Individual Pepsi points were sold for 10 cents)

      Pepsi laughed at him
      He took Pepsi to court
      Judge told him "No objective person could reasonably have concluded that the commercial actually offered consumers a Harrier jet..." /. even ran a story on it back in '99
      http://slashdot.org/articles/99/08/06/1422214 .shtm l

      --
      (Karma = auto -1)
    9. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Brits always have great names for aircraft. Like the "Nimrod".

      Eagle
      Nighthawk
      Tomcat
      Falcon (or Viper)
      Lancer ...Aardvark? (OK, point taken.)\

      Most of 'em aren't bad. Mostly.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      What does Nimrod mean in American colloquial, exactly? You guys always seem to find it quite amusing.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    11. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by 2short · · Score: 1

      It means "fool" or "idiot".

      I've heard it ascribed to Bugs Bunny using it to describe Elmer Fudd. In case that reference doesn't cross the pond, Bugs Bunny's nemesis Elmer Fudd is a bumbling, foolish hunter. So when bugs called him a "Nimrod", most Americans had no idea the word meant "hunter", an so connected the word with his other attributes.

    12. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

      That'd be great, but no harriers VIFFed in the falklands.

      The superior performance of the Sea Harrier in the air to air combat role was entirely due to superior armament and pilot training. Not to mention a superior radar.

      Also, the current Sea Harrier (FA2) is every bit as good as the F/A-18 in terms of armament and slightly superior in it's radar kit. It doesn't have the speed or range, but it is a fleet defense fighter, not a strike fighter.

    13. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Uh, that's complete bullshit. If you actually have ever read or seen any of the interviews given by the Harrier pilots concerned you'd know that VIFFing became their deadliest weapon against the faster (and mainly supersonic) fighters put up by the Argentine Air Force and Navy.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    14. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      This schoolboy always wanted a Vulcan - even better looking than Concorde, and as good a bomber as you'll find (see Port Stanley runway for details).

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    15. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

      Would you consider reading "Sea Harrier over the Falklands" by Sharkey Ward bullshit? The squadron commander of the 801 air group who stated, quite specifically, that no pilots in the falklands used VIFFing. Period.

    16. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      The use of thrust vectoring (later called VIFFing - vectoring in forward flight - by the Americans) was indeed used by RAF Harrier and RN Sea Harrier pilots during the Falklands.

      They might not have called it VIFFing at the time, but several interviews I've read and seen with pilots concerned clearly state that it was used to outmanouvre the otherwise superior aircraft fielded by the Argentine military.

      Even if Sharkey Ward didn't use it at all (which I doubt) thrust vectoring was used by most of the Harrier pilots in air-to-air combat. Ward wasn't the only pilot in action, and he didn't fly in every single sortie, so don't assume that what he said is true of every single air-to-air encounter of the entire war.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    17. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Imperator · · Score: 1

      Well, one is much easier to fly out of your back yard than the other. That is, unless you have a runway on your lot.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    18. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

      *IF* a Sea Harrier had VIFFed in combat, it would have been a sitting duck. The second you put those flight nozzles to hover, or move them to any point where you're not using all your thrust for forward flight, you bleed speed.

      So I think Sharkey was probably right. The British pilots were simply better trained and had no need for desperation VIFFing tactics.

    19. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Flunk physics, did we? Ever heard of momentum?

      Besides, the whole point of VIFFing is to divert thrust away from 100 percent horizontal flight and to translate some of that speed momentarily to vertical flight. The aim of VIFFing is to have a pursuing aircraft overshoot its target so that the hunter can become the hunted.

      VIFFing is hardly a "desperation" tactic. If that was the case it wouldn't be being taught to Britiah and American Harrier pilots, would it?

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    20. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, Bugs Bunny and the rest of the Looney Tunes cast are loved throughout the world. We know quality when we see it.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    21. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I've been in a Vulcan. Years ahead of its time - amazing that the the B-52 is still flying when much better bombers like the Vulcan, Valiant, Victor, F-111 et al are but memories.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    22. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Sadly true, though Harriers still aren't as dangerous as helicopters.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    23. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      That doesn't surprise me very much, since the ground is dangerous. I'm curious, do you have a citation? I'd be curious to compare the numbers.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    24. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      Not to hand, but I recall reading that serious accidents were as common as 1 in 7 traineee chopper pilots.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    25. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

      Well, dumbass, when you have a large object flying thru the air, and you divert power from forward flight, you lose momentum fast.

      Show me one source/interview with a pilot who was in the Falklands and used VIFFing while in combat. That's all I ask.

    26. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Well, dumbass, I'm aware of how flight works, but if you translate, say, 30 percent of your thrust from horizontal flight to vertical flight then you're not going to drop out of the sky like a stone, are you? All you need is to VIFF successfully is lose some of your horizontal speed and translate that into vertical speed for a split second.

      In that split second, your aircraft will "hop" out of the sights of your pursuer and will most probably cause him to overshoot your location. And, once he's done that and you've resumed 100 percent horizontal thrust, you're in prime position to kill him, not vice versa.

      Perhaps you missed the point of my last post: did you not notice the emphasis I placed on the words "some" and "momentarily"?

      I would gladly provide you with evidence of Harrier pilots talking about their relevant Falklands War experiences if you can just join me in hopping into a time machine: I don't have recordings of the various TV programmes I've seen on the subject and neither did I camcorder any of the after-dinner speeches that I've attended with vets of that war. There's ample evidence in your local library, assuming they've got any books on that war.

      Did I mention that I personally know a Falklands Harrier pilot through my time with my university's air squadron? Is there any reason for him to have lied about his own flight experience?

      Besides, you've hardly provided any evidence to the contrary, have you? At least one reference to the book that you mentioned quotes the author as talking about his own thrust vectoring experiences, which directly contradicts what you've said.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    27. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 1

      From http://www.hazegray.org/faq/ram3.htm

      Subject: C.18. Do Harriers VIFF in combat?

      No. While VIFFing *could* cause an enemy to overshoot, it bleeds so much energy that it makes the Harrier a sitting duck. It was not used during the Falklands (source: Cdr `Sharky' Ward, 800 Sqn). The current consensus, accepted by P. Bowen (an ex-Harrier pilot) is that VIFFing might be usable in a `once-off save your life' manoeuvre, but it is generally a poor combat tactic.

    28. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      That's pretty appalling. I had no idea that it was so high.

      Fortunately, the next-generation helicopters with fly-by-wire are going to be way easier to fly. The RAH-66 Comanche is the first example, but I expect that will become standard on military and civilian birds.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    29. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      I hope you're right, the V-22 has certainly had it's share of problems.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    30. Re:Pepsi will buy it... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Sure enough, but most of the problems have been due to a) hydraulic failures and b) weird aerodynamic problems. The flight controls have been adjusted to dial out the second, but I wouldn't describe the problem as flight control related.

      The V-22 is a complicated bird. The casualties are tragic, indeed, but keep in mind that the Chinook killed a lot of soldiers too before it became an indispensable workhorse.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  16. bah! by filtur · · Score: 3, Funny

    Everybody has a Mig-29 these days.

    1. Re:bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I saw one outside of Starbucks yesterday.

  17. Kick Ass by barenaked · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if they include a free tank of gas with the purchase....

    1. Re:Kick Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After world war 2, there were some enterprising individuals that bought fields full of warbirds at pennies on the dollar and then paid for them by reselling the avgas from their tanks.

  18. There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by pmancini · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is a MIG-23 in Dayton, OH at the museum at Wright Patterson AFB. It was bought by a private investor and then the mean U.S. Government confiscated it because, gosh darn, it was nuclear capable! Clearly labled as such! A Russian General unable to get money for food and other supplies from his government sold it.

    http://www.planetware.com/photos/US/OHUASF1.HTM

    Note the tri-foil on the nose cone!

    1. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by ptomblin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Duh. The tri-foil on the nose cone is warning about the radiation from the radar, not from nuclear weapons.

      "If you are close enough to read this, the nukes had better not be going off just yet."

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    2. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Commemorative Air Force (Formerly Confederate Air Force) own and fly a B-29 Super Fortress. I'm fairly sure these are nuclear capable!

      If I remember the stats rightly (these are a bit old) CAF is the largest Air Force in the world based on man power.

      They are the third largest based on operational aircraft numbers. Right behind the then USSR and the USA.

      Check em out http://www.commemorativeairforce.org

      Scary huh?

    3. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by pmancini · · Score: 1

      Nice try but wrong.

    4. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my f'ing car is nuclear capable! i may not survive the blast, but the point is that it doesn't take much to be nuclear capable other than being able to carry the bomb.

      uh oh, i see a bunch of black cars circling around mine...umm, i better go...

    5. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked radar operated at frequencies somewhere in the radio band. Trifoils warn of ionising radiation - ie alpha or beta particles or gamma rays (which have a very very different frequency to radar).

      Sigh. I suspect this is the same source of confusion that leads people to believe mobile phone masts will turn them into mutants, or whatever.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    6. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sigh. I suspect this is the same source of confusion that leads people to believe mobile phone masts will turn them into mutants, or whatever.

      darn it! are you saying that hugging this mobile phone mast won't give me super powers?

    7. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      > darn it! are you saying that hugging this mobile phone mast won't give me super powers?

      Fraid not. You need to find yourself a radioactive spider, or some kryptonite, for that ;-)

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    8. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Ummm, so the EA-6B Prowler is nuclear capable too?

      Wow.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by ptomblin · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, you don't put a sign on your plane that says "I have nukes". Might as well paint a target on your head. You put a sign on the radome warning people that they might get zapped if the radar gets turned on and the squat switch doesn't work. Look at the picture somebody just posted on an EA-6B with the same symbol on its radome. No nukes there, just a fuck of a lot of energy coming out that sucker.

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    10. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No shit.

      Anyone with a plane called 'The Spirit of Waco' deserves respect.

      Lots of respect.
      Respect from a respectful distance.
      The sort of respect given to a man with a loaded .50 pointed at you.

      Why don't these boys just mount up and clean Washington of all the Israelites who are poisoning Americas precious bodily fluids?

    12. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by Imperator · · Score: 1

      Huh? Any light truck is also very "nuclear capable". If the US is serious about protecting its people from nuclear weapons, it needs to go after the weapons themselves. But since it insists on keeping so many of them for itself, it has no credibility...

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    13. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1
      Duh. The tri-foil on the nose cone is warning about the radiation from the radar, not from nuclear weapons.

      No, not even really close. The symbol is there so that the deck crew could differentiate between the A-6 and the EA-6B while in the circuit. The EA-6B is a lot heavier, and hence they need to dial in the heavier weight in the arresting gear.

      This is now done by other means, so it's not been used for quite some time. However, the EA-6B crews seem to think it's a cool symbol, so I'm told you'll still see it though it's not 'regulation' these days.

      If you were in a position directly in front of the radar such that radiation would be a problem, you'd risk being sucked into the intakes anyway, so that would be your immediate worry. Not that they'll run the radar on the deck anyway, for other safety related reasons. Ever seen the video of the Sidewinder that flys of the rail being set off by the air search radar on the carrier? The missile does a 180 and comes back to hit other aircraft parked on the deck.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    14. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by jpop32 · · Score: 1

      Ever seen the video of the Sidewinder that flys of the rail being set off by the air search radar on the carrier?

      No. URL?

    15. Re:There is a fomerly privately owned MIG-23 in OH by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Haven't found it on the net. I saw it years ago on some Discovery show. I just did a search, but it didn't turn up much, sorry. Maybe you'll have better luck?

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
  19. Correction... by rampant+mac · · Score: 4, Funny
    "...claims they'll soon be auctioning off an F-16 Hornet..."

    That would be F-16 Fighting Falcon. Of course, this is Slashdot and it wouldn't surprise me if they mistakenly called it an F-16 Elbow.

    --
    I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    1. Re:Correction... by rampant+mac · · Score: 1
      Whoa, it's been fixed already and only 30 comments have been posted.

      Where am I? I thought this was Slashdot? Is this the internet?

      How do I get back to AOL?

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    2. Re:Correction... by Red+Storm · · Score: 1

      AMEN!!! I was wondering if any of the above posts would even notice the error.... I guess since the post does not relate to electronics the nerds of slashdot don't notice the error as readily. I'm sure if it were some NatSemi 7400 series CMOS chip misquoted the first pots would say so...

      I want to know when I can own my very own F-14D. That would kick ass!

      --
      ---- Fight to protect your right to keep and arm bears! ummmm... ya I think that's right....
    3. Re:Correction... by Flozzin · · Score: 1

      Screw the tomcat. I'll take a F-22 fresh off the line :-D. No FAA regulations there. Because they won't even know its in the air.

      --
      "Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
    4. Re:Correction... by Red+Storm · · Score: 1

      good point....
      but an F-14 is kinda like owning a 60's corvet (yes I can't spell) today. The Tomcat is definately a classic! Besides it's a two seater so you get to take others up with you, and they can pay for half of the fuel!

      --
      ---- Fight to protect your right to keep and arm bears! ummmm... ya I think that's right....
    5. Re:Correction... by tiny69 · · Score: 1

      I've met a few people in the Air Force that referred to the F-16 as a "Lawn Dart". With the fly-by-wire, single engine, small wing span, and buggy computer needed to fly it, if anything goes wrong, the F-16 turns into nothing more than an expensive lawn dart.

      --
      Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
    6. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure they pay in advance!!

    7. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      F-16 Elbow?

      I always thought it was the F-16 Arse, but then again, I don't know my....

    8. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, the United States owns more of them than any THREE other aircraft in history.

      And so do Israel, Denmark, South Korea, Egypt, Bahrain, the UAE, and Jordan.

    9. Re:Correction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No - a Phantom's more your 60's corvette - there's too much tech in an F-14 to make the comparison reasonable.

      Besides, if you want fun, buy a biplane.

  20. Re:How much longer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    yeah.. it looks like cmdrtaco just got bought out by ebay ;)

  21. Sounds like fun by StuWho · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think I'll buy it... It's time the war against the RIAA, SCO, and Microsoft became more than just a metaphor! Warn Redmond air traffic control to expect me soon...

    --
    "If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments." Earl Wilson
    1. Re:Sounds like fun by EulerX07 · · Score: 1

      Great, now after SCO accusing /.ers of writing the mydoom worms, we'll be accused of planning air strikes on them.

      Thanks a lot.

    2. Re:Sounds like fun by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      ..[ahem].., from the F/A 18 Hornet owners manual...

      Page 1
      Introduction
      Congratulations on buying the F/A 18 Hornet, the fastest blah blah...

      Sorry, wrong bit... hang on... this is it:

      Page 4
      Caring for your F/A 18 Hornet
      Try to keep your F/A Hornet clean to ensure it gives long and useful service.

      NOTE: The F/A 18 Hornet is not a toy and should not be used to "buzz", "strafe" or otherwise annihilate neighbouring people/companies/countries/dictatorships

      So I think you should take note sonny! Read what it says in the manual!!

    3. Re:Sounds like fun by mahbidness · · Score: 1
      --

      "It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork."

  22. Nooooooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Gooooooooooooose!

  23. If you have the cash...buy it assembled by SquierStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Being a aviation mechanic for the Marine Corps, I'm going to tell you that you want hte thing flight worthy...the assembly isn't something you would want to tackle yourself. In short: it's a bitch.

    And to the person doubting you could get an LOA for it...that's crap. The question is would you want to fly it?

    --
    Derek Greene
    1. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by paganizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hmm.
      I'm an ex-navy fire control & Avionics tech for this bird (lot 12 being the last one I worked on).
      What say we see who buys it and offer ourselves as ground crew? I've got a friend who's a BB stacker, just need a power guy...
      Assuming, of course, that it has the AN/APG-65 radar/avionics package still onboard; thats what I can't see the Navy willing to let fall into private hands, but I also can't see the bird flying without it, it's fairly integrated.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    2. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by thelasttemptation · · Score: 1

      I think I speak for almost everyone with HELL YEAH! I'd love to fly it, the more important question is, can we handle flying it? :P

    3. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by youngerpants · · Score: 1

      Heh, taking advice from someone who typed "hte" instead of "the"

      I'm never flying again

    4. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by kfg · · Score: 1

      But I like bitches. Otherwise, why would I have married her?

      Seriously, I think one can descern that there's about 8 mill worth of bitch in putting the thing together, if you're a pro. Not to be undertaken lightly.

      There's just something about a big box of parts that makes my fingers itch though. . .

      KFG

    5. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are gay

    6. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      The listing says "never de-milled"

      Which I assume is collector jargon for demilitarized, as in, it's got all the same gizmos and whizbangs as seen in major motion pictures such as Top Gun or Iron Eagles.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    7. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I've got a friend who's a BB stacker

      We resent that...;) I'm a USAF ex-weapons specialist. (F-15 & -16). BB stackers are bomb dump guys. 'Storage & Handling', not aircraft.
      So....specialists we'd need might be:

      Avionics
      Weapons
      Hydraulics
      Engines
      Crew Chief
      Life Support
      Flight Controls
      Sheet metal/Corrosion Control
      Others?
      A relevant stack of T.O.'s

      And anyone working on this would need to be A&P certified.

    8. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      What say we see who buys it and offer ourselves as ground crew?

      Also, there are several orgs around the country rebuilding WWII aircraft. Most would welcome volunteer help if you've got any aircraft experience.

    9. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      I used to be an AT on the Hornet too. Keep me in mind if it works out. ;-)

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    10. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by paganizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Uh-huh.
      I think we need to stick with Navy & Navy Security (Marines) on this one.
      BB Stacker on the F/A-18 would be a ordnance specialist, someone who does storage, testing & mounting; I understand the USAF uses 3 or 4 separate people for the job; we never had that luxury.

      So the Proper mix would be:
      1 AQ/AT (for electronics, weapons control, radar)
      1 BB Stacker (AO)
      1 AE (Electrical)
      1 Hydraulics (can't remember the rate or MOS)
      1 Airframe Mech (probably not neccesary unless you are going to be buying that $4mil Brazilian Aircraft Carrier thats for sale, also).
      1 Power Plant monkey to keep the engines running.

      So, say 6 guys, minimum (I've been on a detached team that did it with 5, but it was only for one flight). I would want to have a experienced Fleet plane captain available to do the stuff we don't have a specialist for.

      and they would only need to be A&P certified if it was all done legally; if we are just doing this for a RIAA strike, we just need it to work.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    11. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Unless it's a F/A-18, F-14, or A-7 (or the last mod A-4) I'd be pretty much useless, except as a general Electronics tech.
      But I would LOVE to work on any of those birds again.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    12. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by paganizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll keep my eye on the auction.
      have you worked on Lot 6? will you work for free if this develops into a RIAA strike mission? I'm sure the employer will want to know...

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    13. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      And to the person doubting you could get an LOA for it...that's crap. The question is would you want to fly it?


      Aside from the (rich) pilot who wants a US jet instead of a MIG, maybe someone interested in setting a few records?

      A while back, the owner of Red Baron Flying Servcie built his own F104 from spare parts (literally - getting the engine was the hard part) and set some records with it before he had a gear problem and ejected.

      It's a real cool story (and more interesting since I lived in Idaho while at prototype and saw his other warbird, a racing P51).

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    14. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      BB Stacker on the F/A-18 would be a ordnance specialist, someone who does storage, testing & mounting; I understand the USAF uses 3 or 4 separate people for the job; we never had that luxury.

      In the USAF, this is two separate career fields. Storage, handling, inspection, transportation (BB Stacker), and Aircraft Armament (load, test, repair the actual aircraft. Basically, everything from the pickle button to the target)

      It *could* be one career field, but then you'd have aircraft qualified guys driving 1/2 to the other side of the base to get weapons when they should be fixing/loading aircraft. So, make a specialty to store and bring us the bombs/missiles.

    15. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Ahh.
      On a Naval/Corp airbase, the weapons are stored pretty darn close to the flightline; onboard ship, they are just a elevator ride down about 100 feet.
      When space is at a premium, you try to get as few people doing as many portions of the overall job as is possible.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    16. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by frission · · Score: 1

      i hope the winner comes to slashdot, i'm sure your 6 people are a tad bit cheaper than $8M :)

    17. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by SquierStrat · · Score: 1

      Hydraulics (aka Airframes and Hydraulics) would be AM - Airframe Mechanic. I'm an AD (albeit, a Marine) for Hueys and Cobras. Power plants guys are I-level and are another animal altogether. I don't know what the Navy does but we put them in MALS which is an altogether seperate squadron. You AD guys are usually your plane captains, though techincally other MOSes could become plane captains. Here is what you need:
      1 AE (avionics and electrical)
      1 AD (Mechanic)
      1 AM (Airframes and hydraulics, though, AM and AD might soon become one and the same, though I hope not.)
      1 AO (got to do something with them, they certainly didn't get any other job out of their service)
      1 Flight Equipment guy (sorry, I don't know the rate for their MOS
      1 PP (power plants)
      and lastly they have altogether different MOS for the guys who work on the ejection seats and some other items on Hornets. I don't know what they call them though, with skids we'd call 'em flight-e. Mind you we don't have ejection seats of course.

      --
      Derek Greene
    18. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by SquierStrat · · Score: 1

      In the Navy/Marine Corps, you only need a crew chief if he flies in the aircraft. Otherwise he is useless...like on a Hornet. Sheet Metal/Corrosion Control? That's a FAP, every aviation MOS down to the admin guys know about it. Flight controls is handled by the ADs and the AEs (depending upon which par tof hte controls.) Life support? That's called 911. I'd just yell CORPSMAN UP! but the buyer won't have that option.

      --
      Derek Greene
    19. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Air Force ammo dump is probably on the other side of the golf course. :)

      My ex-Marine friend told me why Air Force bases are always so luxurious compared to Marine air stations. The Pentagon hands out the money for the airfield to the Marine Corps and the Air Force. The Marines build an air strip, then use the money that's left over to build the other facilities they need, such as a place to sleep and eat. The Air Force takes the money and builds cushy officers' quarters and a golf course or two, then says to the Pentagon, "We're out of money. We need another 20 mil to build that airfield." The Pentagon says, "Well, you're the Air Force, and you need airfields. Here ya go." The Air Force then builds a waterpark.

    20. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by jmkaza · · Score: 1

      I worked Avionics in the Corps. Comm / Nav. All and all we had about a dozen systems. We flipped out when we had to do some work with the Air Force. Their specialists only needed to know basic knowledge of a single system, whereas our guys knew every peice of gear in the shop inside and out.

    21. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by dontbgay · · Score: 1

      just a lil FYI but in the navy, Hydraulics and airframes are done by the same rate. Someone Qualified as a CDQAR (collateral duty quality assurance representative) in all these fields would keep it in the air for quite some time. I've seen 4 guys change a T56-400 engine on a p-3c Orion in just under eight hours.. with rigging and everything. Oh, and sign me up, I'll be the AE (AE2 to be more specific).

      --
      Sig not found.
    22. Re:If you have the cash...buy it assembled by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Yet, amazingly enough, USAF jets don't fall out of the sky any more than Navy jets. So someone must be doing something right...:)

  24. Lawn Ornament by EverlastGobstopp · · Score: 5, Funny

    "So unless you're ex-military, you'd have yourself a $9 million lawn ornament." I would love to have a F/A-18 sitting out on my lawn. In the fall I could use the afterburners to clear all the leaves from my yard. In the winter they could melt the snow on my driveway. I haven't thought of a use for spring and summer yet...

    1. Re:Lawn Ornament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I haven't thought of a use for spring and summer yet...

      Barbeques!

    2. Re:Lawn Ornament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno about spring, but in summer you can use the afterburners for one hell of a bonfire party :)

    3. Re:Lawn Ornament by jcdick1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Umm...afterburners...

      Barbecue?

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Lawn Ornament by ch3 · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe you could cook meat on summer BBQ.

    5. Re:Lawn Ornament by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      Coolest bar-b-que grill ever.

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    6. Re:Lawn Ornament by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      I haven't thought of a use for spring and summer yet...

      Here are a few for you:
      Drowning out your popular neighbour's annoyingly loud parties.
      Scaring local children away from using your collection of WH40K and AD&D miniatures in their sandbox
      General civil disbedience (read: unsightly yard, excessive noise, etc...)

    7. Re:Lawn Ornament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about pissing off the neighbors?

    8. Re:Lawn Ornament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the sumer?

      Hey ladies, i have a fighter jet...a big jet.. wanna climb?

    9. Re:Lawn Ornament by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Funny

      Keeping Jehovah's Witnesses away??

    10. Re:Lawn Ornament by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      Damn kids! Get off my lawn!

      (afterburners fire)

      Damn charcal briquettes! Get off my... lawn?

    11. Re:Lawn Ornament by ripleymj · · Score: 1

      Roasting hotdogs or marshmallows?

    12. Re:Lawn Ornament by phoenix_rizzen · · Score: 1

      Use it in place of your BBQ. :) Cook an entire roast pig in less than 5 minutes. Tim Allen would love this, and you'd probably get a spot on The Man Show as well. :)

    13. Re:Lawn Ornament by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 1

      Only if you don't mind paying $10,000 for fuel and meat that tastes like it was marinaded in kerosene. Then there are neigbors' complaints about noise.

    14. Re:Lawn Ornament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those goddamn mormons too.

    15. Re:Lawn Ornament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the fall I could use the afterburners to clear all the leaves from my yard. In the winter they could melt the snow on my driveway. I haven't thought of a use for spring and summer yet...
      Well, a barbeque of course! Duh...
      "How would you like your steak, Mrs. Jones? Rare, medium, or Mach 1?"

  25. Bill Gates World Domination by kidgenius · · Score: 1

    Uh-oh, lookout. Billy may start creating his own airforce to take over the world

  26. Assuming it's bought "assembled" by benlinkknilneb · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    How do they deliver it?

    --
    It must be Thursday... I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
    1. Re:Assuming it's bought "assembled" by wattersa · · Score: 0, Troll

      They truck it in pieces to your warehouse and assemble it there. Jagoff.

    2. Re:Assuming it's bought "assembled" by The+Bullroarer · · Score: 1

      Easy as pie. Assuming the seller can fly it, he simply does so (to the point of delivery) and charters a private jet home.

      --
      Frodo Lives!!
    3. Re:Assuming it's bought "assembled" by WWWWolf · · Score: 2, Informative
      Assuming it's bought "assembled" How do they deliver it?

      Reminds me of one picture in an aviation magazine when the Finnish Air Force got their F-18 Hornets. The Hornet was escorted by a couple of Saab Drakens. That was probably the only picture in the world where a hornet was bigger than a dragon...

    4. Re:Assuming it's bought "assembled" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FedEx, Delieverd before 10:30!

    5. Re:Assuming it's bought "assembled" by Zak3056 · · Score: 3, Funny

      How do they deliver it?

      Airborne Express? :)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    6. Re:Assuming it's bought "assembled" by The+Bungi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Let's just say that the stock price for the company that makes bubble wrap is about to go through the roof.

      Afterwards the lucky winner gets to recoup some of the $9M by selling 4x4m patches of bubble wrap at $50, easing the anxieties of thousands.

      Later, the guy is sued by the makers of Prozac.

      You heard it here first.

  27. And the top bidder is... by iblink · · Score: 4, Funny

    someone named fashionpillows. Go figure.

    1. Re:And the top bidder is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      His prior winning bids include a Porsche 911 for $14K, a copy of Windows Business Server, and a MCSE certification kit. I guess MCSE really does pay off after all...

    2. Re:And the top bidder is... by Bobman1235 · · Score: 1

      And the top bidder is...someone named fashionpillows. Go figure.

      Someone named fashionpillows, whose last 3 ebay transactions (well, the ones with feedback at least ) are a 15 dollar polo shirt, a ten dollar Windows XP CD, and a 14,000 dollar PORSCHE.

      Ebay is truly a magical place.

    3. Re:And the top bidder is... by __aafutm5472 · · Score: 1

      The price on this thing is flying (pun intended) upwards at an astronomical (atmospherical?) rate. When I checked it 15 minutes ago, it was just over 4 mil. It's up to 8.1 mil right now...

      Crazy.

  28. Grey Eagles by dimss · · Score: 1

    There was interesting book -- Grey Eagles. German pilots assembled ten WWII aircrafts in USA and destroyed American Air Force base in 1970's. Now I cannot find any traces of this book with google...

    1. Re:Grey Eagles by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      That's because it's Gray Eagles, not Grey Eagles.

      You know it's fiction, right? You make it sound like it really happened.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Grey Eagles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.alibris.com/search/detail.cfm?chunk=25& mtype=&query=grey%20eagles&S=R&bid=8153123074&pqty new=&page=1&matches=29&qsort=r It sounds interesting

  29. How long does it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long does it take a cocaine dealer to make $9 mil? How much could he pack inside one of these? How many trips to get his money back?

    Free Padilla!

  30. So does it fly or does it just sits there? by Neko-kun · · Score: 1

    The aircraft, which has not been flown in years, is stored in California.

    So how can we, the interested, know if this plane can actually fly before actually purchasing such a thing...cuz I fer one like to know if what I'm buying is windup being a $9 million ornament due to government restrictions or due to its inability to fly.

    It's amaizing the things people do these days for attention

  31. Odd... by barryfandango · · Score: 5, Funny

    Listed in category: Consumer Electronics > Radios: CB, Ham & Shortwave > Ham Radio > Accessories > Antennas

    For a million bucks this better get good reception.

    --
    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
  32. DHS Message of the Day: by jafac · · Score: 4, Funny

    Remember; eBay supports Terrorism.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:DHS Message of the Day: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that means america supports terrorism

      america is a terrorist state and must be blown away
      god shave the queen, I say

    2. Re:DHS Message of the Day: by elflet · · Score: 1

      Whoa! Shrub has been looking in the wrong place for Weapons of Mass Destruction -- he never tried eBay.

    3. Re:DHS Message of the Day: by Cyno01 · · Score: 1
      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  33. Complete with extras including bomb racks... by The+Placid+Casual · · Score: 1

    How could anyone resist? I mean, you don't get those kind of extras on your average VW...

  34. nuclear-CAPABLE? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    Well, hell, so is any Hydrogen atom, if you have the means.

    1. Re:nuclear-CAPABLE? by pmancini · · Score: 1

      A bit more work starting with hydrogen. Considering the worsening nuclear prolifiration problem world wide there are many more easy to get, ready to use sources. Of course fusion weapons are a bit harder to come by, but hey, money talks!

      The capability of accessing all of the controls and settings on a Russian fusion weapon are by far better than just dropping a dumb weapons such as a lead pipe with hydrogen in it, no?

    2. Re:nuclear-CAPABLE? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I'd say finding the nuclear weapon to be the harder task than finding the aircraft to drop it with. If you can do the former, the latter is the easy part.

  35. How are they serious? by lostchicken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looking at the minimun bid of $1 mil, that means that there have, so far, been 7 people willing to fork over $1,000,000 for something. Now, looking at the feedback for these people, I can't possibly see how some of them could pay for this. wtmahan has bought repair manuals for a 1995 Nissan Protege. Anybody who drives one of those, and wants to fix it him/herself probably cannot afford an F/A-18. The current high bidder has bought a bunch of shirts and a $15,000 Porche, not cheap, but not a car for a person who can spend $1mil on an airplane kit.

    --
    -twb
    1. Re:How are they serious? by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Funny

      They might be looking at this as a business investment - can you imagine the commercial possibilites for supersonic cropdusting? You don't make much on each field, but the volume...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    2. Re:How are they serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm...duh, they aren't serious.

    3. Re:How are they serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The current high bidder has bought a bunch of shirts and a $15,000 Porche

      Aren't you making a pretty big assumption? It seems entirely plausible that the Porsche is just one of many sports cars "fashionpillows" owns. Maybe it was good deal or maybe it was just easier for them to buy it on eBay and have it delivered to the beach house or whatever...

    4. Re:How are they serious? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Looking at the minimun bid of $1 mil, that means that there have, so far, been 7 people willing to fork over $1,000,000 for something. Now, looking at the feedback for these people, I can't possibly see how some of them could pay for this. wtmahan has bought repair manuals for a 1995 Nissan Protege. Anybody who drives one of those, and wants to fix it him/herself probably cannot afford an F/A-18. The current high bidder has bought a bunch of shirts and a $15,000 Porche, not cheap, but not a car for a person who can spend $1mil on an airplane kit.

      The high bidder now apparently sells juggling clubs for $20 a pop. He can't possibly be serious. The guy who was high bidder this morning at least had among his past purchases a pilot's carry-on bag, a wooden model of a twin engine Cessna, and some sort of "pilot training on CD" software.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:How are they serious? by Shakrai · · Score: 1
      Aren't you making a pretty big assumption? It seems entirely plausible that the Porsche is just one of many sports cars "fashionpillows" owns. Maybe it was good deal or maybe it was just easier for them to buy it on eBay and have it delivered to the beach house or whatever...

      Or maybe he's bidding on it for his rich boss so he'll get the bragging rights of having an F/A-18 on his bid history. I know I did the same when my boss bought his Jag.... "No no, you don't need your own account, use mine, it has feedback on it..."

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:How are they serious? by srleffler · · Score: 1
      The guy who was high bidder this morning at least had among his past purchases a pilot's carry-on bag, a wooden model of a twin engine Cessna, and some sort of "pilot training on CD" software.

      Did he buy any box cutters?

    7. Re:How are they serious? by dr_canak · · Score: 1

      Yep,

      the auction has since been pulled. The last bid I saw was $99,999,999.00 (US). So either the whole thing was a joke or it became a joke and the auction was pulled.

      later,
      jeff

  36. Re:How much longer... by bluekanoodle · · Score: 3, Insightful
    While I agree we see a lot of these types of stories on ./ this one seems worthy of the front page. It's not everyday that you can buy a fighter jet on the internet.



    It's been said the Internet is the great equalizer, a single man can be as big as a large corporation, but this levels the playing field at the nation building level. :) At least it can bring you equal to many 3rd world country's Air forces.

  37. Another recent interesting eBay auction... by funny-jack · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In other eBay news...

    Bids are currently at $65,000 for 867-5309 in NYC.

    --
    You probably shouldn't click this.
  38. You bet there was a reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If I'm not mistaken the Blue Angels upgraded to the Super Hornets. 3700 is not bad. And you should seriously see what that 20 year old jumbojet you last flew on had gone through every few years. Stripped completely apart and put completely back together without coffee stains, corrosion and cracks. I remain convinced that if people saw what involved in that process half would feel better, and the rest would insist on flying only on brand new planes.

    1. Re:You bet there was a reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raymond only flies Qantas.

  39. Re:Yeah. eBay. by druiid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why bother going to Russia to buy one? There are several companies that disassemble them, ship the parts to the US, re-assemble them, and then sell the MiG's. Last I checked they started at like $200k, though.

  40. One more thing... by kidgenius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now all you need is the Ebay Aircraft Carrier to launch the plane off of.

  41. damn cheap by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

    Wow. $9M is damn cheap - most business jets start in the $20M range. Now if only I can find $9M in the piggybank, I think I'll go for it.

    1. Re:damn cheap by tommck · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the seating's a bit tight. You'll have to have meetings out on the wings.

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
  42. Dangerous toys by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know (or knew) a rancher who rebuilt a Mustang. He used to fly it over his cattle drives on occasion to keep an eye on things. One day the cowboys saw him fly it straight into the side of a hill. Not only was he rendered into many tiny pieces, but an irreplacable piece of American aviation history was lost forever.

    Men have this fascination with warbirds - both prop and jet. The problem is that these things were designed - especially the old WWII birds - to fly just this side of stable. Airspeed, altitude, and maneuverability were prioritized over forgiveness. Even well-maintained aircraft flown by pilots with many hours all too often augered in. That was the price the military knew they would have to pay to get the job at hand done.

    Now we see weekend amateurs with too much money flying these things, when they should be flying Cessnas.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Dangerous toys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conclusion:

      >Now we see weekend amateurs with too much money flying these things...

      Predicated upon:

      >I know (or knew) a rancher who rebuilt a Mustang...

      WOW! Anecdotal evidence! Thats the best kind!

    2. Re:Dangerous toys by delcielo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The truth is that many of the kids who flew these in practice (especially the old warbirds like your mustang) had fewer hours than a lot of current pilots.

      It's all about the training and discipline. Getting good education and training, and then having the self discipline to follow those things as well as the normal "rules" of aviation. In other words, just because you have a mustang and know how to fly it, that doesn't make it safe to do low-level passes with your attention diverted to things on the ground. That was true when the airplane was flown in combat, too.

      The area that most new warbird owners seem to get into trouble on is fuel exhaustion. None of these birds really have large stores of fuel unless they have their external tanks with them. Kind of gets back to the discipline thing. You would want to keep in mind that unless you were an airshow pilot, the airplane just wouldn't be very useful.

      --
      Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
    3. Re:Dangerous toys by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      I, for one, would love to own a restored P-51.. WWII aircraft have so much more character than any jet-powered aircraft.

    4. Re:Dangerous toys by SheldonYoung · · Score: 1

      So he was using a 1650 hp, 450 mph fighter to do low level fly-overs of cattle. Not the brightest thing to do, but still... ... he should have used a Stearman.

      *Hanging head in shame*

    5. Re:Dangerous toys by Moofie · · Score: 1

      So a LESS agile aircraft would be harder to fly straight into a mountain?

      Before the advent of fly-by-wire, there were exactly zero military aircraft designed with relaxed static stability. World War II aircraft were well-behaved and stable. The P-51 Mustang, in particular, was regarded as a particularly pilot-friendly aircraft.

      Where did we get the idea that we should tell people what they should be doing?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:Dangerous toys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, have to say it.

      STFU idiot, you don't know what you're talking about.

      1. The P-51 is a very stable aircraft. Flies like a dream, in fact. Your own statement shows that the rancher flew into the side of a hill - that doesn't sound like loss of control, or a pilot unable to handle the aircraft. Pilot error, plain and simple.

      2. What is the fascination with locking beautiful machines up in museums? Oh, yes, irreplacable piece of history, blah, blah, blah. What good does it do for a kid to be able to stare at a lifeless hunk of aluminum and steel, with dust collecting on the wings, motionless in the corner of some building? It should be flown. It should be enjoyed. It should also be flown where people can see it, where they can hear that scream that sounds like nothing else in the world. (Unless you count the Millenium Falcon - that engine noise in Star Wars is a P-51 at full power, with the pitch adjusted slightly and something added to give it more bass.)

      3. People who think that activities should be banned because they're not risk free should go home. And stay there. And shut the hell up.

    7. Re:Dangerous toys by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

      Jack Rousch, of Rousch Racing and Nascar fame, keeps his P-51D ("Old Crow", formerly painted as the "Rascal") housed at Willow Run Airport.

      I was late to work a couple times last year, as Jack decided to take the bird out as I was driving to work. I'd pull off to the side of the road and watch that plane take off. Few things sound sweeter than a Rolls Royce Merlin Engine at full power.

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    8. Re:Dangerous toys by Rank_Tyro · · Score: 1

      There is NOTHING like the sound of a Merlin engine, with the throttles at the firewall. An aquaintance of mine, (I wish I could say he was a good freind), restore's and flies old warbirds. I was lucky enough to be invited to an airport to watch the first flight of a P-51D after it had been restored to flight worthiness. The sound that thing made as it passed over the runway at 400 mph was breathtaking. *sorry for the drama in the above statement*

      --
      Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
    9. Re:Dangerous toys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      restore's

      It just doesn't get any easier for you, does it?

    10. Re:Dangerous toys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The P-51 is a very stable aircraft. Flies like a dream, in fact."

      Depends whether you have the fuel tank behind the pilot full or not. The tank was a late addition for escort missions and (by moving the cg back) when full made the P-51 only marginally stable. Apparently on long missions using this tank pilots were ordered not to engage the autopilot until the tank was empty (which I think took c. 2 hours at cruise).

      Now if this guy was a cretin and filled the rear fuselage tank up instead of the wing tanks, he could well have gotten himself into trouble.

  43. this will look great by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Funny

    next to my George W Bush lawn-gnome

    1. Re:this will look great by Mmm_Coco · · Score: 1

      does it have a flight suit?

  44. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the seller can assemble an entire airplane
    for 8 million dollars, just imagine what
    they could do with a small crate of lego!

  45. They'll be scaaaarred...oooooh... by kingkade · · Score: 1

    Pilot? I doubt you could even back your car out of your driveway without hitting the garbage cans.

  46. Ok people just remember this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it fell through the "cracks" during a DEMOCRATIC administration

  47. Going 1.. 2.. 3.. and navy jet goes to.. by sameerdesai · · Score: 1

    maybe they will keep an eye out for who bids for it and who buys it for potential terrorsits!!!

  48. jets on ebay by glk572 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    there have been several jets sold on ebay, the aforementioned cmdr warf, bought one this way, a gulfstream 4 went the same way. check out some of this guys other auctions, there's some stuff that the average slashdotter would be intrested in, http://www.stores.ebay.com/id=2445982

    --
    Well art is art isn't it, but then again water is water; and east is east; and west is west; and if you take cranberries
  49. Price increase? Was $850000 couple weeks ago by johu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's old ad

    Did some googling couple weeks ago when it came up on ebay for first time and found photos of same plane while disassembled and under restoration. Didn't find URL, but shouldn't be that hard. Just follow links from official Blue Angel's web page to list of decomissioned planes. It was somewhere over there.

  50. Patrol boat doesn't sell on eBay by core+plexus · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This reminds me of something I read that is similar: "The state got no takers when it tried to sell an Alaska State Troopers patrol vessel on the eBay auction Web site. "It did not sell. We didn't receive any offers," trooper spokesman Greg Wilkinson said after the close of the auction last week." I wonder if this jet will do any better.

    -cp-

  51. i can think of certain problems... by cavac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    when buying a F18, even one in prime condition. First of all, what kind of airport do you need in terms of runway and infrastructure? Do F18 fly on commercial fuel without killing their afterburner?

    Would you need a special pilot license? I mean, this isn't exactly a two-seated Fokker but a supersonic jet.

    And last but not least, when the constitution amendment was made that everyone could bear arms i don't think politicians had state-of-the-art jet fighters in mind. Would be like allowing everyone to drive a tank...

    --
    Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
    1. Re:i can think of certain problems... by DaRat · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the runway and fuel would be too much of a problem. The F18 doesn't need all that long of a runway. I actually saw one landed at a nearby municipal airport (Sugar Land Airport, in Texas) once. Strangest thing. Driving to work one morning, looked over, and saw the distinctive tail. The F18 was just parked there liked a normal aircraft.

    2. Re:i can think of certain problems... by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      Any military aircraft in civilian hands in the US are stripped of weaponry and fire control systems. It would be very difficult and expensive to rearm them.

      While possible, the aircraft would be destroyed during their first mission. Unless you assembled a full squadron, they'd probably be shot down before they reached the target(unscheduled fighter aircraft arriving tend to attract attention). Within the US, there isn't really anywhere someone other than the government could operate an airbase secure enough for sustained combat operations. Cessnas with dynamite thrown out the door would be much more dangerous from a homeland security perspective. They are cheap enough you don't need a secure base- they get shot down just buy more. Can't quite do that with multimillion dollar fighters.

    3. Re:i can think of certain problems... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Come on, we need some sort of civilian air power to repulse Osama's Navy...

    4. Re:i can think of certain problems... by T-Punkt · · Score: 1

      Military jets of the cold war aera are usally less critical than commercial jets. Think of quickly erected forward air bases and supply conditions in times of war (BTW: In Germany many straight parts of the autobahn were designed to be able to be converted to auxilary air bases quickly).

      As an example, the Mig31 'Foxbat', capable of speeds exceeding Mach 2.83 is said to be able to start from unpaved runways. The F/A18 is designed to start and land on carriers, which means slow start and landing speeds and that means short starts and landings.

    5. Re:i can think of certain problems... by T-Punkt · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the NATO-designation is "Foxhound", not Foxbat. The Foxbat is the Mig-25.

    6. Re:i can think of certain problems... by cavac · · Score: 1

      On the other side, if you want to go for a suicide mission, an F18 would be quite right. Imagine an civilian registrated F18 starting legally from an Airport near New York, flying a bit on the acknowledg course, turning apruptly, speeding up to mach two, dropping two or more external "fuel tanks" full of Napalm over Queens and than plungin' with still Mach 2 somewhere into Manhattan. At that speed and with still enough fuel on board, an exact target wouldn't matter... (the supersonic shockwave alone would do plenty of damage and can kill many people if it shatters windows on the 100th floor) We've seen on 9/11 how effective Jets where against passenger planes. I'd guess the F18 would have dropped the napalm and reached Manhattan before the first anti-aircraft missile has been fired or the first military plane has lifted off. You could also try such a thing during an air show near - lets say - Las Vegas. Nobody react at first when you turn course; the pilot could easely hold off the tower a short time by telling he has technical problems or such, that he's ejecting himself and cut off radio contact to proof it... Many scenarios are available.

      --
      Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
    7. Re:i can think of certain problems... by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      That is still an incredibly expensive suicide mission. A hundered used cessnas could do a lot more damage... bunching them all up in one place would draw enough attention to make stopping it feasible, but slamming into 100 city hall buildings across the northeast would kill a shitload of people and scare everyone else even more than 9/11.

      It could be feasible if the terrorists kidnap the owners kids and use them as leverage, but actually buying it.. their ten million+ could do a shitload more damage, both from loss of life and fear than a single F/A-18 suicide strike.

  52. I get it! by LeoDV · · Score: 4, Funny

    You buy it to go with this!

    Accessorize baby, accessorize!

  53. 2nd amendment someone ? by dago · · Score: 1

    Strange, lot of discussion and a search on "2nd" doesn't give anything, altough lot of people discuss the legality of this.

    If people shall be allowed to bear arms, then why not a F/A-18 ?

    --
    #include "coucou.h"
  54. $1 million? Can you sar "Hoax?" by commonloon · · Score: 0

    Getting the FAA to let you fly the thing aside, and putting the fact that F18 aren't just sold to the public as they aren't "Retired," and won't be anytime soon. It seems like you might have to use you coupon book, as the normal street price is $40 million.

  55. Re:Yeah. eBay. by leonardluen · · Score: 1

    but the russian one bought from the mob is probably still armed...

    $200k for a fighter jet is quite reasonable!

  56. "I'll make it worth your while..." by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 4, Funny
    You just made a serious mistake by not posting anonymously when you identified your skillset, my friend. If your friends are anything like mine, I can just imagine what's filling your inbox right now:

    You, know, I wasn't thinking of bidding on it until I saw your post. But I thought about it and maybe we can do the usual tech support thing. You know: you swing by and help me put it together. I'll provide the pizza and beer.

    So, are you busy next weekend or not?

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  57. Troy McClure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such home improvement films as "Five Thousand Horsepower Leaf Blower", or "Replace your furnace with a jet turbine."

  58. $1 million +? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much for an A-10?

  59. Seller History by Fiz+Ocelot · · Score: 1

    It seems a little odd to me that they go from selling some items in the $10-$200 range, and then 1M+ Jets? This is the closest thing to an airplane I saw in their history: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =3254134304&category=4037

  60. Interesting..... by The+Green+Skeleton · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Complete with extras including bomb racks," I see posibilities......

  61. ebay for such expensive things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm wondering if people are actually really buying things this expensive on ebay.
    Oh and the plane is impressive of course, but check their others auctions, like this one :
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&i tem =3077350284
    FIBER OPTIC CABLE 288 STRAND CORNING 2M ' -> For only 4.400.000$ !!!

  62. this will go well with my aircraft carrier by Bhull · · Score: 3, Insightful

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ewItem&category=26432&item=2454839870

  63. then again... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 5, Funny

    it could possibly cost LESS for a private citizen.

    I was able to buy a toilet seat for ten bucks instead of six grand.

    --
    This space available.
    1. Re:then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But were you able to fund a place like A51 with the $5,990 left over?

    2. Re:then again... by RetroGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was able to buy a toilet seat for ten bucks instead of six grand.

      Well, ok, but with a toilet seat YOU supply the fuel.

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    3. Re:then again... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Interesting
      it could possibly cost LESS for a private citizen. I was able to buy a toilet seat for ten bucks instead of six grand.

      Can we let the $500 hammer, $10,000 coffee maker, and the $6K toilet seat myths go now? If you want to understand the REAL scam behind this stuff, this is a good overview of exactly how the money gets wasted. For those who don't follow links, here's the explaination of "overpriced" parts:

      So the total cost of the project is something like $22.5 Billion (over 5 or 10 years)....that $250 toilet seat or hammer you have heard about... The way they calculate that is to divide the entire cost of the project (including all the fixed costs and so on) over every part or tool on the entire project. And what still hasn't been mentioned is that in many "above board" projects, they had to pad the budgets enough to cover all the black-projects costs. So really a lot of the costs were for part of another program! This would be about as accurate as dividing your total income, by how many times you wipe your butt per year, and figuring that each flush costs you $136. In other words -- it never existed"
      So the "pays for Area 51" comments are probably accurate, but anyone who tries to pay their income taxes by dragging a Mr. Coffee and a used toilet seat into the IRS office and asking for two hammers in change is an idiot.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:then again... by mav[LAG] · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, ok, but with a toilet seat YOU supply the fuel.

      Of course in Soviet Russia....actually no, I'm not going to go there.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    5. Re:then again... by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 5, Funny
      So the "pays for Area 51" comments are probably accurate, but anyone who tries to pay their income taxes by dragging a Mr. Coffee and a used toilet seat into the IRS office and asking for two hammers in change is an idiot.

      Well, that explains the looks I got.

    6. Re:then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "This would be about as accurate as dividing your total income, by how many times you wipe your butt per year, and figuring that each flush costs you $136"

      This is why you should take a dump during work time... You get paid for every wipe!

    7. Re:then again... by dontbgay · · Score: 1

      Getting kinda O/T but i'd like to elaborate on this. Working for an electronics company doing menial hardware manufacturing (there is such a thing), they had 3 different classifications for their goods: consumer grade, medical grade, and Governmental grade. IIRC, they were grades one through three, one being consumer and so forth. As you go up the ladder, there's less and less room for error so they put more QC in place for the governmental than the medical ect because when they say "mission critical", they really mean it. I'm now an electrician for the navy though and i'm still wondering why they would pay $136 for a self-actuating switch.. just my .02

      --
      Sig not found.
    8. Re:then again... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'm friends with a guy who spends his spare time working on his plane. All you need is a big garage and the same stuff you use to take care of a car or truck. This guy actually uses his (long) backyard as a runway, and he flies to work when he gets jobs near small airports. He just has one of his employees pick him up at the airport for an extra $20 and they go work construction together.

      The Blue Angels are paying top-dollar for a team of mechanics, and they're flying in ways that probably really tax and wear the planes down fast, a guy and his buddy with the know-how might be able to get the thing in the air for an hour or two every month on their own labor.

      As for fuel, I'd have no idea how to pay for it.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    9. Re:then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      according to FAA regs it is illegal to work on your own plane (if it is not classed "experimental").

    10. Re:then again... by petecarlson · · Score: 1

      It depends on who you are, what you are doing, and what part the aircraft is certified under. I for one, could do whatever (legal repair or inspection) I wanted to a plane I owned (Registered under 14CFR Part 91)and was using for personal use. If I didn't have a license to do so, I could still perform preventive maintenance on the aircraft given I was the owner and pilot of said aircraft. I doubt that a F-18 could be certified under Part 121 (Air carrier) or Part 135 (charter). It would also be quite difficult to register it as a Part 91 aircraft seing as there is no type certificate issued for the F-18. Thus, the aircraft would have to be registered as an experimental aircraft. This brings up an interesting point. They claim the 9m price tag is for an assembled aircraft "certified airworthy" It was my understanding that an aircraft needed a valid type certificate to be certified airworthy...

    11. Re:then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I don't know, the $200 bottle of tylenol and $400 boxes of kleenex tissue on our medical bills seem equally as silly, right?

      American Healthcare. Can't really call it a system (which implies some semblance of organization and availability).

    12. Re:then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you seen the toilet where i work? it looks like shit. no really. i can't imagine that it cost anywhere near $500! ;P

  64. MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    -1 Ignorant. There are plenty of ex-military (and non de-milled) aircraft flying around the country. They're classified as experimental aircraft. Poster andyrut is an idiot.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignorant? You are correct...there are plenty of warbirds kicking around. Yes they are experimental. However, any warbird turbine requires by FAA regs a minimum of 1000 hours of time, with 500 in type (i.e., turbine) experience (I may be slightly incorrect...check Chpt. 32 of the regs).

      However, the original poster (andyrut) simply stated that it would be really really difficult to get a LOA (now that LOAs are gone, the A/C is added to your private license instead...so same paperwork, different name). He did not state that it couldn't be done, just really really tough for a civvy.

  65. Ah, the private arms market by nanojath · · Score: 3, Funny
    I wonder how much it would cost to fully arm it?


    How does a trip to Guantanamo Bay sound?

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

  66. Another great auction from the same seller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a bargain!. I guess it pays to buy in bulk.

  67. T-33s not rare by sphealey · · Score: 2, Informative
    T-33s are not uncommon. There are typically 5 or so for sale in any given issue of Trade-A-Plane. Buyer beware of course.

    Now a P-38...

    sPh

  68. Local pick-up only? by Mick+Ohrberg · · Score: 1
    Well, just for grins, I tried to calculate the postage. USPS barked since the package weight went over 70 lbs. UPS blew up because it was over 150 lbs. I got discouraged and stopped looking :(

    *imagines a jet fighter with 10,000 stamps on it*

    --

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

    1. Re:Local pick-up only? by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      To hell with shipping.. just have the thing flown to the nearest airport!

  69. What you're really buying by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Informative

    is tihs. Not quite flyable condition...;)

    Yes, it can be put back together. But no, it's not in 'fly-away' condition.

    There are several ex-military jets in private hands. F-4's, F-86's, etc. And you can just return it to weapons capable status. *All* of the fire control circuitry will have been removed. And without that, a missile won't launch in anything other than a randowm direction, if at all.

    Given the restrictions on actually flying ex-military aircraft, it would be easier for a purported terrorist to drop a case of TNT out the door of a Cessna.

    1. Re:What you're really buying by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      And you can just return it to weapons capable status.

      Yes, yes...preview blah blah. Obviously that should read can't.

    2. Re:What you're really buying by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      *All* of the fire control circuitry will have been removed. And without that, a missile won't launch in anything other than a randowm direction, if at all.

      Unless it's an AIM-9 Sidewinder. They require almost no fire control circuitry beyond a power-on switch, a trigger, and a feed to the pilot's earphones. From some web site:

      In order to fire a missile, the pilot listens in his headset for the signals of the missile. As soon as the missile is uncaged, the pilots hears a 'seeking tone'. As soon as the missile has acquired a target, the tone changes into a 'growl', varying in pitch according to the quality of the lock.
      At that point, it just needs to be fired. Of course, anyone observed firing a sidewinder over the US like that is probably not going to get a chance to fire a second one, so you might as well just ram your target with the F-18 directly and get it over with.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  70. I'm more interested in his other auctions by motardo · · Score: 1

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =3077350284&category=4671

    now THAT is impressive, 2 MILLION feet of fiber

    1. Re:I'm more interested in his other auctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that warehouse full of wireless networking stuff. Imagine a beowolf clustered lan party of that!

  71. John Travolta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Last I remember he never been ex-military."

    Yeah... in Xenu's army maybe.

    But no army that exists on earth. Of course, he's so other-worldly that he's frigtening. Maybe even beyond frightening. Hyper-frightening.

  72. Because it doesn't have arms.... by FerretFrottage · · Score: 1, Funny

    it has wings :)

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
  73. You forgot... by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1
    But if we outlaw Mig-29's, then only outlaws will have Mig-29s.

    Lemme just say that the guvmt'll get my surplus Soviet military jet fighter when you pry the joystick from my cold, dead fingers!

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  74. What I wanna know.. by pedro · · Score: 4, Funny

    is, as an auto tinkerer that's been burned on this issue numerous times..
    What's a GASKET SET for this puppy go for??
    You'll need one in order to assemble it, yes?
    I'm betting *well* in excess of $1E6.
    8-P

    --
    Brak: What's THAT?
    Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
    1. Re:What I wanna know.. by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually I know the answer to this one....

      The F/A 18 has a titanium ring gasket that clamps around the engine exhaust where the fusalage meets the engine. This thing is roughly 1/4" wide, about a 1/16 or an 1/8" of an inch thick with a little clamping lever - its about 30" in diameter or so...

      I was told when handling it at Fallon Naval Airstation in Nevada (top gun school at the time) that the gasket was 27,000 USD. each. and it requires 2 of them.

      and thats just one small part.

    2. Re:What I wanna know.. by bluGill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Titanium has come down in price significantly in the past few years. (Been happening since the Russians realized they needed money and had Titanium) My last hammer was made form wood and titanium and Cost $70, of which the handle was $20. (Trust me, well made tools are worth that price if you use them everyday) 10 years ago the idea of a common person owning a titanium hammer wasn't even worth considering, the price would be outrageous.

    3. Re:What I wanna know.. by Slowtreme · · Score: 1

      Jets use silicone o-rings for fuel parts. Very few gaskets are involved at all in assembly of a jet like the F/A18.

      I could probably put together this jet with my eyes closed if it's only disasembled for transportation. But you'd need about 8K in tools and at least an much in consumables (if you could find them on an open market). What the military pays for the same parts is anyone's guess.

      Don't forget a set of tech pubs for torques.

      --
      Post: Sigged, for your pleasure.
    4. Re:What I wanna know.. by jmvoodoo · · Score: 1

      Titanium has been cheap for a long time, it's machining the damn stuff that's so expensive.

    5. Re:What I wanna know.. by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Off topic but why did you go for a wood/metal hammer? When I did surveying, all our hammers were solid metal, one peice (steel I think). Reason being that the #1 point of breakage was the joint where head met shaft. Having a unified metal peice relieved the problem and claw hammers lasted basically until the claw was gone. IT would get dull, be sharpened, etc till it didn't exisit. Never heard of one breaking.

      That's what I'd pick up if I want a lasts forever hammer.

    6. Re:What I wanna know.. by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Yeah, metal is stronger, but it also is hard on the joints. All the vibration from the hit is transmitted (and amplified?) to the arm. Fiberglass is strong too, and a lot better than metal, but a good wood handle still beats fiberglass.

      I worked carpendry for about 10 months, I started with an all metal hammer, which is cheap and works fine, but I couldn't take it. I noticed a dramatic improvement when I went with a fiberglass handle hammer. Switching to a wood handle titanium hammer helped a lot, but it wasn't as dramatic as the switch to fiberglass. (Estwing hammers have a bad reputation for a good reason though) My carpil tunnel problems almost went away after the last switch. (Only getting out of carpentry got rid of it, but in exchange for a different RSI problem)

      I consider paying $20 every year for a new handle well worth it considering the savings on my body. Depends on how you are using the hammer though. I recomend you experiment, hammers are cheap (even at $70), find what works best for you. Then again if your claw is the first to go I'm guessing you don't use hammers the same way a carpender does. (carpenders almost never drive a nail unless they are going to pull it out again latter)

    7. Re:What I wanna know.. by pedro · · Score: 1

      My original post about the gaskets was a bit tounge-in-cheek, but I've definitely gotta weigh in on hammers.
      The best hammers, in my experience (I've done carpentry, too) are either all steel, or a steel head w/a wood handle, assuming that you have a decent hammering style.
      If you swing like I, and a lot of pros do, by basically palming the very end of the handle, like a swivel, and letting the hammer work of its own weight, all of the impact is borne by the head with *very little* reverse feedback up the handle into your hand and arm. It's possible to drive a 20 penny uncoated nail into oak in three strokes effortlessly once you've got the techique down.
      Fiberglass fouls up the resonances of the whole delivery system somehow, while wood dissipates and damps them, in a good way.
      Steel delivers a really good *thwack*, but you lose that mysterious form of control that wood seems to amplify for some reason. Steel handles, for me=more bent nails. Fiberglass = fatigue. Wood just felt good.
      BTW, Estwings really are overrated.

      --
      Brak: What's THAT?
      Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
    8. Re:What I wanna know.. by zonker · · Score: 0

      ooh, well if you want a good metal hammer that doesn't kill your arm after working day in and day out, buy one of the stanley antivibe hammers. they've got a tuning fork inside them that absorbs the blow, so your arm doesn't have to. and yes, it works. =)

    9. Re:What I wanna know.. by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Claw is a little different on a claw hammer. It's a single, long, sharp point. The idea is breaking up rocks, which was the primary use. Then you'd grab a wood stake, flip the hammer over to the flat side, pound the stake in, find anohter rock, flip the hammer over, destroy the rock, etc. It was also durable enough that you could get 2 guys, hold the claw on a particularly stubborn rock, and hit the flat with a sledge hammer to break the rock.

      Hence, no wood handle.

  75. Hmm... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    You mean like JFK Jr?

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Hmm... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Who was not instrument rated attempting to fly through a storm, at near dark.

      Darwin at work, baby.

  76. other acution by Milliardo · · Score: 1

    Anyone else notice the other auctions from this company? Just think of what you can do with 104 miles of fiber.

    1. Re:other acution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay regular for a lifetime?

  77. Microsoft fetish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's fascinating to see what the current bidder (fashionpillows) has purchased from eBay in the recent past. Between the Porsche, copies of Microsoft software and Microsoft t-shirts, he seems to have a penchant for buying expensive toys (and Microsoft wares).

  78. Right next to the Camaro... by christopher240240 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does anyone know if standard concrete blocks will hold this puppy up?

    1. Re:Right next to the Camaro... by Webmoth · · Score: 1

      No. You'd better to refer to MilSpec MIL-J-26149 if you want to do things right.

      --
      Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
    2. Re:Right next to the Camaro... by rhuntley12 · · Score: 1

      And how does it look next to a few transams in my front lawn?

  79. Discount? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    if we also purchase the Pakistani nuke?

  80. Sheesh look at that feedback by boobert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think I would go spending a million bucks knowing this seller doesn't have 100% feedback.

    --
    Your ad here ask me how!
    1. Re:Sheesh look at that feedback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the fact that if you look at all the items he's received feedback on, there's not one over $500, and most are in the under $100 range. And he's currently running multiple million dollar+ auctions. Hmmm.

  81. How much...? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    How much to get it assembled in the form of a giant robot?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  82. Re:Yeah. eBay. by marshall_j · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good luck flying it back :D

    I can see the US air authorities having no problems with a MiG-29 just popping up on the radar coming towards them

  83. Impulse Item by ryan1106 · · Score: 1

    Imagine searching ebay and buying this as an impulse item..

  84. 9 million seems expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After the breakup of the Soviet bloc you could pick up migs for salvage or scrap from abandoned bases in Eastern Europe and East Germany. These went for thousands or mere hundreds of dollars rather than millions, and many were fully working units. Most were bought up for scap and stripped down for titanium and other resources. Many however just 'disappeared'.

    Look at some figures for the armaments in East Europe pre 1989, and then see if you can find any stories which account for what happened to all that military gear. You may be slightly worried.

  85. weapons usage by mnemonic_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not sure how easy it'd be to use this demilitarized, declassified F/A-18 for weapons use. The aircraft in its current state has kamikaze potential like any other, but employment of any actual modern air platform weapons would be almost impossible. No weapons fire-control software, possibly no radar, no weapons pylons (required to handle the complex mechanical and electrical linkages with weaponry, subject to great stress).

    It might be possible to jury-rig some sort of home-made pylon (at great expense) for carrying dumb bombs (simple ones that do not require any type of software control, yes even "dumb" bombs have a small amount of computerized control), but then again you could do that with any aircraft. Any aircraft can be used to drop something (crop dusters, 172's, MD-500's etc.).

    Of course where the F/A-18 fundamentally differs from civilian aircraft is its performance (any civilian sport aircraft could out-turn it though), but even that is of scattered use. Maneuvering performance is only useful in air to air combat, and it would be impractical for this aircraft to be converted for usage with air to air weaponry by yourself, unless you have connections with very skilled weaponry engineers and a lot of time and money. Then again, if you have those connections and funds, you could probably buy a real military aircraft from Russia and not need this F/A-18 in the first place.

    Now its performance would of course increase its kamikaze potential, but due to its size, this aircraft would probably not be much more effective in that respect than a regional or business jet. And there are plenty of those around already.

    1. Re:weapons usage by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You should note that the aircraft for sale is intact, not de-militarized.

      I wonder if that means it still has the gun...

      However, if I had ten million dollars to organize a kamikaze strike, I'd buy twenty Beech Barons instead of one F-18.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:weapons usage by ryanwright · · Score: 2, Informative

      no weapons pylons

      Dude, RTFA (auction.. hah!):

      Complete with extras including bomb racks, drop tanks and pylons.

      Sweet!

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    3. Re:weapons usage by rarose · · Score: 1

      civilian sport aircraft could out-turn it though

      Excuse me? I would find that hard to believe. Maybe what you meant to say was "civilian sport aircraft could out-turn it at equivalent speeds"... since more mass will be more inertia.

      However I find it hard to believe that a civilian sport plane at 200 knots full throttle will out turn a F-18 at 200 knots. Because the F-18 can always snap the plane quickly, even if it would normally stall, and using power lower the effective angle of attack.

      --
      --Rob
    4. Re:weapons usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, one airshow trick of the F18 was to try and do a Cobra Manouver, but of course they cannot get the nose past vertical for this, so it's not a true cobra manouver (need a MiG-29 for that...). But a 75-degree AOA low speed approach, and then kicking on the burners to jet out of it, is pretty cool at the airshows...

  86. Re:Yeah. eBay. by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding? They didn't manage to deal with those hijacked 767s, and a MiG 29's a hell of a lot faster and more manouverable than a 767.

    The dozy radar man would probably think it was a swarm of killer bees.

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
  87. Googled, blogged, etc. by smart.id · · Score: 1

    I'm okay with "googled" and "blogged" being accepted as verbs (and slashdotted, of course) but "eBayed"? Come on, what's next? Amazoned? SCOed? (I don't know.) IMDb'ed?

    --
    blog & fiction: jd87
  88. That's once nice antenna - by 4ginandtonics · · Score: 1

    So I wonder why it's listed in Consumer Electronics > Radios: CB, Ham & Shortwave > Ham Radio > Accessories > Antennas?

    Shouldn't it be in Home > All Categories > Toys & Hobbies > Models, Kits > Air ?

    Perhaps they were worried that those ebayers would place bids for 100,000 of This

  89. $10 million billboard? by Woogiemonger · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did you see the other thing Landa was selling? I'm sure some fool would pay ten million dollars for this for advertising maybe, but I bet it'd make a nice target for the F18.

    1. Re:$10 million billboard? by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      No, I missed that, but saw this other one

      2 million feet of fiber for $4 mil?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    2. Re:$10 million billboard? by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      288 strands of fiber! 144 pairs! thats realy like 87782.4 km of fiber if you rip it apart and stick the parts together. That will go around the earth twice, with pleanty of slack for service loops at both ends! Where's my check book?

  90. MIGs by tiny69 · · Score: 4, Informative

    After the wall fell, one of the airplane magazines had an article on one of the older MIGs (don't remember which model). At the time, you could pick them up for fairly cheap (well, cheap for being a jet). Since getting spare parts was some what difficult if even possible, the magazine recommended that if you REALLY wanted a MIG, buy two just so that you have spare parts.

    Another thing that I remember from the article, the jet on that MIG had a really slow spool up time. This meant that when you pushed the throttle to full, it would take the engine a while before it produced full power. This becomes a problem if you have to do a missed approached or abort a landing. This meant that when you landed that MIG, you would push the controls to full throttle before the wheels touched down, just in case. This is the same thing that planes do when landing on a carrier. But it seemed strange to do for a ground based runway.

    --
    Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
    1. Re:MIGs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that story or one very similar to it ran in the Popular Science magazine (circa 1990). It was accompanied by pictures showing airfileds in Russia with rows upon rows of Migs in various states of disassembly. And it suggested the same thing, if you want to make one flyable you might want to pick up 2 or 3.

      Also its very common for Aviation Clubs to purchase these planes, restore them to nearly 100%, or as close as the law will allow, then donate them to Aviation Museums. Usually with the stipulation that the Club gets to take the plane out and service it from time to time to maintain its working condition.
      A good example of this is the Naval Aviation Museum at the NAS in Pensacola. Many planes housed there have been restored and donated by these clubs for future generations to view and experience.

  91. Re:Yeah. eBay. by infinite9 · · Score: 1

    $1M would be a bargain to foreign governments just to part it out, or as a trainer.

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
  92. Wait, our choice of paint? by The+Human+Cow · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does that mean that I can finally have a flying Goatse?

    --
    The Human Cow - bringing you scrumtrelescence since 1995
  93. Re:from the T shirt dept.... by tazanator · · Score: 1

    Okay I know a few military collectors... one gentleman in MI has a parking lot at his home with id plates saying ATF, FBI, State Police, and finally vistors. He collects Tanks and trucks and restores them, often getting visits to confirm the equipment is not able to fire anything. (We did get a .50 cal machine gun (M2HB) to operate off of a mixture of acetelyn and oxygen with an electric ignitor...They used it for a movie even, but man, the neighbors whined and complained while we were getting the timing seq. down on it... :) ) Many of the collectors and museums know they will get visits, to the point of trying to have the agents favorite snack food and drink (the agents do take awhile inspecting the devices) and there is no point in being hostile they have a job to do. Me i sat back and watched and learned from them as much as they would let me!

    --
    I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
  94. Kinetic energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem is, this thing can fly FAST. If you just strap some dynamite under it, no fuse or anything because it WILL detonate on impact anyway, you have a kamikaze bomb that is going to do a lot of damage due to speed, and will be very hard to intercept in time because, well, it's what it was built for in the first place. :(

    So yes, by all means, rich nutty people, buy all these things and keep them in airshows where they belong...

  95. Jack Ryan could have saved some money by Havokmon · · Score: 1
    3 Million, 900 Thousand to be more precise -If he would have just checked Ebay First

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  96. Use for spring/summer by phorm · · Score: 1

    Could be a chick-magnet. How many guys do you know that have an F/A-18 in their front yard.

    I wonder though, how does a cockpit compare for space to say, a backseat of an expensive sports-car? Sports-car is probably cheaper.

    1. Re:Use for spring/summer by Algan · · Score: 1

      Expensive sports cars usually don't have back seats...

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
  97. I wonder... by Badmovies · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..if this person knows something. They are suddenly selling a number of jet aircraft and at rock bottom prices. I'd better go and check if Martha Stewart sold her jets today. Might be time to get rid of the Veritech.

    --


    Andrew Borntreger
    Champion of cinematic disasters
  98. What is really fun... by apoplectic · · Score: 1

    Is to take a look at the people who have bid on the jet to see what other auctions they have won. I'll never have this much money to blow, but it sure is fun being a voyeur to observe their Ebay spending habits. I suppose if you're buying a jet on Ebay, a Porshe or an existing brick and mortar business through Ebay is no big deal.

  99. Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If someone can comment, would this not be pointless? I understood that the U.S. Navy never relinquishes control of their aircraft, which has frustrated some salvage operators. They spend a few thousand bucks pulling an airplane out of a remote lake, fix it up, and then have the Navy come along and just 'reclaim' it.

    1. Re:Pointless by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      You are confusing yourself. That is because those you mention are "war graves". IMHO, they shouldn't be disturbed.

  100. damn...ahead of schedule... by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    damn...I haven't made my first million yet.

    O well...I can always settle for the Airwolf copter....

  101. Re:Yeah. eBay. by hoofie · · Score: 1

    I would think a low-airframe hours mig 29 with a full spares pack (some avionics, hydraulics and a couple of spare engines) would go for a good couple of million dollars minimum each.

    Remember, we're talking about a Mach 2+ fighter with a performance envelope that scared the crap out of Nato when it first came out. Granted, Nato aircraft have excellent long-range missiles, but get close in and the Mig wins.

  102. Selling lots of stuff by Bobulusman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This seller has a great deal of pricey stuff on Ebay. Top three, pricewise, are:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? Vi ewItem&item=2460961703&category=26442
    Some sort of dirigible, $10M

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ca te gory=4671&item=3077350284
    2 million feet of Corning fiber optic cable, $4.4M

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ca te gory=4672&item=3078834871
    Warehouse, $1.1M

    --
    Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
  103. Yep... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are several ex-military jets in private hands. F-4's, F-86's, etc. And you can just return it to weapons capable status. *All* of the fire control circuitry will have been removed. And without that, a missile won't launch in anything other than a randowm direction, if at all.

    Given the restrictions on actually flying ex-military aircraft, it would be easier for a purported terrorist to drop a case of TNT out the door of a Cessna.


    ...for one, pick your target. Air-to-air combat? Riiight. Even if you got one fully locked and loaded with the latest the US has to offer, a squadron of trained combat pilots would pick you out of the sky in no time flat.

    I guess you could take out a civilian airliner or two before they manage to take you out of the sky, but hell. Despite the increased security, I'm sure there are easier ways for that still, particularly since you can sabotage landings/take-offs.

    So it's basicly a bomber. What do you need? Speed? Nah. If you can reach the center of whatever no-fly zone before you can be shut down, that's good enough and they're not that big unless your target is a remote military base. Range? Nah. Just take off from the nearest feasible runway.

    Payload? Yeah, I guess. But then you're better off renting a transport plane anyway. And since the plane is toast anyway, either fly it in or lock/program the autopilot and parachute out. No guidance/launch system necessary, just the navigation in any basic plane.

    Basicly, this is a combat plane built to fight a war. Firepower to shoot down hostiles, range to reach enemy targets, hit fortified installations and moving targets, and return to base safely. Very little of that applies to a terrorist.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Yep... by theMerovingian · · Score: 1


      Might not apply to Islamic terrorists, but...

      it would make one heck of a getaway vehicle!

      --
      "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
  104. Good point by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    But a high speed missile with a large warhead can be made more cheaply. This could serve as a basis, but scale it up and substitute either a ton of hobbyist rocket engines or create your own solid-fueled rocket engine, and you've got something more effective and cheaper (I'd think).

  105. Answer: Buy an aircraft carrier by macshune · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, who needs an island? With this you can just sail into international waters AND have a massive pontoon-boat party while you fly your aeroplane.

    Also, if you were gonna try and export the plane, what could anyone do? Just fill the gas tank up, punch the throttle and fly to eastern Siberia or somewhere. It's not like the FAA will send up fighters to chase you down. I remember hearing something about how slow they are at doing that.

  106. Does B-L have a pilot's license? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Can someone buy it without a background check? Kinda scary actually...
    Especially when you consider:
    Complete with extras including bomb racks, drop tanks and pylons.
    1. Re:Does B-L have a pilot's license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So?

      Anyone with a decent amount of experience in metal fabrication can make bomb racks and pylons. Drop tanks would take a bit more experience and a bit more machinery, but it's certianly feasible.

      What? You've never seen a Cessna with bomb racks?

  107. I know where this belongs...... by scharkalvin · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope someone in the confederate air force buys it for the ghost squadron.

  108. Some Assembly Required? by larry2k · · Score: 1

    Crap, i will need to hire the lego master to put the damn thing up and flying...

    --

    The package said "Windows XP or better. Pentium Class Processor or better"... So I got a Mac with OS X

  109. Current highest bidder... by mrmag00 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have to wonder what this fellow is into that is the current high bidder.

    According to his feedback he purchased a 19" roulette wheel, later 2 microsoft t-shirts, a microsoft training guide, then microsoft small business server, and finally a 1979 Porche. He's now bidding on a 1-million dollar aircraft.

    It just makes me wonder what this fellow is up to... and if I should be doing it too!

    1. Re:Current highest bidder... by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      Well, he did by the Roulette wheel first. You do know that the house has a built in edge, right?

    2. Re:Current highest bidder... by MudDude · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, paranoia mode : ON

      Using the microsoft t-shirts, training guide and microsoft small business server, he disguised himself as a Microsoft Standard Maintenance Engineer and walsed right into a Casino in Las Vegas under the guise of "preparing an upgrade".

      After doing the necessary maintenance and managing to replace the existing Roulette wheel at the casino with the one he bought and "fixed", he is now riding high on his winnings.

      The Porsche and the aircraft bear this out.

      paranoia mode : OFF

      Regards,

      --
      You don't need to see my .sig. This isn't the .sig you're looking for...
  110. Current high bidder by phorm · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's neat to see whom actually bids on these things. Checking out the comments on the high bidder:

    Perfect Transaction, Fast payment, True Gentleman, Please enjoy your PORSCHEAAA+

    and another less happy:
    only 1 bid & insisted that I sell him a MichaelJordan/ XP Bus Server SW for 9.99
    $gt; A winning bid is a winning bid; my friend! Period! ! ! Now ship my product!!!


    Quite amusing... these people live in a different world than I. Enjoy your PORSCHEAAA+ indeed

    1. Re:Current high bidder by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I didn't even know there WAS a Michael Jordan OS!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Current high bidder by phorm · · Score: 1

      Yes... trying to figure out exactly what *THAT* is about. I was thinking that maybe an actual server with OS was being sold, and that the server box was branded "Michael Jordon" or something similar. Weird, at any rate.

  111. How do ya' like your steak? by MachDelta · · Score: 1

    ...crispy, crunchy, or atomized?

  112. Propoganda value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What terrorist wouldn't jump at the chance to strike at the imperialist aggressor using one of their own military aircraft? A supersonic fighter jet diving into the White House might not be the cheapest or most efficient way of killing a few tourists, but it would have a symbolic power that a carbomb or whatever could ever attain.

  113. Yeah but... by martin_b1sh0p · · Score: 1

    ...does it run Linux?

  114. Re: knots by SEAL · · Score: 4, Informative

    knots is a naval unit measured by a number of knots on a rope that's trailing the ship in a given time period.

    Where did you hear that?

    A knot is a nautical mile per hour. A nautical mile is one minute of latitude (1/60th of a degree of the Earth's circumference -- 6076 feet, versus 5280 feet for an English mile).

  115. I'm not sure you could launch an F-18 of that. by fredmosby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Those foreign carriers can usually only launch harriers.
    French Carrier: 20,000 tons displacement
    American Carrier: 100,000 tons displacement

    1. Re:I'm not sure you could launch an F-18 of that. by Chokai · · Score: 3, Informative

      The issue is not the tonnage of the carrier but rather how many pounds the catapult can shoot to takeoff speeds.

      The French Clemenceau or newer DeGaulle class carriers are entirely capable of operating F18s, although not particularly efficiently due to deck space limitations. However you'd have to refit them by upgrading the catapults and putting arresting gear in that can stop a 40,000 pound plane. And of course only one country in the world has a company that makes equipment capable of handling a F18 for arrested landing. So unless you know a guy who can build cats in his backyard shop you are SOL.

    2. Re:I'm not sure you could launch an F-18 of that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So unless you know a guy who can build cats in his backyard shop you are SOL.

      I did this once, it was difficult.

  116. you can't be serious by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    you are equating flying a cesna with an f-16? i think there's just a hint of a difference between the two.

    the point i'm trying to make here, albeit not very well, is that sometimes the fun stuff in life isn't healthy. alchohol and LSD kill brain cells. thc messes with your memory management. Soccer will inevidibly bruise, scrape and cause some bone and or brain damage. loud music kills eardrums. the playa fries people like hamburgers. the great canadian unexplored north freezes people alive. sex causes disease to transmit(not to mention children). and i'm a relatively boring person, and i can't think of really anything that fun right now(i've been studying all day. :/)
    "live dangerously"-neitzsche.
    i failed my pilots liscence testing...but had i been able to fly the two aircraft, i know which one i would chose.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  117. One word: by ColdForged · · Score: 1

    S'mores.

    --

    -"I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle." - Arthur Dent

  118. This Aircraft has been for sale for several years! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I have seen this aircraft for sale for several years, held by Air Capital Warbirds in Wichita, Kansas
    http://www.airwarbirds.com/f_a-18_pics.htm

  119. Need the cash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This little coward needs to earn himself some cash, and quick!!

  120. You think it's only a joke? by devphil · · Score: 1, Informative


    Think again. It's been done. :-)

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  121. Spam solution by macdaddy · · Score: 1

    I see this as a solution to the spammers that are flooding one of my boxes with 500+ spam-filled SMTP connections at the moment. Oh how I wish I had one. :-)

  122. Buy your own MiG... by vinnieg · · Score: 1

    ..in Alabama no less! (Can we keep the jokes to a minimum.) I know some guys who are going in together on one of these. Of course they are all ex-military. http://www.internationaljets.com/

  123. Re:Yeah. eBay. by kruczkowski · · Score: 1

    I know of a guy who bought a MiG for $7000 in Poland. Including S&H (very important)

    --
    hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
  124. Correction by Detritus · · Score: 0

    one minute of arc

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  125. Is Yoda selling this? by scootr1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everything to assemble we have.

    Maybe it crash-landed in Dagobah.

  126. Check Out the Listing...!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who noticed that this guy listed his F/A-18 jet under eBay's category for ham radio antennae?!?

  127. Need huge underground facility also! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty cool, you will need this United States Air Force underground facility located in Central Washington State to have as your home.

  128. Stamp Duty by djxploit · · Score: 0

    Wonder how much stamp duty and registration would be for that buger and insurance!!! imagine if u were an under 25y/o male flying it! excess woul dbe through the roof --australian joke--

    --
    http://www.thegreynomads.com
  129. Horten 229 by g00bd0g · · Score: 1

    Horten 229 all the way! 2 were flown before the end of WWII. 2nd pick is the ME-163, 15,000 ft/min climb! HE-162 is cool, but just a "filler" plane, between technological jumps.

    http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/ho229.h tm l

  130. think it 's a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I knew the rohntowers.com sounded familiar... The guy (Micheal Landa) has an alleged checkered past: http://www.bishoptower.com/landa/

    1. Re:think it 's a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for posting this link, it was an interesting read. I read through the feedback in the eBay "member profile" for the seller, and it's amazing how easy it seems to be to build a 97.3% positive profile for yourself on eBay.

  131. No Chance For Terrorism by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

    The FBI has already visited the seller, and you better believe the CIA already knows which hand he beats off with. No matter how rich the buyer is, he better not have so much as an unpaid parking ticket.

  132. Just had a thought by Steno-RFC · · Score: 2

    There is over 700 thousand members at /. If we all chipped in just over $1 each we could buy this. Wanna do it? And then we could get together and overclock the fighter jet, sounds like fun, huh?

  133. Delivery by andy@petdance.com · · Score: 2, Funny
    The listing says "WE WILL DELIVER." I sure hope my neighbor Ben isn't out on his deck grilling ribs when they do.

    "Hey, Andy, what the hell you got there?"

  134. To late for Saddam... by rainer_d · · Score: 1

    ...but Osama might still be interested.

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  135. ebay ever considering canceling by master_gilbert · · Score: 0

    Just a side note, as ebay cancels some auctions simmilar to this if it was in a case of a really expensive item. I guess they have gotten used to selling things in the millions but not billions yet. Anyways, if eBay said they woudnt allow an auction like this they would be shorted some serious change. -Gilbert

  136. "Complete with extras including bomb racks" by thomas_klopf · · Score: 1

    "Complete with extras including bomb racks"

    Great, all we need is some crazy redneck buying up this thing.. bomb racks.. huhuh.. Sort of Dr. Strangelove meets Al Qaida (you know, at the end of the movie...)

  137. Re: knots by rjw57 · · Score: 1

    knots is a naval unit measured by a number of knots on a rope that's trailing the ship in a given time period.

    Where did you hear that?

    Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_(nautical)

    --
    Rich
  138. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ewItem&item=2460961703&category=26442

    check out the other shit this guys selling

  139. Re: knots by styrotech · · Score: 1

    You're both right - 'defined by' and 'originally measured by' are two different concepts.

  140. The MiG is up for sale... by robmoss2k · · Score: 1

    ...any potential fiscal lunatics can check it out here.

    1. Re:The MiG is up for sale... by robmoss2k · · Score: 1

      Sorry, forgot the link! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =3078910291&category=4672

  141. The owner of the F/A-18 and T33 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the owner is... Air Capitol Warbirds

  142. Dropping Stuff by wsanders · · Score: 1

    Yes, but it is against FAA regs for you to drop any object from an aircraft in a manner so as to damage or injure anything on the ground.

    You can drop anything you want, say, if you drop it on your own private dropping-stuff test range.

    I saw a demo on some gun show on cable of a rich guy in Arizona who has an old F-86 or something and his own private strafing range.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  143. MiG-29 ad - $10mil by istewart · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.aircraftbargains.com/ad/355/buy/

    Appears to be for sale by a "research organization" near Zhukovsky Airbase, where most Russian prototype aircraft are tested. I wouldn't know, but even though the Russian style is to use centralized radar on the ground, the FAA probably wouldn't allow any sort of experimental or combat radar. Of course, the first person to plop down 10 million takes it, whether playboy or desparate foreign government.

  144. Funny, but you missed the point by maroberts · · Score: 1

    He didn't say he'd host the meetings in it!

    Mach 1.x (or is it 2.x) capable aircraft means you will get from A to B faster than any Mach 0.7 business jet. Plus the fact that (unloaded) it can probably take off from strips your average business jet would not be happy with....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  145. I'd Be Concerned by J3M · · Score: 1

    if the current bidder wins. Last two eBay purchases were books on world currency.

    If they show up with suitcases full of cash, be wary. Seller better have one of the money markers with him.

    --
    Aych tea tea pea colon slash slash slash dot dot org slash
  146. GSAAuctions.gov has jets now and then by donheff · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can frequently find surplus Government jets and jet engines on GSA Auctions. There aren't any up right now, but you will find a few buses and boats and some nice jewelry. You never know where some of this stuff comes from - foreign gifts are sold without attribution to avoid state embarassment. A while back, we sold the Coast Guard Cutter Tamaroa featured in "The Perfect Storm."

  147. $8,100,500.00 and counting... by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been tracking the item for the past 10 minutes while reading this thread. The last two bidders (of 150 total) have been a person whose eBay experince seems to center around trading Playstation games, and someone from Canada who seems to primarily buy nerd-esque items on a regular basis.

    It's enough to make one think that there's some bid-jacking going on by people who aren't taking this seriously at all. Perhaps an eBay "Slashdotting" of sorts? :-)

    It'll be interesting to see what, if any, cleanup is needed to identify a real buyer after the auction closes...

  148. Re:I wonder how much it would cost to fully arm it by sidmystic · · Score: 1

    Even though the sale says "Complete with extras including bomb racks, drop tanks and pylons," I heard a report that says the hardpoints required for actually mounting armaments (Sidewinders, Sparrows, AIMs, SLAMs, Mavericks, JDAMs) were removed. Clearly, I could be wrong. I wonder though, what about the spiffy 20mm Vulcan cannon? :)

  149. greekfriend003@yahoo.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fagg0rts!

  150. Shut up dipshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The F117 lives up to all of its intended purposes. So fuck off.

  151. White Trash by Stupid+White+Man · · Score: 1

    This is one way to "one up" all your friends in the trailerpark. They all have half built Fords and Chevy's sitting on cinder blocks.

    You'd have yourself a half built FIGHTER JET.

    "Oh yea? Well as soon as NASA starts auctioning off those Space Shuttles, I'm gonna git me one!"

    and the quote comes to mind... "Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash!"

  152. And then there's the Urban Legend.... by INVISIGOTH2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    maybe, but the story I got from a friend on the scene was, years ago, China was selling some of it's older aircraft for dollars and a gentleman from SoCal bought one, a MIG-15,for about $100k. Not a bad price when you consider that a P-51 airframe runs twice that. The day (and Plane) arrives and our hero gets a panicked call from the freight company to get his azz down to the docks. Our Asian buddies had sent the plane with the wings detached....with the CANNONS , RACKS AND ORDINANCE STILL ON BOARD. Trying to explain this to the Customs guys (one of which was my buddy, rolling on the dock in hysterics) was the high point of this dude's year. (And yes, they let him have the plane, after he stripped ALL the offensive gear of it, dockside.)

    --
    I want revenge. I'll settle for justice. Mercy is optional, but not very.
  153. I'm a nobody again! by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Once again I'm a nobody, I've been trying to afford a MiG-29 (or better, though I don't know if such exist) since I was a little kid. Now you tell me everyone owns one, except me. Life is sooo unfair, if everyone else can have one why can't I?

    Seriously though, I'd really like to have a MiG-29 that I could afford to fly. Unlikely to happen, and most people I know can say that. Even most people who are pilots can't afford one, and most want one.

  154. I love the category by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Listed in category: Consumer Electronics > Radios: CB, Ham & Shortwave > Ham Radio > Accessories > Antennas

    I guess he was thinking of the heads-up display or some shit. Maybe it could have been on EBay Motors with my Vespa....

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  155. PR by glamslam · · Score: 1

    Although the seller might ultimately sell the plane via Ebay, something tells me he posted on Ebay for one reason: to get the word out. The actual market for something like this is tiny. Ebay is mass-market. Post it on Ebay, and get some headlines in the papers == free advertising.

  156. Re: knots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The original poster said "measured by", not "originally measured by", if you want to get pedantic.

    Also, since the discussion was about the an F/A-18, a U.S. Navy plane, the modern definition of a knot is what applies here (the U.S. itself is only ~200 years old, and naval aviation is ~50 years old).

    If the discussion spoke of the origins of the British Navy, then perhaps the log-line definition would be more appropriate.

  157. eBay loves this guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    At a currently winning bid of over $10 million, eBay stands to make about $150k from the final value fee ALONE. That's $28.12 plus 1.5% of the value over $1,000: $28.12 + (10,000,800 - 1000) * .015 = $150,025.12.

    They'd love to have more auctions like this one, I'm sure... (assuming, of course, that the bids are genuine.)

  158. thi is crazy by Space_Balls · · Score: 1

    we are up at 24 milion now!!

    soon it is going to be more then the cost of a new one:)

    its the same thing with everything on ebay....
    even jet fighters are expensive these days

    --
    this.showSig(false)
  159. Mig 15 != F/A-18 by Nightbrood · · Score: 1

    The reason I have heard that you can see people flying Mig 15's, F-86's, and a whole slew of other Korean War era aircraft (and some newer aircraft as well) is because they lack the capability to carry nuclear weapons and/or missiles. I heard this from an aviation lawyer at EAA's Air Venture (formerly Osh Kosh) a few years ago so it may be inaccurate or wrong entirely.

    I also imagine that the technology in those aircraft, while outdated, would still present enough of a problem for the government to not want civillians owning one.

    Keep in mind I'm not saying all aircraft are covered by this because you can buy some Vietnam era or newer military aircraft but they all tend to be observation, recon, or training aircraft. Like I said it may be inaccurate but it does make alot of sense when you consider such decommishioned aircraft as the F-100 Super Sabre, F-105 Thunderchief, F-8 Crusader II, A-7 Corsair II, etc.

  160. Summer-Beer Cooler by ehintz · · Score: 1

    Adapt the jet engine beer cooler system that guy in NZ did a few years back. You could probably cool a whole mess of kegs for the above mentioned BBQ. And it would make you even more likely to end up on the Man Show. Beer, BBQ, and summer, that's what it's all about...

    --
    ehintz
  161. hmm by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    You really **CAN** get **ANYTHING** on ebay

  162. smuggle coke and X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can easily pay it off buy smuggling coke and X. If those pesky gummint Leer jets give you a problem just outrun them fuckers or lock them bitches on.

  163. Follow the trail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you go to parents' URL, and 'follow the crumbs,' you run into quite a few other attempts to sell this thing.

    Of course, it's not NEARLY as funny as the (as of 8:36 EST) high bid, which is $99,870,100. Mr Landa will be very very happy...

  164. Re:Lawn Ornament - Summer use by fallen1 · · Score: 1
    I haven't thought of a use for spring and summer yet...

    Well, summer is easy - Barbecue!!!! Large one at that. Quick too ;-)

    --

    Dream as if you'll live forever.
    Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
    ~Anonymous~

  165. yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All true, but who's gonna catch you to stop you from flying the thing? :)

  166. license? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    You need a special license to drive special vehicles, as well as a special pilot's license to fly a vehicle. You also need a license to own a gun. Don't you need some kind of extraspecial license to fly a gun?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:license? by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      - You also need a license to own a gun.

      This is true in some US jurisdictions, but not most.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    2. Re:license? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Where can I own a gun without a license? Can I carry it? Use it on inanimate targets? How big a gun?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  167. Maintenance goes by time and hours. by annisette · · Score: 2, Insightful
    As a airplane's cycles increase (takeoff+landing)there are maintenance requirements. As engines aquire hours of opperation maintenance is required.

    However there are "time" maintenance requirements. This means your jet can stand idle in your hanger for lets say a couple of years (est.) and it is time for manditory landing gear rebuild, avionics can be in the 6 month time range.

    You may save fuel by not flying it much but the cost to keep it flyworthy is "almost" as eexpensive if it is in the air or not.

    Keeping it flyworthy (for flight at any time) is the key word here.

    I worked on a SAAB 380 twin turboprop, 2.5-3 mil used (I cleaned the interior, carpet, leather seats, glass. A great job, ANY airplane is totally cool) a 19 seater (20 seats and you need a steward-stewardess-FAA) and the landing gear rebuild was about $300,00.00.

    My guess for a F-18 yearly maintenance would be easily 100 million pennys a year, plus fuel and ground support when flying.

    And if I remember correctly the F-18 does not have a long range especially supersonic probably an hour or so if flying slow.

    a jet plane to get is a Chek trainer or a mig-17, all airplanes rock:)

    --
    I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
    1. Re:Maintenance goes by time and hours. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the requirement for unrefueled combat radius of F18 is about 600-700 NM, which means it's carrying a combat load (i.e., some bombs or missiles, with tanks), and leaves about 10 mins of "bingo" fuel (reserve). So you can double that distance for point-to-point flight, and add even more for flying it clean and w/o using the afterburners in flight.

  168. 100 M ?? by Sanksa+Wott · · Score: 1

    I just checked the auction page, and it looks like the price is around 100 Million! (9:30EST). I think I remember the article mentioning that the govt only paid 28M or so. Now thats mark-up!

    -B

  169. Export restrictions by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

    US export restrictions. That's the main issue, but I'm sure if the right cogs were greased...

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  170. SS-27 Nuclear Missile available on Polish E-Bay by Prehensile+Interacti · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I was forwarded this link last week from a Polish friend of mine.

    I don't have enough Polish to verify this, but apparently this is genuine, with war-head and all electronics removed. However you are aparently legally able to drive this around, with a special license from the ministry of transport.

    12,300.00zl is approx $3,000 USD - A bargain!

    Fancy a drive up to Utah anyone;)

  171. Bdding is getting a tad ridiculous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As I write this, bidding is up to $99,999,999 (US). Call it $100 million. Have a look at some pricing information for various military aircraft. You'll note that the Hornet was going for $44.27 million (US) in 1996. Let's assume 4% inflation in prices every year for the past 8 years. That makes it $60.6 million US in today's prices.

    In other words, for what bidders are offering right now for this aircraft, you could get a brand spanking new Hornet from Boeing, and have nearly $40 million in change. That's a lot of jet fuel, and a lot of flying time (not taking into account maintenance costs).

    As for me, if I had that sort of money, and wanted to buy an aircraft, I'd probably be looking at one of Boeing's commercial jets. $100 million would just about buy me a 767. I'd prefer a 747 -- it has greater range -- but a 767-200ER could just about get me from Sydney to Los Angeles. Hellaciously expensive to run, of course, but if you're able to afford one of these babies, you should be able to afford the fuel and maintenance...

  172. Really? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    He's got one of these? Sweet!

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  173. Independent Counsel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, when can we expect the appointment of independent counsel? Clinton lied about fellatio and the Republicans jumped on his throat. This guy lied about wars and his military service and his White House outted a CIA operative and the Republicans do nothing.

  174. National Guard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard GW Bush is keen to purchase this Jet for the Texas Air National Guard, so he can retroactively participate in the Vietnam War...

    Or was it North Korea, i can't tell they're so damn close on the map anyway ;)

  175. Re:$99,999,999.00 and counting... by iainmcphersn · · Score: 1

    Good luck to the track memorabilia enthusiast with the *current* high bid...

  176. Regime Change -- vote '04 by Rock+Ridge · · Score: 1

    Yahoo! Go for it.

  177. now thats what i call... by kerb · · Score: 1

    lawn enforcement!

  178. It seems just a bit like an Ebay stunt... by GrpA · · Score: 1

    I often wonder if Ebay puts fake stuff like this up just for attention. After all, it's going to get into every paper in the world, and in prime editorial space... I'm wondering if you dig deep enough into past ebay sales, just how many of these were real... After all, I've never seen an "I bought a nuclear missile from E-bay" story...

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
  179. One with the Hornet, the other one with the MiG... by amix · · Score: 1

    So... The one guy buys the Hornet.

    The other guy buys the MiG.

    Nice ! But what do you do with some of the coolest Fighters on the planet ? Yessss ?!

    Right. You fight. At least you'd like to. So they sit there, no match. Until they get the idea: Why not call up that guy who got the MiG/Hornet ?

    And so they do...

    People with so much money won't have any problems equipping them. I mean, let's start to dream. One guy is the guy from that major company you don't like, the other one is that guy you hated in school, who was always so successfull, whatever he started, he would be a winner and all those stupid (and some not so stupid) chicks were saying: "Heeeeellllloooooooouuuuu" wheny they met him.

    Oh fuck, that would be heaven ! Just let's hope they meat over the pacific for a game...

    --
    Hello?? Fred?! Is this you?
  180. Better Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a Hornet pilot, but I can think of a lot of better things to do with 25 million. I have no respect for someone who blows his wad on an expensive toy. My advice to the buyer; take your wife out and get her some flowers, make her happy and get layed. Then use some of the money to make the world a better place. Flying the Hornet's a great experience, but it's just not worth 25 million, not to mention the costs to keep the thing running.

  181. Re:Answer: Buy an aircraft carrier by mpe · · Score: 1

    Also, if you were gonna try and export the plane, what could anyone do? Just fill the gas tank up, punch the throttle and fly to eastern Siberia or somewhere.

    Unless you remember to cost in something like a K-10 you'll wind up getting very wet.

  182. This article in the Slashdot RSS feed by benja · · Score: 1

    This article, as it appears truncated in the /. syndication feed:

    Navy Jet eBayed - Some Assembly Required?
    Mon, 16 Feb 19:14:00

    madmancarman writes "The world's only F/A-18 Hornet in private ownership, formerly a Navy Blue Angel Jet, is for sale on eBay. The initial asking price? $1 ...

    Creator: simoniker

    STRIKE!

  183. Whoever won the aircraft would be SOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government would grab the aircraft once it hit US soil. The owner would be tied up in court, if it ever made it that far.

  184. Oops- Ebay pulled the sale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try checking eBay now for this item- its not there as of 2/17 15:00GMT. It was there 12 hours ago, and the auction was not to end until Thursday.

    Did someone named Osama make a bid and the FBI got an injunction to stop the auction on basis of national security?

    What the hell is a (potential) modern weapons platform doing on eBay anyway?

  185. That's not *quite* true. by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    The F-117 can, like most other attack aircraft, mount Sidewinders and, if I'm not mistaken (and quite unlike most other attack aircraft), AMRAAMs. I wouldn't want to get into a dogfight in one since the engines go into compressor stalls every time you try to pull tight turns, but still, the capability is there. Of course, if they never saw you coming, I guess it wouldn't matter :)

    --

    +++ATH0
  186. Removed from ebay! by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    Looks like ebay killed the auction.

  187. SOLD by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    Dear God that's cool. What do they mean by "all electronics?" Hopefully not the guidance hardware? It would be the height of awesomeness to be able to launch my own one-time space shot :D

    --

    +++ATH0
  188. Re: knots by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    He's right. There was a standard-length rope that they used to determine that value originally.

    --

    +++ATH0
  189. New Link by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&cate gory=4672&item=3079057375

    The price is now $29M + $9M to assemble it.

    What a bargain!

  190. The difference between a knots and mph by DieByWire · · Score: 1

    The simple way to remember it is that a knot is about a mile per hour, but more expensive.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  191. If bombs are outlawed... by fm6 · · Score: 1

    ...only outlaws will have bombs!

  192. Migs are better by butane_bob2003 · · Score: 1

    Well, ok so they are not better, but the are cheaper. Plus, you are almost guaranteed to get shot down accidentally in a Mig in most places in the world. This one's only $3.5 million. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =3079433732&category=4672

    --


    TallGreen CMS hosting