SU-27 for sale on Controller

[Orange Anchor]

Uhh, the L-29's spanked the L-39's at Reno. That said, I think the L-39's look way cooler.

In a somewhat cryptic and terse comment it said "Viper" was a modified L-29. Yes, I think so. The -29 is listed with max smash around 405 while the -39 is closer to 500 so someone had some nice magic.

The standard -39 uses a Walter jet engine rated at about 3800lbs thrust. T/O weight at 11,600lbs (3.05lbs/lb of thrust). The -29, comes in much lighter (7200lbs) with a 1960lb thrust engine (3.6lbs/lb of thrust). So wt/thrust ratio is not close. It has to be the wing. sort of like Vans RVs. Check the website and you will see data for the 150hp/180hp/210hp and not a HUGE difference in max speed. Like my Swift.. if it only went as fast as it looked.

FWIW, it says the -39 is the world's most popular private jet warbird with bout 300 flying in the US.

I didn't realize the huge price difference between the -39ZA and the -29.. $250-300 versus $100-150k.

Here's the kicker. An A-37 goes for more than $600k. I got one sortie into IV Corp in one. T-37 with J-85 engines. The routine was to shut down one engine enroute for best range. ??? Crank it up for strike and shut it down to come home. Crank it for landing.

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/clsfdspecs/823231 The 604th was the unit I got the ride with. (the ad says 1967..not. Didn't get there until 1969 and began replacing the F-100s. Good machine but not an F-100)


Not noted for being the nicest little machine to land but this would be my choice.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

O yeah, I knew it was modified. But, if you want something fast, you could probably get the L-29 and mod's done for around the same price as the L-39 basic. But, if I were in the market, I'd be looking at this. Something that stands out. Nothing better than a Strikemaster for that.

http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft-for-sale/BAC-STRIKEMASTER/BAC-STRIKEMASTER/1158655.htm

 

[Hacker15e]

Unless you know something the rest of us don't, that SU-27 is a Mach 2.3ish bird. I've never heard of the F-16 being able to go that fast. Unless you want to spill some top secret beans for us here.

Apparently I do know something that some of you don't -- fighters usually can't get to their all-out top speed in normal day-to-day operations. Most of them aren't zooming around at high Mach numbers, and they aren't usually able to even get to those numbers even if they want to.

For one, they're usually carrying weapons; those published "top speeds" are clean jets with mid-fuel loads, way up at altitude, operating at the top right corner of the flight envelope.

Second, fighters are not able to magically accelerate to their top speeds in the blink of an eye. Even an unloaded dive takes more time than altitude is available to get up in the high Mach numbers. From an "average" tactical cruising speed (let's say 400) at a typical altitude (high 20s), you're only going to get a little over Mach 1 in an unloaded dive before it's time to start recovering from the dive. The amount of time required to go from M=1 to above 2.0 is....well....a LONG time (minutes, perhaps), even in a set up situation up at altitude designed to get the airplane to that part of the flight envelope. That top end just isn't attainable during normal operations.

So, the idea that a Flanker is going to get engaged by another fighter, and get away from danger by simply turning tail and going away at some published max speed (that is higher than the published max speed of an opponent) is folly.

Remember, also, that the "skinny" wingmen (AMRAAM, Sidewinder) accelerate to multiple Mach numbers in a matter of seconds, and the "turn and run" range (ergo, the distance which an aircraft can get shot at, turn around, and flyaway without the missile catching up to it) are pretty big [but classified] numbers. Certainly it is possible to defeat air-air missiles, but it's usually not done by simply turning tail from inside the ranges that are considered a visual fight.

The F-15 is sometimes called a "Mach 2.5" fighter...something I frequently laugh at. Perhaps the Streak Eagle, with all the stuff stripped out of it, nothing hanging off it externally, and up at 50K might be able to go that fast.

A combat-configured airplane isn't going to be able to get that fast, even in a bad movie or action book.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Apparently I do know something that some of you don't -- fighters usually can't get to their all-out top speed in normal day-to-day operations. Most of them aren't zooming around at high Mach numbers, and they aren't usually able to even get to those numbers even if they want to.

A combat-configured airplane isn't going to be able to get that fast, even in a bad movie or action book.

Which is exactly why John Q Public's SU-27 could run away from a TFR intercept F-16, if we went for sheer speed in said configurations. I'd imagine that said F-16 is loaded down with some ordinance. Clearly, a private owned SU-27 isn't going to have any. But, its worthless to argue this, because, well, it isn't going to happen. Its not like the FAA is going to have any problems identifying the guy who busted said TFR, because he's the only one around with a SU-27.

 

[Hacker15e]

Which is exactly why John Q Public's SU-27 could run away from a TFR intercept F-16, if we went for sheer speed in said configurations. I'd imagine that said F-16 is loaded down with some ordinance.

I don't think you're getting this.

The acceleration to lower level Mach numbers is pretty much the same and takes place in similar timeframes in those types of fighters.

The actual top end number is insignificant, because the time that it takes to get there is so big, even under ideal circumstances. During the vast majority of that time any other fighter -- even one with a combat load -- will be right there with them.

Unfortunately that's just not how air combat works -- it's not a NASCAR race fought in some all out tail chase.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I don't think you're getting this.

The acceleration to lower level Mach numbers is pretty much the same and takes place in similar timeframes in those types of fighters.

The actual top end number is insignificant, because the time that it takes to get there is so big, even under ideal circumstances. During the vast majority of that time any other fighter -- even one with a combat load -- will be right there with them.

Unfortunately that's just not how air combat works -- it's not a NASCAR race fought in some all out tail chase.

I get it, your a fighter pilot, and are better flying that the rest of us. Its a freaking hypothetical situation. Chill out Mavrick.

 

[rd757]

I get it, your a fighter pilot, and are better flying that the rest of us. Its a freaking hypothetical situation. Chill out Mavrick.

Whoa ho Joel, take a step back on that one.

RD

 

[MikeD]

I get it, your a fighter pilot, and are better flying that the rest of us. Its a freaking hypothetical situation. Chill out Mavrick.

Hey now. He's just explaining out something that many civilian guys want to argue, but don't truly understand (common to many military ops). Nothing to do with being better at flying than anyone else.

And you brought it up and argued it....

 

[3green]

Thats pretty funny. Fighter pilot is nice enough to explain to civi with less than 300hrs how fighter jet aviation works and he proceeds to tell him to "chillout". Cheez, someday you might actually fly in an airliner and have to sit next to someone like Hacker. Hopefully by then the words "thanks for the info, I appreciate it" will be part of the vocabulary...

 

[WestIndian425]

Since we're on the subject, would it be difficult for the average fighter to intercept the Concorde or Concorski?

 

[MikeD]

Since we're on the subject, would it be difficult for the average fighter to intercept the Concorde or Concorski?

In cruise? A high fast flyer isn't an easy interception. That's why MiG-25s that would overfly Japan during the Cold War were difficult to intercept, not to mention the Iraqi ones during OSW. Not impossible, but not a simple iteration either.

 

[MFT1Air]

I get it, your a fighter pilot, and are better flying that the rest of us. Its a freaking hypothetical situation. Chill out Mavrick.

I'm kinda leaning towards Hacker's very logical perspective, and I haven't a clue about doing that "pilot stuff."

I do know a little bit however slight about portable man carried shoot em up stuff.

. . .again, Hacker still has a thumbs up. Cessna, are you confusing real life with SyFy channel stuff?

 

[MikeD]

I do know a little bit however slight about portable man carried shoot em up stuff.

Redeye?

 

[Polar742]

Question for the fighter guys, as we're discussing closure rates and whatnot.

As a know-not, I ask this: How is it that the Cessnas sneak through the White House protected space, and the fighters usually get there too late?

Are they still flying CAPs in DC? Is it an alert issue?

Can you not say?

More of a curiosity to me than anything.

 

[MikeD]

Question for the fighter guys, as we're discussing closure rates and whatnot.

As a know-not, I ask this: How is it that the Cessnas sneak through the White House protected space, and the fighters usually get there too late?

Are they still flying CAPs in DC? Is it an alert issue?

Can you not say?

More of a curiosity to me than anything.

Speaking completely general, fighters can't be everywhere at once. Yes, the status of CAPs and who's doing them/when they're being accomplished isn't something that can be discussed open-source here.

 

[ChasenSFO]

After chasin' sunsets, one of life's simply joys is playin' with the boys.

 

[Polar742]

Speaking completely general, fighters can't be everywhere at once. Yes, the status of CAPs and who's doing them/when they're being accomplished isn't something that can be discussed open-source here.

I definitely understand the "can't be everywhere at once". The CAP, I guess was just more of a "has anyone seen them out there", and I understand not telling the bad guys where you're at and what you're doing.

I guess, in retrospect, I really asked the question the wrong way.

I'm looking at a C-1something at 120 kts vs. a jet that has a 600 kt dash speed, and the convergence and joining. And how that can translate into the lost weekend warriors flying right over the White House.

But, if that's off-topic, I understand too.

:beer:

 

[MikeD]

I definitely understand the "can't be everywhere at once". The CAP, I guess was just more of a "has anyone seen them out there", and I understand not telling the bad guys where you're at and what you're doing.

I guess, in retrospect, I really asked the question the wrong way.

I'm looking at a C-1something at 120 kts vs. a jet that has a 600 kt dash speed, and the convergence and joining. And how that can translate into the lost weekend warriors flying right over the White House.

But, if that's off-topic, I understand too.

:beer:

It depends who's where at a given time, when ATC notices, when the alert to intercept goes out. The DC airspace is so tight that someone can go off course, and be somewhere they shouldn't be, very quickly. Fighters aren't the only deterrence available, generally speaking.

 

[Hacker15e]

I get it, your a fighter pilot, and are better flying that the rest of us. Its a freaking hypothetical situation. Chill out Mavrick.

You have no idea how many times I've written responses to this comment, only to delete them and start over.

I originally went with the sarcasm response ('since you are apparently an expert on fighter aviation based on what you've read at the AOPA forum...'), but then changed it to the wise old man advice ('well, I generally listen to people who have 10x my total time when they are trying to explain something') and subsequently to the criticism ('WTF does anything I wrote have anything to do with who is the better pilot??').

But, I erased all of those responses because none of them really captured what I would actually explain to you if we were discussing this in person. In addition, they were a little disrespectful, and as much as I wanted to match your fire with my fire, that just isn't needed among pilots with common goals and common interests.

Instead, I'll simply say this: This is an area I have a pretty decent amount of experience in, so I was attempting to explain some of the misunderstood nuances of a hypothetical scenario that you brought up and subsequently tried to argue.

I try to keep my comments within the realm of things I actually know about. Next time anyone catches me pontificating about some subject they are actually experienced in, and I'm wrong, I expect them to not only call me out on it, but also educate me on what was incorrect.

Isn't that why we're all here? To exchange information and ideas among people with common interests and common goals?

 

[WestIndian425]

In cruise? A high fast flyer isn't an easy interception. That's why MiG-25s that would overfly Japan during the Cold War were difficult to intercept, not to mention the Iraqi ones during OSW. Not impossible, but not a simple iteration either.

Ah, I see! I was just thinking hypothetically. Thanks, Mike.

Isn't that why we're all here? To exchange information and ideas among people with common interests and common goals?

Nah...some folks are here to bash and stomp on (usually those with inferiority complexes -- I'm just sayin')

Back on topic, I don't know...while I think it's nice to be able to fly in a fighter, to sit in that thing for hours with very limited space while flying cross-country doesn't feel good...then again, you could do it faster than most planes.