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

WTB: Aircraft Carrier

[Rockoon]

So now that I won my own combat jets, anybody got a slightly used aircraft carrier up for sale?

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

[Nidi62]

does it still have weapon hardpoints on the wings? TFA doesn't really address that, it just says "They don't have any weapons."

These are Su-27UBs, also known as the Flanker-C. They were not fitted with weapons and were used as trainers, and were also used in the Soviet version of the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds.

Re:Pain at the pump

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom sure knows the difference between a mere hardpoint & an actual weapon.

Flight HRS v. Maint HRS

[WED Fan]

As a former USAF avionics specialist, these things are a maintenance bear (npi). the maintenance ratio is measured in 10s of hours per flight hours. However, removing combat related systems will lighten the load and reduce certain maintenance cost.

Re:Nothing new

[Nidi62]

Bull, but nice try at humor. If they were to put surplus F4s on the market, there would also be a glut of spare parts. The F4 is one of the most plentiful in the boneyard.

He said F-14, not F-4. The Tomcat, not the Phantom. The only F-14s still in operation are located in Iran, and they were the sole purchasers of F-14 spare parts after the aircraft was retired in the US. This is why the production and sale of F-14 parts was halted back in 2007.

Re:Nothing new

[westlake]

I remember a story from almost 10 years back that you could buy a Mig-21 for $14k

Here are some fighter jet stories from 2006: Buying A Fighter Jet? and another from Wired: Building Your Own Air Force, One Mig at a Time [2005]

 

Re:It IS safe!

[iamhassi]

"I'd go for this instead of a business jet. Far more fun and you don't have to worry if the engines fail - you can always use the ejection seat."

Sure, but of course it's your 5 million dollar jet you're ejecting from and not tax-payers, not to mention the bill the US gov't might hit you with for having to clean up the jet scattered over 10 acres.

Of course this is a good deal for drug traffickers. With a 4,000 kg normal payload capacity and cocaine selling for $23,000 per kg you'd make almost 100 million in one trip, and who's going to try stopping a jet traveling Mach 2?

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.

Re:One can dream...

[AdmV0rl0n]

yep, the F-16 and later have used fly by wire (basically the same as your desktop flight sim joystick) for controls, rather then the hydraulics used in something like the F-4.

btw, the claim about anything after WW2 being unstable by design is not really true. Even the F-16 was supposedly designed for being stable rather then unstable. Its the most recent generation (rafael, eurofighter, gripen, F-22, possibly mig-29 and su-27) that have that feature. And those make use of fly by wire for stability if ever the pilot lets go of the stick (early accidents related to gripen was related to control computers and pilot getting into something of a race condition when trying to recover from stall like conditions, iirc).

From what i have read, the F-16, for example, is so stable that if the nose is pointing towards the horizon, and the pilot where to eject, the plane would continue on until it ran out of fuel.

You fundamentally misunderstand this.

The plane is made unstable by design. This is basically to inbuild a level of 'agility', I guess you can compare this to a car that gets a very short wheelbase or similar things that can be done to alter physics. The aircraft is then made stable by the flight control systems. Computers that continually make adjustments to keep the aircraft stable - something that can't be done by hand. The fact that a pilot ejects out is meaningless. So long as the flight conputer is working/active, the aircraft would fly on until it runs out of fuel, or until it veers out of control naturally

The fly by wire is an added area that is simply made to improve the pilot to system interface. You have no choice on this, as the computer has to have priority over control.

How many pepsi points is this gonna cost me?

[greensasquatch]

I saw that commercial too... ...oh it's Russian? What's the Russian equivalent of Pepsi?

Re:Nothing new

[MBGMorden]

Not only that, but the US has even been pissy about salvage efforts. Technically, "Property of US Government" is a label that is legally binding unless they sell it to you. People interested in old warbirds for example will go out and drag up wrecked World War II fighters to restore. Some out of jungles, some out of the ocean - wherever they can find them, but they're pretty much all just junk heaps that will need a fortune sank into them to make them flyable again. IIRC, while the Navy and Marine Corps is somewhat lenient on the issue (there was no Air Force around back them), the Army has still been known to confiscate the 70 year old junk heaps claiming that they're still US Army Property.

If they're being that picky with piston engine prop-powered planes, they're definately not going to let you privately own a US military fighter jet.

In reality though, when you compare fuel burn and such, aside from pure coolness factor, it's not remotely economical for a private citizen to own a fighter jet for personal recreational flying. Besides, once you actually get into flying, most pilots find it more satisfying to fly much slower (since I, and most other private pilots I know, fly more for fun and scenery than to actually travel anywhere). A Kitfox for example is pretty close to my dream plane. High wing, small, good fuel economy, stalls at about 35MPH, and top speed is between 95-120 MPH depending on what engine it's using :).

Re:Nothing new

[WED Fan]

This was one of my reasons for leaving the USAF and going to Lam Research. Under G.H.W. Bush, we had a single "cann bird". Under Clinton, funds were drying up, parts were coming slow, and we went to 2 cann birds. Then 3 cann birds. Then, I was being told to sign off red x's that I didn't want to sign off.

Re:Nothing new

[multipartmixed]

> now it seems that USA considers withholding some important systems,
> meaning the version sold will be inferior to the equivalent operated
> by US forces. And this is to nato allies.

That's okay. If said allies want those systems, they can fab them themselves, although they may have to purchase the specifications and other engineering documents from the Chinese.

Re:Certification

[greyhueofdoubt]

There's nothing stopping you from owning and flying surplus military aircraft- even fighters. There are tons of them out there, especially cold war trainers from both sides (think t-38). There are even a few people out there flying their own p-51's, although each time one crashes the number goes down permanently. There are private businesses that will even fly you around in one.

Here's one:
http://millionairesconcierge.com/fighterjets.htm

Here's an extensive list of businesses:
http://www.thirtythousandfeet.com/rentride.htm

---

Yes, you are correct that you would be limited to mach .9 just like our own military. The air force stopped flying supersonic over the mainland shortly after this fiasco:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_sonic_boom_tests

The primary reason these surplus jets would be unrealistic to own is the maintenance involved. You could do it yourself, if you knew every aircraft-specific system well enough to sign off on your own repairs. You'd spend a few weeks doing maintenance for every flight hour. Finding parts would be a nightmare. The engine alone would keep you on the ground for seemingly minor issues. Or you could hire a crew to do your maintenance, and put your life in their hands. The going rate for a freelance certified NDI tech with his own equipment is about $200-400/hr. Maintenance costs many, many times the original price of any fighter aircraft.

I work in air combat combat command aircraft maintenance, fwiw.

-b