7 ms·
Last Airworthy MiG-17 Is Up for Sale
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoWhat is the purpose of those spike things on the leading edge of the wings?
- frayesto 6y agoI'm not an expert and have forgotten most of my aerodynamics classes but I believe it's related to shockwave formation on the wing tips or possibly pitot tubes to measure airspeed as a function of pressure changes
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- vonmoltke 6y agoThey are Pitot tubes[1], part of the system that calculates the aircraft's altitude and speed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-static_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-static_system
- ben7799 6y agoThe large ones on the ends of the wings seem way too long to be pitot tubes.
- greedo 6y agoThose are the two pitot tubes. The other tubes on the fuselage forward of the canopy are cannons. Aft of the canopy are radio aerials. This [1] only mentions the right-hand pitot tube, but since they appear to be identical, I assume it was just an oversight on the document's author. [1]https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A001300090001-7.pdf https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246...
- ben7799 6y agoIt does seem they are.. the obvious reason for having one on both wings would be redundancy, pitot tubes are not that reliable.. You need to check & inspect & cover/uncover them in preflight/postflight cause bugs & dirt and such can easily clog them. AFAICT they're so huge to get them out of the pressure effects on the wing from supersonic/transonic flight. The Mig-21 giant spike over the nose is the same thing apparently. Pretty interesting. It seems like a lot of US jets just have/had a different solution to this problem.
- ben7799 6y agoActually reading your document the long spikes at the end of the wingtips are not mentioned as the Pitot tubes.. that document says the pitot tube is mounted on the right wing 1/4 of the distance in from the tip.
- greedo 6y agoYeah, I think that has to be a mistake, either in translation or just an error. They're obviously both pitot tubes, and there's nothing mount 1/4 of the distance from the wingtip.
- stanski 6y agoThe walkaround video answers that question and points out other cool features of the airframe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2-LprWf3NI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2-LprWf3NI Those are pitot tubes as others have mentioned and there are two of them for the sake of aerodynamic balance.
- pm90 6y agoThis may be a silly question, but: how would an average American be able to afford the parts required to restore a fighter jet? It can’t be cheap? Am I correct to assume the person who did this is probably a person “of means”?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mcpherrinm 6y agoThat model jet started production in 1952, so probably doesn't have much electronics or fancy materials. Modern machinist tools are widely available and not totally unaffordable. I'd guess the current owner probably made a lot of their own replacement parts.
- Gravityloss 6y agoAt an airshow, a mechanic told that a plane like the Fouga Magister (old two seat trainer with two really small jet engines, looks very graceful in the air in my opinion) is something that can be maintained by a single person. Don't know if that meant a full time job and how many flight hours per year etc.
- netsharc 6y agoI watched a video last night where someone was using a CNC to cut sheet metal. I wonder if one could make MiG parts using a CNC or 3d printer. Imagine upgrading the avionics to modern computers too. After a while you'd have a MiG-17 of Theseus..
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoJust don't let the FAA catch wind of your undocumented supply chain... Most warbirds are not experimental so you can't just build whatever you need and slap it on. Sure you can convert to experimental but you still have the high maintenance costs (FAR 43.1(b)(1)) is the section of law you should google) Edit: someone looked up the tail number and this one got lucky but don't assume you can just slap your own machined parts on a P51 or something without jumping through hoops.
- siberianbear 6y agoThe question I really wanted answered was "how much is he asking for it?" I did a lot of searches on various search engines but couldn't find the answer. I guess it falls into that "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" category. I did find a classified ad for the plane. The owner's phone number is there. [1] https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&make=MIKOYAN&model=MIG+17&listing_id=2382482&s-type=aircraft https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&ma...
- coolspot 6y agoLast time I checked MiG 15 was $5M.
- ashtonkem 6y agoIt’s also going to cost a lot per hour to fly, given it’s age and the state of the labor & parts pool.
- duxup 6y agoYeah if you're not doing the work yourself, finding someone qualified, someone is going to have to rebuild parts, oh man that's got to be expensive.
- clamprecht 6y agoAre you sure you aren't thinking of a different Mig?? Mig 15s go for pretty cheap, like in the $100,000 range. I heard one was for sale in Brazil for $60,000. (good luck getting it home!) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-02-13-me-2216-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-02-13-me-2216-s... https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&make=MIKOYAN&s-type=aircraft https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&ma...
- coolspot 6y agoI won’t do research right now, but as I recall airworthy MiG 15 modified to be legal in the US costs much more than museum-grade technically operational unmodified MiG 15.
- justin66 6y agoLooking at the listing as shared by another poster, it's striking how little the thing weighs: The empty weight is 8640 lb (3919 kg) and the maximum takeoff weight is 13375 lb (6069 kg). It's maximum takeoff weight is still well below the empty weight (18,900 lbs) of an F-16.
- nickff 6y agoYou're comparing a light, subsonic interceptor with no search radar and primitive missile capabilities (only available on the last versions) to a relatively modern multi-role fighter.
- zokier 6y ago> relatively modern multi-role fighter F-16 first flight was 45 years ago. Or put other way, F-16 first flight was significantly closer to MiG-17 first flight than F-35 (which gets to represent modern aircraft) first flight (24 years vs 32 years) And F-16 was explicitly designed to pretty light-weight aircraft for its time, compared to e.g. its contemporary F-15: > Boyd's design called for a light-weight fighter with a high thrust-to-weight ratio, high maneuverability, and a gross weight of less than 20,000 lb (9,100 kg), half that of its counterpart, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle (it did end up bit fatter than that though..)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- greedo 6y agoThe F-16's engine alone, is 70% heavier than the VK1 on the MIG-17. (edited for engine typo)
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y agoModern 'fighter' planes are almost the same size as the bombers of old: B-17 length is 23 meters and SU-27 length is 22 meters. I was really shocked when I saw them next to each other on some photo.
- monadic2 6y agoWhy do people venerate war machines? I understand the interest, but putting money into it? Surely there are better places that money can go.
- sdinsn 6y agoYou can ask that about pretty much every luxury good and hobby. The simple answer is that people do what interests them, not what is "better" (according to whatever your biased perspective is) for the world.
- monadic2 6y agoThere’s no way you can pass off a fighter jet as a “hobby”. That’s intentional neglect of society at that point, and again to venerate a weapon.
- bdefore 6y agoIt gets gray real fast. The Internet as we know it grew out of military research to maintain communication channels during nuclear war.
- monadic2 6y agoI’m not sure what your point is—the internet always had wider applicability than war. Anyway, that neglects the point that both a MiG and military investment have piss-poor returns and you might as well burn the cash. Like how hard is it to invest in the people around you? What goes wrong in your life where you spend on a fucking MiG rather than feeding people? It’s sociopathic behavior.
- RandomBacon 6y agoWhy are you here instead of out volunteering. Why are you using a computer when it could be sold to feed people. I have a feeling you're starting to break the rules of this site. I'm not going to bother replying anymore.
- therockspush 6y agoA couple comments at the bottom of the article make it sound like there are a few more airworthy ones out there.
- breser 6y agoThere's quite a few MIG-17 with FAA registrations. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=&Modeltxt=MIG-17&PageNo=1 https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.asp... The original article says it's the last airworthy MIG-17PF, while this site just says MIG-17. I suspect the PF is critical to the last airworthy claim. There were a number of variants of the MIG-17.
- RickJWagner 6y agoHe should hang on to it until Top Gun 2 arrives. Could be money-making schemes will become available then.
- clamprecht 6y agoI don't think this is the last airworthy Mig-17. Bill Culberson flies N1713P and I believe I saw it fly as recently as 2019 in Alabama. Here is the FlightAware page, and you can see photos in the 2nd link: https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N1713P https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N1713P https://flightaware.com/photos/aircraft/N1713P https://flightaware.com/photos/aircraft/N1713P
- clamprecht 6y agoHere's an article about Bill's Mig 17, with photos: https://planeschemer.com/plane-schemer-blog/mig-17-n1713 https://planeschemer.com/plane-schemer-blog/mig-17-n1713