Up until recently you could buy a MIG 15 for about 35K in the crate. I will bet the operational costs for a M21 are 2K per hour. Insurance is as a practical matter impossible to obtain. A more interesting ride is a F 104 Starfighter, a 1956 design by the late Kelly Johnson of Lockheed who designed the P38 Lightning of WWII and the Blackbird, the current record holder for speed at altitude. When I last heard the F 104 still holds the low altitude record for speed. At least two are flying here in private hands in the Tampa area with the bigger engine used in Europe. Flyers call it the " Man in a missile" airplane. Except for passing clouds and in rare cases another airplane there is no dramatic sensation of speed up high. Plus unless you are down low no one else can see you doing it. Jim Lore
Mike: The guns are a no no for jets in private hands. The thing I hate is that the cost of inspections I hear causes you to have to give up your ejection seat! Wouldn't you hate it when an engine quits (and the F104 and the M21 have only one) and you have to ride it down because the landing speed is kind of fast. For example, I think an F15 touches down at about 150 knots (170 MPH) and it has a much bigger wing. The Starfighter has only 7.5 feet of wing per side so I guess its touchdown speed is much greater. Kind of fast to be plowing some farmers field don't you think? Jim Lore PS: I took your favorite car to the exhaust meister today for a complete redo. Would you like an old set of cherry bombs cheap?
let me think.........................aaw...................NO! But I guess the pile of "accessories" is getting larger eh?:eek2:
Oh please tell me it comes with a complementry 1970 GS grill new in the box...Please please come with it....:laugh: :laugh: Larry :TU:
Mike : Also, I have a red 7 bladed fan with gold dust that was obviously carefully applied when the red was still wet. Probably blown on there. Larry: It did come with a lifetime supply of gold bullits. It was so let us say unanticipated. Jim Lore
I could be incorrect on this, but it was one of the few thigns I payed attention to durign my stay at the Air Force Academy. I took the 2 core Aeronautical Engineering courses there, and seeing as they were taught by Colonels with at least one doctorate, and at the AF Academy, I'm assuming the information they gave me is correct... so if theres any error, it was introduced by my faulty memoy. I remember the sections where we revied the ICE-T principal (as regards to airspeed) said that there are many ways to measure airspeed, from indicated, to corrected, to whatever the "E" stands for, to True airspeed. My instructor, the esteemed Col. Neal Barlow, flew F-15's , -16's -111's and lastly was a T-38 IP. He made an itneresting sidenote that although the SR-71 is hailed as the fastest plane, thats not totally true. Since it flies at such ridiculously high altitudes, the air resistance is so little that it is infact not moving all that fast relative to teh amount of air its pushing through. He said that when you correct for altitude and air-density, that the fastest plane ever in the US inventory was the good old F-111. I can't remember what mach number it had as a top speed, but he said that corrected for the altitude at which it could reach that speed, that it was by far the fastest plane in US inventory. Any thoughts, Flynbuick? Is this way off base, or is my memory actually serving me correct?
Ok I will step up to the plate on this issue. There is actually four major concepts of speed that we use for aircraft: Indicated airspeed --which is what the needle reads usually in knots but can also be depending on the aircraft in mph or mach; Calibrated airspeed -- which is indicated airspeed corrected for instrument calibration errors; True airspeed-- which is the real measure of how fast the aircraft really can go through the air under the conditions and power setting. This measure of speed is affected by altitude, temperature, humidity, trim setting, barometric pressure, weight, c.g. of the load etc. We typically calculate true airspeed by using indicated airspeed observed on the indicator and correcting it for temperature and altiitude relative to mean sea level, the deviation from the international standard for atmospheric pressure 29.92 millibars and temperature (59 degees F); Ground speed--this is true airspeed less the opposing component of the headwind which fundamentally means if that a tailwind will add to the true airspeed to tell you how fast you are moving across the ground --like a car if you will. Of course, a head wind will cause your ground speed to be the opposite--meaning less than an aircrafts true airspeed which is measured relative to the air and not the ground. Soooo! The higher an aircraft flys that can hold its power setting the less dense the air is and the true airspeed in turn goes up. For a constant relative tail wind or head wind, the ground speed also goes accordingly. This can be quite dramatic as the drag airs effect on the airframe is a nonlinear function. This is why all aircraft can fly faster in true airspeed up high for a given power setting even through the indicated airspeed will drop as you go up. When you correct for the lower temperature and a higher altitude the true airspeed will increase relatively speaking as you climb. To further complicate the matter different aircraft have different service ceilings meaning some can fly higher than others. Service ceiling is affected by aerodynamics of the airframe like the aspect ratio of the wings and power baby power. The bottom line is that the aerodynamically most capable aircraft with the highest service ceiling making the most power will have the highest true airspeed and the higher indicated and calibrated airspeed under the same conditions. Having said all this the SR 71 Blackbird is the fastest our government will admit exists. The fuselage at 80,000 to 100,00 feet where the air is the least dense heats up to expand its lenght a foot or more as I recall. Although its top speed and service ceiling are still classified it is somewhere between Mach 3-5 TRUE which is how we compare apples to apples. I have seen it fly myself and on the ground. It is truly an engineering marvel. This is not to say that the F104 may not still hold the low altitude record which I am guessing would be around 700-800 knots true in very dense air. On the deck the true and indicated airspeed will be relatively close in number. Pretty good for an early fifties design by the same guy, the late Kelly Johnson. Now there I feel better. Jim Lore If I cannot clear up the confusion, I will at least attempt to make the confusion clear.
Jim L, Just curious what your background in Aeronautics is? It was a TOUGH choice for me between mechanical and aeronautical engineering, especially when I was still at the academy, they have an AMAZING Aero lab there, used by research teams through the AF. Is flying just a hobby for you, or more of the career orientation? Just wondering from one airplane nut to another.
Fla boy: I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and a JD in Law. My wife and I are both pilots and aircraft owners licensed in the US and Australia. I hold private single and multi- engine instrument ratings and my wife holds commercial instrument ratings. At least at NC State, all engineers took the same courses for the first two years-- thermodynamics , statics etc.-- and many of the same courses thereafter. I have more years of experience with and know more about piston engine aircraft than cars---which may not be saying much. Jim Lore
thermal expansion Jim, Are you saying the the actual length (and other dimensions) expand to one foot greater at altitude & speed than when the plane is on the ground? Matt
Jim is very accurate in all his remarks...and yes the blackbird is longer in flight than on the ground due to expansion....same with the concorde, its cabin floor is actually on rollers so as the structure exapnds (again, due to thermal expansion) the floor won't crack. Nice to see someone has a grasp on all this, I get so tired of hearing all kinds of incorrect comments, especially in the media... Good explanations Jim!! later Tim
I worked as a "click-click" in the AF (cameras) and, yes the SR-71 does expand in flight at speed. But when that thing sits on the ground, it is an hydraulic nightmare. You guys think a Furd leaves a spot on the driveway, you ought to see one of these things. :eek2: I still have a couple of nice photos of castles in Germany and Ireland from around 60K feet and you can make out the VW vans and Minis in the parking lots. Incredible what '40's and '50's technology is still capable of. Better resolution than the satellites get now days.ou: As for my favorite jet in the AF inventory that I had to work on, it has to be the F-15. Stand-off fighter capabilities are cool. "You want to dogfight? Here, dogfight an AMRAAM!!"p I still hate the F-4's with a passion. Still have scars on the noodle form my share of "pig bites":Brow:
Matt ad Greg: As I recall much of the leaking is because the design relies on thermal expansion to complete the seal on so many things including the fuel bays. Its design is not so recent either. I would say late 60s or early 70s. Jim Lore
