A good used jet aircraft for sale.

I have sent them a check, but for some unknown reason, they want it to clear the bank before they will release it to me.:dunno:
 
What do you suppose it takes to get a LOOA from FAA for this thing?


Trapper John
 
I have sent them a check, but for some unknown reason, they want it to clear the bank before they will release it to me.:dunno:

Just follow the instructions in the email from Barrister Ooba Dooba of Nigeria and you will have plenty of money for this... :rofl:
 
Sure would make my trips from DC to California more fun....
 
If I ever won the megamillions lottery...something like that would be right at the top of my list.
 
50,000 fpm initial climb. I like that part.
 
What do you suppose it takes to get a LOOA from FAA for this thing?


Trapper John
No more LOA or LOOA, they are experimental type ratings now. It take a checkride and the 3 hrs of instruction in the last 60 days at a minimum. Well also proficiency.

Joe
 
I say we get everyone here to go in on it and we all go see what mach 1.8 is like.
 
I guess that's better than the words "cleared unrestricted spend" :p

It would be worth it to experience a VS of 50,000FPM at least once.

Maybe go wander into a MOA or two and play with the F-16's afterward?
 
It would be worth it to experience a VS of 50,000FPM at least once.

Maybe go wander into a MOA or two and play with the F-16's afterward?
Problem is that the F-16 would win easily. I want one of these

Eurofighter1_30536a.jpg


Demonstrated 1:3 kill ratio against F-16s. And way cheaper than a F-22.
 
Wow, "maybe we could squeeze one more missile in riiiight there..."

Let's get one of these too then while we're dreaming
 
Got a laugh out of reading the Wiki article for the SU-27. Who says that publicly-editable reference works don't carry their author's biases?!

Operational history

Russia

The Su-27 has seen limited action since it first entered service. These crappy planes were used by the Russian air force during the 1992-1993 war in Abkhazia against Georgian forces. One fighter was shot down by S-75 SAM on March 19, 1993.
 
Last edited:
It's my suspicion that the nearly $5M purchase price is the cheap part of this deal. I would guess that one flight to Mach 1.8 and back will cost you roughly the price of a late model HP single. It kinda put a damper on it when your weekend hamburger run is a thousand times more expensive. And besides, once you're up at altitude, supersonic flight is going to feel like no sensation of speed anyway unless you're doing something with it (like getting to your beach house in 18 minutes vs. the 2 hours it used to take in your Grumman Polecat). Besides, I bet it can't snap roll for doo doo.

I'll pass...
 
Russians build some pretty damn good aircraft. I'd fly Commie iron anytime.
 
It's my suspicion that the nearly $5M purchase price is the cheap part of this deal. I would guess that one flight to Mach 1.8 and back will cost you roughly the price of a late model HP single. It kinda put a damper on it when your weekend hamburger run is a thousand times more expensive. And besides, once you're up at altitude, supersonic flight is going to feel like no sensation of speed anyway unless you're doing something with it (like getting to your beach house in 18 minutes vs. the 2 hours it used to take in your Grumman Polecat). Besides, I bet it can't snap roll for doo doo.

I'll pass...

I think the person who could afford five million dollars for a toy, will not be all that concerned about the owning and operating expenses. Some folks are meant to pick the apples, some folks are meant to eat the apples.

John
 
What is it about the Russkies and the putrid colors they use in their cockpits?
 
I think the person who could afford five million dollars for a toy, will not be all that concerned about the owning and operating expenses.

Actually, I think that's a pretty common misconception about "rich" folks. More than likely this aircraft will get bought by someone that wants to brag at the country club that they own a supersonic aircraft and it'll get flown way less than, oh, say your average P-51 owner flies his toy. I looked in to an L-39 club a while back and it was the nearly $3,000/hour that put off all the prospective club members. This thing's got to be way more expensive to operate than an L-39.

Maybe it'll find it's way into the Red Bull guy's collection and end up sitting in his museum in Germany.
 

Yeah, cool huh.... Wonder if it carries enough fuel to do 2500nm at 1000kts. California to Hawaii in 2.5 hrs, call it three hrs fuel. You would think that if it has been fully demilitarized, there's a lot of ability to carry weight. Wonder if it has hard points for aux tanks? I could get my boss to LA in the same time as an Airliner, but we'd get to stop and surf along the way.... The trick is the 2500nm range requirement. It's right around 2150 from Santa Barbara to Honolulu and that's the longest single leg you have to make going across the central Pacific more or less Great Circle route. A Sled would be the ultimate, but last I heard Sled time was around a million dollars an hour, but if it came with inflight refueling service contract with the USAF.... Hmmmm.... Can the USAF become a "for profit" service branch? Can you put an SR-71 on a 135 certificate? It would be one passenger on a "For Hire" basis. I can think of two potential clients LOL. They hate long flights even in the Global Express, it's all about time, time is the only thing they can't replace. "Yes sir, I can have you on the other side of the world in a few hours." They might just pay a million an hour....
 
Actually, I think that's a pretty common misconception about "rich" folks. More than likely this aircraft will get bought by someone that wants to brag at the country club that they own a supersonic aircraft and it'll get flown way less than, oh, say your average P-51 owner flies his toy. I looked in to an L-39 club a while back and it was the nearly $3,000/hour that put off all the prospective club members. This thing's got to be way more expensive to operate than an L-39.

Maybe it'll find it's way into the Red Bull guy's collection and end up sitting in his museum in Germany.

Figure this will cost $20k hr to operate unless you are an operator, then you can probably get around $17k hr, less if you limit your high speed flight. Doubt you'd ever get below $15,000 hr unless you do everything yourself and you dedicate the time to it. I wonder if you went through the service training from the manufacturer if the FAA would issue a repairmans certificate for the aircraft? That would be important, either that or I take my A&P tests....
 
Problem is that the F-16 would win easily. I want one of these

Eurofighter1_30536a.jpg


Demonstrated 1:3 kill ratio against F-16s. And way cheaper than a F-22.

But it cannot do what the F-22 can do, and that's deliver attack strike munitions on a low reflectivity insertion at supersonic speeds. How many of them did we end up with? Over 200? That'll do. The F-16 has its roll, and probably will even after the F-35 comes into the fleet. Hell, the freakin B-52 is still flying!!! Who the f- would have thunk that? She never dropped the ordinance she was designed for, but she sure put out tons of other ordinance over the years. That was a taxpayer investment that's payed out, exactly what I'm not sure, but I guess it's a dividend of the early Cold War.
 
I wonder how special an SU-27 turbine starter unit is? If unique, I doubt there are many sitting at the various FBOs around the country. That means you can't go anywhere other than homebase. Another bit of drawback.

(Is this sour grapes or what! Any of us would grab a chance at this if we could afford it.)
 
But it cannot do what the F-22 can do, and that's deliver attack strike munitions on a low reflectivity insertion at supersonic speeds. How many of them did we end up with? Over 200? That'll do.
Maybe - I'm just saying that I'd rather get one of those than a F-16.

Doubt very much that the more than twice as expensive F-22 was worth it given the program cost overall and the 200 now-orphaned planes we ended up with, but hey! That's neither here nor there...
 
IIRC, ownership doesn't necessarily equate to unfettered usage. Specific LOA's are required to fly them, and normally limit their use to airshows and other specifically-approved events. IOW, you can't just jump in and fly to the lake when the urge arises.
 
Maybe - I'm just saying that I'd rather get one of those than a F-16.

Doubt very much that the more than twice as expensive F-22 was worth it given the program cost overall and the 200 now-orphaned planes we ended up with, but hey! That's neither here nor there...

22's only cost that much because we decided to only buy 187 of them. There is no aircraft on the planet that does what the Raptor does. We didn't buy enough and we will be feeling it in a few years.
 
22's only cost that much because we decided to only buy 187 of them. There is no aircraft on the planet that does what the Raptor does. We didn't buy enough and we will be feeling it in a few years.
Agreed, but there are a few that do 90% of what the 22 does. At half the cost. That's a much better deal IMO....
 
IIRC, ownership doesn't necessarily equate to unfettered usage. Specific LOA's are required to fly them, and normally limit their use to airshows and other specifically-approved events. IOW, you can't just jump in and fly to the lake when the urge arises.

Pay Five + million dollars just so you can have an airplane in a static display at an airshow?????? "Look what I got!"

Wow, talk about a few insecurities. I thought if you bought it, you could fly it anytime you wanted. That being the case, I like my Warrior just fine. ( Not that it makes much difference either way, I can barely afford my Warrior.) :frown2:

John
 
Agreed, but there are a few that do 90% of what the 22 does. At half the cost. That's a much better deal IMO....

A few what? Flanker series? No chance. They can't fly in double digit sams, no stealth capability, etc.

Flankers are a 4.5 Gen airplane - like a block 60 pork falcon or a F-15SG. Raptors weren't designed for traditional missions.

In a double digit SAM with advanced EA environment, the Flanker can do 0% of what the 22 can.
 
IIRC, ownership doesn't necessarily equate to unfettered usage. Specific LOA's are required to fly them, and normally limit their use to airshows and other specifically-approved events. IOW, you can't just jump in and fly to the lake when the urge arises.

Met a guy once who specialized in importing and refurbishing Yaks. I made that argument to him, i.e. you can't go anywhere unless you get permission yada yada... He said that it was mostly a formality, pointed to a stack of forms next to his Fax machine, and said that he faxed something to the FAA. He claimed it didn't have to be an airshow, he could be going to demonstrate the aircraft's capabilities to his auntie.

Don't know the veracity of it all, but that's what he said.
 
An SU-27 in civilian hands would be operated per the FAA Order 8130.2F, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, Section 10, "Certification and Operation of Aircraft under the Experimental Purpose(s) of Exhibition and Air Racing". Change 4 of the Order was issued 9/30/30/2009.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...625765900790f72/$FILE/Order 8130.2F chg 4.pdf

The FAA has designate four "Groups" (I, II, III, IV) of experimental aircraft based on their performance, operation, or other distinquishing characteristics. An SU-27 is considered a "Group II" turbine powered aircraft (TPA).

Here some examples (not all inclusive) of the information and "limitations" contained therein applicable to TPA:

155. GENERAL. Under the provisions of § 21.191(d), exhibition aircraft are defined as aircraft that exhibit the aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at airshows, for motion picture, television, and similar productions, and for the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such airshows and productions. Under the provisions of § 21.191(e), air racing aircraft are defined as aircraft that participate in air races, including (for such participants) practicing for such air races and flying to and from racing events.

a. Exhibition. Operating an aircraft to demonstrate its flight characteristics or capabilities in connection with sales promotions for the aircraft is not considered to be an eligible operational purpose under the exhibition category. A certificate for experimental exhibition must only be issued when an aircraft is to be used for valid exhibition purposes. Included in those purposes are organized airshows, organized air races, organized fly-in activities, organized exhibitions, youth education events, shopping mall/school/similar static displays, organized aerobatic competition, sail plane fly-ins or competitive races or meets, and movie or television productions. The duration of an airworthiness certificate for exhibition is unlimited.

Group II, Turbine-Powered Aircraft

Proficiency Area. All proficiency flights will be conducted in airspace within an operational radius of 600 nautical miles from the airport where the aircraft is based. Proficiency flights will be limited to a nonstop flight that begins and ends at the home base airport, with sufficient fuel reserve to meet the applicable operating rules of part 91. Operators who choose to fly to another airport within the assigned proficiency area must notify their geographically responsible FSDO prior to each proficiency flight away from their home base airport (see note at the end of paragraph 136 of this order):

NOTE: Operation of all group I, II, III, and IV aircraft is restricted to airports that are within airspace classes C, D, E, or G, except in the case of a declared emergency or authorized operations under an airshow waiver. Before issuing operating limitations for the aircraft, the FAA will coordinate approach and departure corridors with the FSDO operations unit and the air traffic control facility that has the geographic responsibility for the airport at which the aircraft will be based or operations conducted. In addition, the applicant will provide a
highlighted aeronautical map or chart depicting the proposed operational area, including a list of the proposed alternate airports. The radius may not exceed the limits authorized for the applicable aircraft group. The map/chart is part of the aircraft operating limitations and must be carried aboard the aircraft when operating.

(1) Obtain from the applicant a program letter in accordance with § 21.193(a), setting forth the purpose(s) for which the aircraft will be used. The program letter must be specific as to the intended use under the purpose requested, including names, dates, and locations of airshows, air races, or exhibition activities that will be attended. In the case of a movie or television production, the date(s) and location(s) of these productions must be provided. The applicant’s program letter should state a reasonable schedule of events to be attended, but should not list events that would obviously be impossible to attend, for example, listing all airshows scheduled in the United States for the upcoming year. Applicants should be advised that the program letter is subject to review by the FAA and that the owner/operator must notify the local FSDO by letter or fax of any amendments to the proposed schedule prior to that flight.

(10) No person may be carried in this aircraft during the exhibition of the aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at airshows, or for motion picture, television, or similar productions, unless essential for the purpose of the flight. Passengers may be carried during flights to and from any event outlined in the program letter or during proficiency flying, limited to the design seating capacity of the aircraft.
(Applicability: All)

(24) The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold an appropriate category/class rating. If required for the type of aircraft to be flown, the pilot in command also must hold either an appropriate type rating or a letter of authorization issued by an FAA Flight Standards Operations Inspector.
(Applicability: Group II; group III 800 horsepower and above, or more than 12,500 pounds; group IV turbojet, or more than 12,500 pounds)

(32) All proficiency flights will be conducted in airspace with an operational radius of 600 nautical miles from the airport where the aircraft is based. This radius can be reduced if requested by the operator. Proficiency flights are limited to a nonstop flight that begins and ends at the airport where the aircraft is based. One alternate airport may be selected for each flight, within the operational radius of the airport where the aircraft is based. Operations outside this radius for organized formation flying, proficiency flying, or pilot checkout in conjunction with specific events must be listed in the applicant’s program letter or the operator must notify the cognizant FSDO 48 hours before the date of the actual event.
(Applicability: Group II)

156. FORMER MILITARY AIRCRAFT.

a. Many of the aircraft that are presented for airworthiness certification for the purpose(s) of exhibition or air racing are former military aircraft, both U.S. and non-U.S. The FAA acknowledges the significant role military aircraft have played in our aviation heritage and the importance of preserving their legacy for future generations. The exhibition of former military aircraft at aviation events for demonstration and display provides the public a rare view into our aviation past. Therefore, it is the policy of the FAA to permit the operation of surplus military aircraft for civilian use, consistent with the need to safeguard the general public.

NOTE: It should not be interpreted that all military aircraft require experimental airworthiness certificates. Some models have valid TCs and could be eligible for a standard airworthiness certificate.

b. Surplus military aircraft have historically operated in the United States for R&D, air racing, and exhibition purposes in the experimental category. It is the policy of the FAA that eligible aircraft will be certificated in the experimental category when operated for the special purposes of exhibition and/or air racing.

c. To ensure the safe operation of these aircraft and minimize adverse environmental impact, the FAA has established appropriate and reasonable operating limitations. Operating limitations developed jointly by the Aircraft Certification Service and Flight Standards Service are contained in paragraphs 161 and 166 of this order.

d. The ability of civilian operators to maintain and operate these aircraft depends on their background and experience, training and facilities, availability of technical manuals and design information, and the complexity of the aircraft involved. To this end, and to the maximum extent feasible, it is the policy of the FAA to recognize the most complete sources of maintenance and training and to encourage owners, operators, and flightcrew members to use these sources and successfully complete required training from recognized training organizations. Aircraft inspection guidelines and qualification standards for flightcrew members have been developed by the Flight Standards Service and are contained in FAA Order 8300.10, Airworthiness Inspector’s Handbook and Order 8700.1.

e. Applicants for certification of former military TPA must be advised that these aircraft were designed and manufactured without the acoustical treatment provided for current commercial and business TPA. They also must be advised of industry-developed procedures and guidelines designed to minimize the impact such aircraft impose at airports and the surrounding communities. Aircraft operators must accept the responsibility for operating their aircraft in such a manner as to reduce the noise impact to the lowest practicable level. EAA has developed operating procedures and a recommended program for reducing the noise impact of TPA. The EAA’s recommended procedures are contained in its Jet Operations Manual. The FAA must advise persons considering operating such aircraft to become familiar with and use the procedures outlined in the EAA’s Jet Operations Manual or other procedures acceptable to the Administrator.

There are other requirements in the Order that affect operators of aircraft as "experimental/exhibition" but I don't consider them to be that onerous personally.

I operate a Group III, Piston Powered Warbird of less than 800 horsepower. Through the efforts of EAA's Warbirds of America division and their negotiations with the FAA I have been able to obtain an exemption from the Proficiency Area radius limitation, which was originally 300nm. Now there is no distance limitation for proficiency flights in my aircraft. I was issued a revised Operating Limitations by the local FSDO which had the applicable paragraph deleted and a new Special Airworthiness Certificate to display in the aircraft. This effectively allows me to fly anywhere in the US without prior notification to the local FSDO. Before I had to notify the local FSDO if I was going to go beyond the 300nm radius, but it was simply that, a notification, not a request for permission, nor was the FSDO required to give their permission or even acknowledge receipt of the notification.

I still have the requirement to issue a "Program Letter" each year listing the aviation related events I intend to participate in, whether I actually participate or not. As with the notification to exceed the Proficiency Area limitations, the local FSDO is not required to give permission to attend the listed events or acknowldege of receipt of the Letter. This Letter can be updated at any time with a fax or email of event additions and deletions, even 5 minutes before departure, if necessary. This runs somewhat at odds to the Proficiency Area exemption I have, but what was explained to me was the rulemaking process which created the exemption was focused on relaxing the Proficiency Area requirements and did not address the Program Letter requirements. So I'll have to wait for that to be clarified in the future.

The only practical "restrictions" I face operating my plane as "experimental/exhibition" is I can't haul people or property for hire and most charitable flight organizations don't allow them for ambulatory patient flights. I'm also prohibited from landing at airports located within Class B airspace unless under an FAA issued waiver. I can, however, since my airplane is suitably equipped, fly IFR with the appropriate ATC clearance anywhere including through Class B airspace , another odd contradiction, imho.

If I had the $$$ to afford an SU-27 I'd jump at the opportunity.
 
Back
Top