hey /o/. would you buy a mig-21 for 70k if you had the money?
what other fighter jet could you buy for that amount? or would you save up for something more ballin?
>>29416640
I'd rather buy a hellcat tank and make it road legal.
And spend the rest of the money on making it insured and filled up
>>29416640
I had the chance to get one for $10,000 about 12 years ago. It needed a shitload of work though
>>29416661
i can't picture myself picking a tank over a jet even if the upkeep and legality is an order of magnitude simpler. i'd just use bondo on holes and fill that baby up with premo.
>>29416640
Fuck yeah my fav Slav plane next to the il 28
I whloud also buy a f-5 freedom fighter
>>29416691
if you knew people who could wrench and order parts that would have flipped a hefty profit. that 70k one was in running condition.
>>29416708
That and a ww1 French nieuport 11
>>29416640
Absoloutley.
From my testing In some aerospace Sims if you could move the wings on the mig 21 up it'd be maneuverable as fuck, perhaps at the cost of ease of flight though as youd need computer assistacne to fly it.
I'd also try and get that tumansky engine with the super after burner that could give this thing a twr of 1.2 fully loaded. Shit I bet I could get a twr of 1.8-2 if I took of everything that wasn't strictly necessary.
This is all in a universe where I got half s million to spend on a plane though
>>29416640
Let me tell you something, whenever you want to buy a used jet or heli you have to multiply the price by at lest 3. In Most of the cases engines are in such a shitty shape that they've got couple dozens of hours left before they'll turn into burnt scrap. And if engine is in good condition (which never is, since planes being sold are surplus that's been beat to shit) rest of the plane requires repairs, be it avionics,
sheathing or something else. Those machines sure look cool and being able to say "I own fighter jet or attack heli" sounds cool as fuck but those machines are bottomless piggy bank. You can keep pumping money into it but there always will be something that needs to be repaired or changed. And prices on the parts are high as fuck too, since everything needs to be custom made because nobody makes new parts to old soviet planes. Don't buy that shit OP unless you're millionaire.
>>29416640
>would you buy a mig-21 for 70k if you had the money?
No, because you'll blow through several times that in just general operating costs, if you manage to fly it at all. You're far better off buying an L-39 for $200k and flying that. Much cheaper to operate and holds its value pretty well.
>>29416738
I don't think you understand how expensive aircraft restoration or even basic maintenance and operating costs actually are.
>>29416640
Look up how cheap Czech Delfin trainers are
>>29416981
http://www.globalplanesearch.com/listing/aircraft-for-sale/Splash/Aero-Vodochody-L-29-Delfin/194345
>>>43,000
oh baby
I want a Wiesel. Small enough to reliable store, maintain, and ride around in.
>>29416708
http://www.aviationclassifieds.com/1967-Northrop-F-5A-for-sale/204530
I hope you got half a milon dollars anon, if yes i have a good news for you.
>>29417038
There's all ways the powerball
>>29416640
>/o/
>>29417038
And also it has a bad paint job on it
I knew a guy who owned a Mig-21, former Navy pilot who did contracting work for the Navy. He had a gig where he was going to train pilots in dissimilar air combat.
He never got it running but it was a cool fucking aircraft.
Good luck getting money for fuel and maintance.
>mig 21 for 70k
>affordable
You've obviously never had to pay for a turbine engine overhaul or ejection seats.
If you find a mig for 70k it's because the engine time is almost at TBO and the seat rockets need inspection/replacement.
Also who the fuck wants limited pneumatic brakes?
>>29416640
There was a Saab Draken for sale in the US for 150k USD last month.
Are military props any less eye-wateringly expensive to maintain?
By which I mean specifically designed ones, not re-purposed C-172.
>>29417739
When you say military props, what exactly do you mean?
Are we talking turbo-props, or reciprocating engine aircraft?
Because there is a massive difference. Like, a million dollar per engine difference.
>>29418884
Both, with a focus on whatever's cheaper.
>>29416640
I would rather buy three or four Ferrets and some decommissioned HMGs for that price. But Mig-21 is still favorite Mig
>>29418897
Reciprocating engines would be the cheapest to operate.
But to answer your question, yes, It's definitely cheaper and easier to maintain turbo-props compared to turbo-fans.
Cost:
Turbo-Fan (low bypass/afterburner) > Turbo-fan (high bypass) > turbo-prop > turbo-shaft > Reciprocating.
>>29419177
Pulling in somewhat contextually irrelevant civilian airliner memories, aren't low-bypass civilian jets easier to maintain than high-bypass ones?
I'm sure I've read of it DC-9/737-200/MD-80 type jets a cost advantage on mx to use the JT8D, only for that to be obliterated once oil prices went up.
>>29419230
Honestly, I don't know.
I'm a radial engine guy, not a turbine engine guy.
I can't imagine newer engines being harder to maintain then the JT8D. But I can see how parts would be more expensive. Like the massive special honeycomb vacuum sealed fan blades for the Trent 800. But that's just new technology.
Civilian low bypass engines are quite rare in today's world. It seems like they have found efficiency to be better with high bypass engines. In MX and flight.
Even modern-day business jets like the Citation X use high bypass.
>>29416640
If I had 70k to spend on an airplane, I'd buy a Van's RV-8 kit and enjoy flying a plane that I built. Plus the major bonus of actually being able to afford to put gas in it and keep it maintained.
You have no idea how expensive it would be to own and fly a Mig-21, something like $4500 an hour or more to fly it.
>>29416640
I might do.
But I wouldn't want to fly it, fuck paying for maintenance and fuel. I'd probably donate it to a museum for a static display.
