Before my first airline job, I got to fly a few round trips in a Learjet 24D...most UNcomfortable right seat I've EVER been in. Fuel burn?? Yeah...it had analog fuel gauges and you could see the needles physically moving during climb; that's how fast it burned gas. The Captain would tell me to bug ATC for higher because he didn't want to level off in the intermediate altitudes, ESPECIALLY at FL230 like ATC likes to do to you when you're climbing. As others have stated, yup...it climbed like a scalded dog.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
Of course Kurt (my buddy who flew it) joked that SOP was, “Top the tanks, start one engine, call for taxi clearance, and declare a fuel emergency.” Apparently those turbojet engines burned as much fuel idling on the ground as they did at full throttle at altitude. He did say that it was common practice to file for a destination far beyond the intended, then when getting close to the intended, tell the controller they had a change of plan and needed to land where they originally intended, resulting in a slam dunk.

No.

File for the destination, and advise the controller that a descent delay is requested as long as possible. Done it many times. A lot of direct requests, before GPS, too. Often got them.

They do not have the same burn at idle as in cruise, but they do burn a lot, and it's common to shut one down during taxi, and to delay start if long taxi is required. I've "declared minimum fuel" twice in 20 series Lears during long takeoff delays, to return and refuel.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

ETA: Wasn’t the Sabreliner one of the first business jets, and wasn’t it based on the F86? Seems like since then fighter performance has gone through the roof while business jets have also progressed greatly but in other directions.

The Sabre wing comes direct from the F86, and featured gravity leading edge slats that rolled out on their own, and frequently didn't deploy evenly along one wing, and often asymmetrically between wings. It didn't make much control difference, however. They were fast, maneuverable, and aerobatic (not by certification). Bob Hoover used a Sabre 40 for an airshow routine.

The Sabre was very dated. It was the first corporate airplane I flew, and my first director of maintenance job was on Sabres. the Flgiht Safety sabre program was the oldest in the Flight safety system, the sim antiquated, and the props equally as old. I went through with the original instructor, long retired now.

The sabre had a real corrosion problem endemic to all models across the fleet: corrosion nightmare. It had an overly complicated steering system for function, and the maintenance manual directed the mechanic to first build a test box (schematic provided), before working on it. Everything from a very different era. Lots of reasons that Sabres are very rarely seen any more, but it was great to fly.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by AllenInWV:

Not sure about US fighters...there are several privately owned MiGs and whatnot though. And didn't some Marine officer buy an A/V-8?

Our own mojojojo?

I wish

there used to be a company I believe at SMO that bought retired military aircraft and sold them

there are a few T38's for sale on the private market - a wide price range up to about $2.5 million

There are 3 F-16's for sale in Florida for 8.5 million


https://www.google.com/amp/s/a...for-8-million-2019-9

I have a curiosity question.

Let's say for a moment that you are a retired (20 plus years) Navy or Air Force aviator with a spotless record. Upon retiring from the military you found out that you inherited $10 billion from a long lost uncle.

You have the skills to fly the plane. You have the cash to buy the plane and you are able to clear all legal and FAA hurdles.

Once per week you plan to take the aircraft up for a joyride, maybe 2-3 hours at a time.

What is it going to cost in terms of maintenance, both labor and parts? And what is it going to cost in terms of fuel?

My assumption is that the plane will cost almost as much on an annual basis as the initial purchase price?

I had the dubious honor of owning a used Lear 23 back in the late '80's. Was a hoot to fly and would roll so fast your eyeballs would get crossed. The AD on the wings caused us to part company.

quote:

Originally posted by holdem:
I have a curiosity question.

Let's say for a moment that you are a retired (20 plus years) Navy or Air Force aviator with a spotless record. Upon retiring from the military you found out that you inherited $10 billion from a long lost uncle.

You have the skills to fly the plane. You have the cash to buy the plane and you are able to clear all legal and FAA hurdles.

Once per week you plan to take the aircraft up for a joyride, maybe 2-3 hours at a time.

What is it going to cost in terms of maintenance, both labor and parts? And what is it going to cost in terms of fuel?

My assumption is that the plane will cost almost as much on an annual basis as the initial purchase price?

Assuming one could get hold of an aircraft such as an F16 and could insure it, the cost of ownership, interest on payments aside, would be exceptionally high.

A military aircraft, maintained in a military environment, has a very large footprint supporting it, from parts and logistics to maintenance, much of which does not exist in one place in the civil world. Pilot training, including recururrent training, altitude chamber training, egress training, and operational training, for the most part does not exist outside of the military.

Maintaining a hot seat (ejection seat), parachute packing and avionics adds another level of complexity. No life support squadron to handle maintenance and testing of flight gear, etc. It's a rich man's game.

The less one flies, the higher the per-hour cost.

Military aircraft have advertised costs which are far less than the actual cost, especially considering the cost of support behind the aircraft. Owning a "modern" tactical aircraft and flying it three hours a month would likely run in the 50,000/hr to 100,000/hr cost, when all the elments are factored in and divided by the minimal flying.

It's really hard to stay current in anything at three hours a month

quote:

Originally posted by holdem:
Let's say for a moment that you are a retired (20 plus years) Navy or Air Force aviator with a spotless record. Upon retiring from the military you found out that you inherited $10 billion from a long lost uncle.

Fly Delta private jet service, NetJets, WheelsUp, etc. Take your friends to cool places. Avoid the ownership misery.

This probably doesn't happen anymore but...

Back in the mid 90's, an older gentleman I knew worked for a private aviation firm at Addison airport in North Dallas. They had agreed to receive and assemble a MiG-15 that someone had purchased privately. He said as they were uncrating the boxes when low and behold, here was a 23mm cannon. On further inspection, all three cannons, two 23's and one 37mm were present.

They called ATF and afterward enjoyed a big nervous laugh all 'round.

You can still buy a mig fairly cheap (or an older Lear, for that matter). Operating it is another matter.

The starter-generator on the lear will run about 40,000 dollars for an overhauled unit. Not cheap. Fuel control units run north of a hundred grand on many turbine engines.

Some of the russian parts can be had, but getting the training, authorization, and then finding a place to operate it, is another matter.

As someone noted above regarding Delta Private, etc, if one is going to fly less than 300 hours a year, it's generally better so far as corporate aircraft, charter, and fractional go, to charter. Past 100 hours on up, fractional begins to make sense, depending on what one buys a fraction of, and with whom. The fractional field isn't what it was.

I used to fly fractional, and we had a lot of business, but times were different and so was that segment of the industry.

In fact, the late Paul Allen's Flying Heritage Foundation currently has a two-seater MiG-29 on sale. Just saying.