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!"
You can acquire a private island for less than $9 million. A fair bit less.
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.
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 |
I'd want to own one of these...Heinkel HE-162
8 &oe=UTF-8&q=heinkel+he-162&sa=N&tab=wi
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
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?
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This seller has a great deal of pricey stuff on Ebay. Top three, pricewise, are:
? Vi ewItem&item=2460961703&category=26442
a te gory=4671&item=3077350284
a te gory=4672&item=3078834871
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll
Some sort of dirigible, $10M
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&c
2 million feet of Corning fiber optic cable, $4.4M
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&c
Warehouse, $1.1M
Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
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.
...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.
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.
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
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 "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.
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
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.
I knew the rohntowers.com sounded familiar... The guy (Micheal Landa) has an alleged checkered past: http://www.bishoptower.com/landa/
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.
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).