Own Your Own Fighter Jet

gimmebeer writes "The Russian Sukhoi SU-27 has a top speed of Mach 1.8 (more than 1,300 mph) and has a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1 to 1. That means it can accelerate while climbing straight up. It was designed to fight against the best the US had to offer, and now it can be yours for the price of a mediocre used business jet."

Comments

Nothing new

[GiveBenADollar]

I remember a story from almost 10 years back that you could buy a Mig-21 for $14k as is or around $100k restored and made legal. The cost wasn't in the aircraft itself, but the maintenance to keep it flying. Still waiting to get my own F-14.

Re:Nothing new

[afabbro]

Problem is they cannot be operated in US airspace by a private pilot; excepting only when testing repairs or routine maintenance.

I'm curious why. Certainly, older generations of America fighter aircraft are permitted - Michael Dorn flies his F-86 Sabre all the time.

Pain at the pump

[Dragoniz3r]

Paying to keep this bad boy in the air won't come cheap. I wonder how trigger-happy the US Airforce might get if they stumbled across an SU-27 over US soil though... does it still have weapon hardpoints on the wings? TFA doesn't really address that, it just says "They don't have any weapons."

Re:Pain at the pump

[TooMuchToDo]

If you can afford the plane, you can afford the fuel. You can also afford the connections to get the FAA to allow you to go supersonic over US soil (which, currently, you can't unless you have a military/experimental exception).

Re:WTB: Aircraft Carrier

[woody.jesus]

There's one in Charleston Harbor ... the USS Yorktown, 'Fighting Lady of WWII'. Still floats. In need of some repair.

Range?

[istartedi]

I was curious about Concorde replacements a while back and researched some of the Soviet fighters. Unfortunately they tend to have short ranges at top speed. If they could just increase the fuel capacity of a two-seater, they'd have a Concorde substitute. The ticket would probably be a lot more though, since you've got one plane and one passenger.

If you don't have the range for a trans-Atlantic hop, having supersonic capability isn't too useful in the US. You're not allowed to fly supersonic over land here because of the boom.

Maybe it'll sell in some other country where the uber-wealthy have a shorter distance to travel, and no noise restrictions.

One can dream...

[gillbates]

When I was younger, I remember touring the Air National guard and asking the tour leader if I could by a fighter jet. He responded that to own a fighter jet, I'd have to find one in the Arizona boneyard and it would cost about 5 million dollars. In the 80's, the F16 cost 5 million each (or so I was told...)

However, even had I the money today, I'm not so sure I would buy one.

My uncle was in the Air Force, and actually flew in an F4 phantom. He had three remarks:

1. He could not believe anything could travel so fast. Even though he rode a motorcycle, he was awestruck by the speed of the F4 phantom.
2. Fighter jets built after WWII are as maneuverable as they are because they are inherently unstable in flight. The reason why a fighter jet can pull such tight turns is because it's "steady state" flight characteristic is not flat, level flight, but turning flight. While this is valuable in combat, it means that flying combat aircraft requires a high degree of concentration and training. Unlike a Cessna, a moment of inattention in a combat jet can mean finding oneself in an unrecoverable maneuver.
3. Unlike what some simulators might predict, recovering from a dive can actually be much more difficult than entering one, because the fuel shifts forward, changing the aircraft's center of gravity. Of course engineers design the aircraft to minimize this, but it can never be completely eliminated and does have serious implications for flight. The asymetric flight characteristics of combat jets could come as a very unwelcome (and possibly fatal) surprise to a civilian pilot.

Today, I'm content to fly simulators because I can get a feel for the experience without the attendant risk and cost. Were I flying a 5 million dollar aircraft, I would be very reticent to try the kind of manuevers I do in the simulator, simply because of the risk involved. In the simulator, I can try spins and stalls and rolls that prudence would forbid in the real world.

But it would still be cool to own a fighter jet.

Certification

[rossdee]

Good luck on getting FAA certification, and permission to fly one of those in US airspace. And I'm pretty sure its not legal for a private jet to go over mach 1

Re:"Modernized" Western instrumentation - no thank

[cheesybagel]

I would rather have the Western internals. Soviet fighters from this time period were analog instrumentation packed up the wazoo. You need to be very experienced to fly one of the things. Today you have like a couple of multifunction liquid-crystal displays which do everything. A lot of the countries which have old Soviet planes have bought Russian or Israeli electronic upgrade packages. Kind of surprising they do not have some sort of INS/GPS navigation system however. The Russians have had their Glonass satnav system almost as long as GPS has been available.

Re:Not gonna happen

[MichaelSmith]

How does 30 minutes to cross the Atlantic sound?

Impossible. Shortest distance across Atlantic is ~2500km. If you want to cover it in ½ hour then your speed must be ~5000km/h. SR-71 has (had?) top speed of over 3500km/h... and you are suggesting of making plane that goes almost 50% faster?

Thats why I said a semi ballistic glider. It leaves the atmosphere on a trajectory which will cause it to re-enter on the other side of the Atlantic. The space shuttle would cross the Atlantic in less time because it is not landing, but if the emergency landing site in Spain is used that would be about half an hour after launch.