5 ms·

This 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

by pm90 6y ago

This 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 ago
That 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 ago
  At 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  Just 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.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    As if you're going to be able to get official replacement parts from the Soviet factories. I have to assume the person buying this is going to register it as some kind of experimental or historic aircraft where the regulations are looser. It's not like he's going to be carrying passengers at least.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - greedo 6y ago
      China produced a copy of the MIG-17 (J-5) until the late 1980s, and both it and the MIG-17 were widely exported. I wouldn't be surprised if parts were available.
      - jandrese 6y ago
        Was the power plant used in any long lived civilian applications? That could greatly help the parts situation. Still, for the airframe you're probably best off machining your own parts. You'll probably be able to make parts to tighter tolerances than the Soviet factories.
        greedo 6y ago
        According to Wikipedia, they're still used as snowblowers and ice melters. And this engine isn't unique to the Mig-17, it was used in the Mig-15, IL-28 and Tu-14 bombers, and is one of the mostly widely produced jet engines in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_VK-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_VK-1
  - wzm 6y ago
    Experimental exhibition has different rules from other categories, but the FAA also allows for owner produced parts on certified planes. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-62E_CHG_1.pdf https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...
- ben7799 6y ago
  Who knows what the regulations are for a Soviet warplane brought into the US but for most planes the owners are not able to just machine new parts unless the plane is under an experimental certification. A lot of home built planes are under experimental certification. Civilian factory built planes and US warbirds are not and so they can't just machine new parts freely or the airworthiness certificate is at risk. The regulations go on forever. If you make new parts you risk having to re-certify the plane which makes an expensive and difficult project get much harder.
  - coopsmgoops 6y ago
    You can choose to register any aircraft as "experimental" it'll hurt resale value but there's nothing stopping you from modifying your Cessna or your F-16 except some paperwork.
  - ksherlock 6y ago
    Per the FAA's N-number lookup, it's experimental. I'm guessing Soviet aircraft built to destroy the US didn't bother with FAA certification. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=620PF https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?N...
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      Probably not, but it would’ve been hilarious if they’d gotten one.
alfalfasprout 6y ago
Yes, it would be extremely expensive. The price of the plane for something like this ends up being only a fraction of the total cost of operating it. Between needing to source or machine parts to specification (many of which will be titanium) and the frequent inspections and maintenance needed it's a lot of time and money to keep a plane like this running. Flying a GA plane is already a fairly expensive hobby... flying warbirds can be on a whole 'nother level of expense.
cortesoft 6y ago
The average American couldn't afford any airplane.
- ectocardia 6y ago
  This is exactly the sort of thinking that let Pepsi bail on a jet fighter contract in the 90s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
  - toast0 6y ago
    Would have been more probable it were a Navy jet, since we know Pepsi once had a large navy. ;)
- unchocked 6y ago
  You'd be surprised. There are a lot really decent planes available around $30k. Have some fun on Trade-A-Plane.com, look at single engine piston planes.
  - c22 6y ago
    Around 30k represents half of the "average" American's yearly household income.[0] Once you factor in maintenance and storage it's safe to say most Americans couldn't afford even a "cheap" plane. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
jandrese 6y ago
For a 60+ year old Soviet airframe? When something breaks you're going to be manufacturing the replacement part yourself. If you buy this you had better have a machine shop handy. The good news is that the guy who restored it undoubtedly has extensive notes about this particular aircraft, so it won't be quite as difficult to keep running. Still, you'd better be an expert in antique turbine engines if you want to fly it.
unchocked 6y ago
There's a whole world of (generally old) warbird enthusiasts who hoard hangars full of these old birds and spares for them. There's an associated world of auctioneers and brokers who sell it to them, then buy up the supply from their estate sales when they die and sell it to the next guy.
bluedino 6y ago
Soviet jets of that era were designed to be repaired by simpler means than fighter jets from even 40 years ago.
- greedo 6y ago
  The big problem though is that Soviet jets weren't expected to last very long (in terms of flight hours). For example, jet engine life was much lower than comparable Western aircraft.

by pm90 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mcpherrinm 6y ago

That 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 ago
At 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 ago
I 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 ago
Just 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.
- jandrese 6y ago
  As if you're going to be able to get official replacement parts from the Soviet factories. I have to assume the person buying this is going to register it as some kind of experimental or historic aircraft where the regulations are looser. It's not like he's going to be carrying passengers at least.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - greedo 6y ago
    China produced a copy of the MIG-17 (J-5) until the late 1980s, and both it and the MIG-17 were widely exported. I wouldn't be surprised if parts were available.
    - jandrese 6y ago
      Was the power plant used in any long lived civilian applications? That could greatly help the parts situation. Still, for the airframe you're probably best off machining your own parts. You'll probably be able to make parts to tighter tolerances than the Soviet factories.
      - greedo 6y ago
        According to Wikipedia, they're still used as snowblowers and ice melters. And this engine isn't unique to the Mig-17, it was used in the Mig-15, IL-28 and Tu-14 bombers, and is one of the mostly widely produced jet engines in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_VK-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_VK-1
- wzm 6y ago
  Experimental exhibition has different rules from other categories, but the FAA also allows for owner produced parts on certified planes. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_20-62E_CHG_1.pdf https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...
ben7799 6y ago
Who knows what the regulations are for a Soviet warplane brought into the US but for most planes the owners are not able to just machine new parts unless the plane is under an experimental certification. A lot of home built planes are under experimental certification. Civilian factory built planes and US warbirds are not and so they can't just machine new parts freely or the airworthiness certificate is at risk. The regulations go on forever. If you make new parts you risk having to re-certify the plane which makes an expensive and difficult project get much harder.
- coopsmgoops 6y ago
  You can choose to register any aircraft as "experimental" it'll hurt resale value but there's nothing stopping you from modifying your Cessna or your F-16 except some paperwork.
- ksherlock 6y ago
  Per the FAA's N-number lookup, it's experimental. I'm guessing Soviet aircraft built to destroy the US didn't bother with FAA certification. https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=620PF https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?N...
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Probably not, but it would’ve been hilarious if they’d gotten one.

alfalfasprout 6y ago

Yes, it would be extremely expensive. The price of the plane for something like this ends up being only a fraction of the total cost of operating it. Between needing to source or machine parts to specification (many of which will be titanium) and the frequent inspections and maintenance needed it's a lot of time and money to keep a plane like this running. Flying a GA plane is already a fairly expensive hobby... flying warbirds can be on a whole 'nother level of expense.

cortesoft 6y ago

The average American couldn't afford any airplane.

ectocardia 6y ago
This is exactly the sort of thinking that let Pepsi bail on a jet fighter contract in the 90s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
- toast0 6y ago
  Would have been more probable it were a Navy jet, since we know Pepsi once had a large navy. ;)
unchocked 6y ago
You'd be surprised. There are a lot really decent planes available around $30k. Have some fun on Trade-A-Plane.com, look at single engine piston planes.
- c22 6y ago
  Around 30k represents half of the "average" American's yearly household income.[0] Once you factor in maintenance and storage it's safe to say most Americans couldn't afford even a "cheap" plane. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

jandrese 6y ago

For a 60+ year old Soviet airframe? When something breaks you're going to be manufacturing the replacement part yourself. If you buy this you had better have a machine shop handy. The good news is that the guy who restored it undoubtedly has extensive notes about this particular aircraft, so it won't be quite as difficult to keep running. Still, you'd better be an expert in antique turbine engines if you want to fly it.

unchocked 6y ago

There's a whole world of (generally old) warbird enthusiasts who hoard hangars full of these old birds and spares for them. There's an associated world of auctioneers and brokers who sell it to them, then buy up the supply from their estate sales when they die and sell it to the next guy.

bluedino 6y ago

Soviet jets of that era were designed to be repaired by simpler means than fighter jets from even 40 years ago.

greedo 6y ago
The big problem though is that Soviet jets weren't expected to last very long (in terms of flight hours). For example, jet engine life was much lower than comparable Western aircraft.