5 ms·

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 to

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.

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.