Wanna buy an SU-27?

January 2, 2010 6:48 PM

For the man who has everything: how about getting him his very own pair of SU-27's?
posted by Chocolate Pickle (45 comments total)

What, chicks don't fly warbirds?
posted by notyou at 6:51 PM on January 2, 2010 [2 favorites]

The only pilot I know prefers to fly helicopters. So unfortunately I don't think she would like this.
posted by Lobster Garden at 6:58 PM on January 2, 2010 [3 favorites]

What, chicks don't fly warbirds?

That's why there are two of 'em. One for him, and one for his girlfriend, for that extra special date!
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:07 PM on January 2, 2010

LOLwhut? I thought that the Russkies had stopped selling off bits of their military since they started pulling in all those petrodollars; what's up with that?
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:12 PM on January 2, 2010

I thought that the Russkies had stopped selling off bits of their military since they started pulling in all those petrodollars;

These Flankers appear to be previously owned models, Halloween Jack.
posted by notyou at 7:20 PM on January 2, 2010

They used to belong to Siegfried & Roy.
posted by Flashman at 7:24 PM on January 2, 2010

Wired magazine did an interesting article several years back on a guy who buys old soviet fighters. Of course, buying a soviet fighter from a guy in Illinois saves you the trouble of negotiating a deal in an underground bunker in Bishkek.
posted by Mr Mister at 7:27 PM on January 2, 2010

I thought that the Russkies had stopped selling off bits of their military since they started pulling in all those petrodollars;

That's why these two are from the Ukraine.
posted by thecjm at 7:29 PM on January 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

Does anyone know 1) how much these will end up costing? and 2) what's the operational cost for a privately owned jet like this?
posted by thecjm at 7:31 PM on January 2, 2010

Did Larry Ellison get bored?
posted by b1tr0t at 7:32 PM on January 2, 2010

The SU-27 looks absolutely lovely, the cocked cabin is so pleasing to the eye.

Alas, it doesn't transform into a humanoid mecha. Such a shame.

Although there are video of it doing maneuvers only previously seen in Robotech anime, humanoid, battloid, or otherwise.

Also alas, the impetus behind such engineering and design had only occurred due to the desires/necessities-of to do warfare.
posted by porpoise at 7:44 PM on January 2, 2010

Does anyone know 1) how much these will end up costing? and 2) what's the operational cost for a privately owned jet like this?

If you have to ask, and if you have to ask.*

But seriously, I imagine low seven-figures for the first and at least six figures for the second, per year.

* Jesus Christ that statement has always annoyed me. Rich people generally don't get rich or stay rich by handing blank cheques to dealers and letting them fill in the amounts, so at some point someone has to ask.
posted by maxwelton at 9:02 PM on January 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

Where can I get my hands on a supply of all of those beautiful switches and knobs? I want to cover the dashboard of my car in them.
posted by popechunk at 9:05 PM on January 2, 2010

PM sent...
posted by GratefulDean at 9:25 PM on January 2, 2010

Here is a for-sale listing that has one for $4.95 million.
posted by smackfu at 9:30 PM on January 2, 2010

Does anyone know 1) how much these will end up costing? and 2) what's the operational cost for a privately owned jet like this?

Who cares? All I know is they will look great parked inside my hollowed--out volcano base.
posted by happyroach at 9:33 PM on January 2, 2010

You can't fly two at a time.
That's the same argument I get when I say I need another assault rifle. I already have three. How many can I even carry full of ammo? Why do I think I need so many? Just what are you going to do with those, anyway? Why do you have three ninja suits? What do you think you are going to climb with that grappling hook? How many adversaries are you going to take down with your sword?

It's a guy thing... you wouldn't understand.
posted by Balisong at 9:53 PM on January 2, 2010 [3 favorites]

I just hope anyone who buys such a thing flies it straight into a mountain.
posted by nola at 9:55 PM on January 2, 2010

That puppy takes the Sunday afternoon hundred-dollar-hamburger flight into quite another dimension.

By about three orders of magnitude.
posted by drhydro at 10:01 PM on January 2, 2010

I wonder how well air traffic controllers cope with civilian traffic that can zip about at Mach 1.8.
posted by pwnguin at 10:09 PM on January 2, 2010

Pepsi Flew? So sorry.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:44 PM on January 2, 2010

Or if you want to build your own, two F5 jet engines were recently reported stolen in Malaysia. Probably show up on Craigslist any day now.
posted by eye of newt at 10:55 PM on January 2, 2010

From the site: These aircraft eclipse every other jet warbird in performance, technological sophistication, and "wow-factor."

A bit of used car lot salesmen-bull pucky right there here. I can name 5 American fighter jets that are just as good or superior to the Su-27. Beginning with the fighters it was built to withstand back in the 70s and that would be the F-15 and the carrier based F-14. the F-16 could give it a run for its money as can the carrier F18 Hornet and, due to it's stealthy design and state of the art elecytronics,the F-22, could shoot it out of the sky before the Su-27 'saw" it, and then of course there's also the F-117 and the F-35. In the European theater I think either the European joint fighter, one hell of a lovely jet, or the Saab JAS-39 could also effectively counter it. But Russia ia working on two new fighters the Su-35 and the Su-47.


Says in the spec pdf they want a mere $4,950,000, from 1990.


It's obviously priced to move.

You know, 5000 mefites put in $1000 bucks each, we can buy this beauty.

Who's with me??
posted by Skygazer at 1:14 AM on January 3, 2010 [1 favorite]

Skygazer, 'warbird' is generally used to mean 'vintage' military aircraft. The Pride site goes on to admit that the F-22 and the like have pretty much relegated these guys to the pasture, but among the stuff that can be privately-owned and civilian-flown, these Sukhois would be pretty damn hard to beat. Of course, they are $5mil each, and you can have a lovely restored L-39C for less than $300k- but that's kind of like taking the Corolla over the Murcielago...
posted by pupdog at 1:33 AM on January 3, 2010 [2 favorites]

a truly discriminating aircraft owner would not settle for anything less than an SR-71 .
posted by 3mendo at 2:16 AM on January 3, 2010 [1 favorite]

No, sorry. It's stupid I know but ever since The Right Stuff I've only ever wanted an NF-104.
posted by Ritchie at 3:34 AM on January 3, 2010 [1 favorite]

I wonder how well air traffic controllers cope with civilian traffic that can zip about at Mach 1.8.

Civilian aircraft aren't allowed to fly supersonic in US airspace; I imagine the law is similar elsewhere. 14 CFR 91.817:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft in the United States at a true flight Mach number greater than 1 except in compliance with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued to the operator under appendix B of this part.

(b) In addition, no person may operate a civil aircraft for which the maximum operating limit speed exceeds a Mach number of 1, to or from an airport in the United States, unless—

(1) Information available to the flight crew includes flight limitations that ensure that flights entering or leaving the United States will not cause a sonic boom to reach the surface within the United States; and

(2) The operator complies with the flight limitations prescribed in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or complies with conditions and limitations in an authorization to exceed Mach 1 issued under appendix B of this part.

An authorization to exceed Mach 1 is available only in very limited, specific circumstances:

(a) For a flight in a designated test area, an authorization to exceed Mach 1 may be issued when the Administrator has taken the environmental protective actions specified in section 1(b) of this appendix and the applicant shows one or more of the following:

(1) The flight is necessary to show compliance with airworthiness requirements.

(2) The flight is necessary to determine the sonic boom characteristics of the airplane or to establish means of reducing or eliminating the effects of sonic boom.

(3) The flight is necessary to demonstrate the conditions and limitations under which speeds greater than a true flight Mach number of 1 will not cause a measurable sonic boom overpressure to reach the surface.

(b) For a flight outside of a designated test area, an authorization to exceed Mach 1 may be issued if the applicant shows conservatively under paragraph (a)(3) of this section that—

(1) The flight will not cause a measurable sonic boom overpressure to reach the surface when the aircraft is operated under conditions and limitations demonstrated under paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and

(2) Those conditions and limitations represent all foreseeable operating conditions.

So basically existing ATC will have no trouble with it because it would be illegal to take it supersonic in virtually all circumstances.
posted by jedicus at 10:15 AM on January 3, 2010

ah, nevermind. I was thinking of the Su-37. Still, a very very pretty bird.
posted by porpoise at 10:40 AM on January 3, 2010

If I had $50 million I would spend 10% of my wealth on one of these rides. The ultimate Pimp My Ride. Seriously, how cool would it be to live in New York and take a date to a restaurant in Paris by flying supersonic over the Atlantic? Even I might get laid with that rap.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 1:39 PM on January 3, 2010 [1 favorite]

Seriously, how cool would it be to live in New York and take a date to a restaurant in Paris by flying supersonic over the Atlantic?

It would be very cool. Sadly the SU-27 has a range of only 2,070 miles, whereas New York to Paris is ~3600 miles. And that range is probably for a moderate cruising speed. I'm sure supersonic cruise would cut down the range significantly.

Fighters just don't have great range. The F-22 Raptor, for example, has a range of only 1,840 miles and that's with 2 external fuel tanks.
posted by jedicus at 2:15 PM on January 3, 2010

Well, you could always buy a tanker. An IL-78 would be a good match. There's even a civilian one in the US (though not flying, it seems).

(Although at a certain point it becomes easier to buy an actual airliner.)
posted by smackfu at 2:26 PM on January 3, 2010

Great performance, sophistication, wow-factor! Would fly again AAAAAAAA++++++++
posted by Sutekh at 3:41 PM on January 3, 2010

It would be very cool. Sadly the SU-27 has a range of only 2,070 miles, whereas New York to Paris is ~3600 miles.

No big deal, you can refuel in Iceland, and still get to Paris in time for dinner, drinks, dancing at the discotheque and etc...etc...... I do it all the time, ha, ha..... C'est Magnifique!
posted by Skygazer at 4:10 PM on January 3, 2010 [1 favorite]

pupdog: you can have a lovely restored L-39C for less than $300k-

Pup you've set off an onslaught of losing-touch-with-reality breathless thoughts with that one, pal.


Ritchie: No, sorry. It's stupid I know but ever since The Right Stuff I've only ever wanted an NF-104.

Look here.


I'd give my left nut to fly in that thing, also my mefi name is a play on Starfighter.
posted by Skygazer at 4:29 PM on January 3, 2010 [1 favorite]

F-22 and the like have pretty much relegated these guys to the pasture

As long as it's not raining.
posted by Tenuki at 9:28 PM on January 3, 2010

One of these would be much more my style. And I could take off and land in my pasture.
posted by Tenuki at 9:36 PM on January 3, 2010

As long as it's not raining.

That's why you fly over the clouds.

…and own a landing strip on a piece of land where it doesn't rain.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:32 AM on January 4, 2010

Well, yes, but has it been to space?

Last December, NASA issued a “request for information” to educational institutions, science museums and other organizations about their interest in acquiring a space shuttle. The space agency estimated it would cost about $42 million to prepare the vehicle and deliver it via a modified 747 Boeing aircraft carrier.

About 20 institutions — including a group of bidders led by Space Center Houston — responded. Since then, however, the space agency has been mum.

“We're still in a holding pattern,” said Robert Pearlman, editor of collectSPACE.com, a Web site for space history enthusiasts. “I don't think anyone in the program really wants to talk about retiring the orbiters while they're still flying them.”
posted by Comrade_robot at 7:58 AM on January 4, 2010

Pup you've set off an onslaught of losing-touch-with-reality breathless thoughts with that one, pal.

Trust me, I was looking at those nose-box pics and thinking 'that's enough space for a couple of bags, all i need is the right lottery ticket, a couple years flight instruction, lose a few pounds, beautiful woman in the back seat...'
posted by pupdog at 8:53 AM on January 4, 2010 [1 favorite]

Cool. Here is the NASA RFI that article was talking about. $6 million just to ferry the thing. Sure is a lot of money, and they won't end up with one at Kennedy or Houston.
posted by smackfu at 9:29 AM on January 4, 2010

Oops, I think I misunderstood. Kennedy and Houston "space centers", where the tourists go, are run by private companies, so presumably they also submitted responses to the RFI.
posted by smackfu at 9:35 AM on January 4, 2010

Civilian aircraft aren't allowed to fly supersonic in US airspace;

And this is where, were I an eccentric billionaire with money to burn, I would buy one of these just fly supersonic in places I wasn't supposed to, just to get the fun of a couple of fighters trying to chase me down and figure out what the hell I was up to.

It would be like running from the cops, only with a vertical dimension.

And afterburners.
posted by quin at 2:00 PM on January 4, 2010

Quin, that sounds like the Dukes of Hazard with fighter jets.
posted by Skygazer at 2:22 PM on January 4, 2010

Exactly. I just don't think the "Dixie" horn at mach speeds would play all that well to an observer on the ground, which is a shame.
posted by quin at 3:13 PM on January 4, 2010

It would be like running from the cops, only with a vertical dimension.

And afterburners.

And live weapons. Remember, our airspace isn't as happy-go-lucky as it used to be...
posted by pupdog at 4:04 AM on January 5, 2010