L-39 Albatross question
Ditch
-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*
HECTOP
> What is this aircraft registered as? Experimental Exhibition? Thanks...
Put in a query in www.aircraft.com search for L-39. It turns up about 10-12
of them on the market, most are US registered and none have the trailing X
in the number, that probably says that is it isn't experimental. You could
probably e-mail the sellers for further detailed info. All are in the range
of $400-500K, and my heart bleeds for one ;-/
It's a kickass bird :) Once you'll fly it, you'll add it to your signature ;>
--
HECTOP
PP-ASEL/BOFH
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com
HECTOP
> Ditch <gove...@aol.compost> wrote:
> probably e-mail the sellers for further detailed info. All are in the range
> of $400-500K, and my heart bleeds for one ;-/
The ones listed in the $100-200K are usually out of the US, non-registered,
written-off restoration projects which will cost a lot more to restore to
airworthy condition and certify in the US. The real babies start in the
400's.
HECTOP
> What is this aircraft registered as? Experimental Exhibition? Thanks...
Sadly it is only Experimental/Exhibition.
Just found a site full of US info for L-39, complete with Q&A including
certification info. Take a look at http://www.l39.com
Ron Natalie
HECTOP wrote:
>
> Ditch ?gove...@aol.compost? wrote:
> ? What is this aircraft registered as? Experimental Exhibition? Thanks...
>
> Put in a query in www.aircraft.com search for L-39. It turns up about 10-12
> of them on the market, most are US registered and none have the trailing X
> in the number, that probably says that is it isn't experimental. You could
> probably e-mail the sellers for further detailed info. All are in the range
> of $400-500K, and my heart bleeds for one ;-/
Actually, I don't know what "X" you are looking for, but pulling up the
FAA database for registered L-39's, of which, there are 86 (including the
ones listed on aircraft.com with N numbers). Of this only one is listed
as having a Standard airworthiness certificate (and that one is probably
an error). They all seem to be ex-ex.
There's no requirement for an X to appear anywhere in an experimental's
registration number.
HECTOP
> There's no requirement for an X to appear anywhere in an experimental's
> registration number.
For some reason I thought that X was required, probably misguided by someone's
post on a similar subject. But L-39's ex-ex certification is sad but true.
Roger Halstead
N833R World's Oldest Debonair? s# CD-2
"HECTOP" <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote in message
news:3a352...@news2.lightlink.com...
> Ditch <gove...@aol.compost> wrote:
> > What is this aircraft registered as? Experimental Exhibition? Thanks...
>
> Put in a query in www.aircraft.com search for L-39. It turns up about
10-12
> of them on the market, most are US registered and none have the trailing X
> in the number, that probably says that is it isn't experimental. You could
> probably e-mail the sellers for further detailed info. All are in the
range
> of $400-500K, and my heart bleeds for one ;-/
You waited too long.
When they first became available you get one in the $60,000 US range.
I saw a really nice one, with a spare brand new engine, for 65 or 66
thousand and that was only about four or five years ago.
Roger (K8RI)
Ron Natalie
HECTOP wrote:
>
> Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
> > There's no requirement for an X to appear anywhere in an experimental's
> > registration number.
>
> For some reason I thought that X was required, probably misguided by someone's
> post on a similar subject. But L-39's ex-ex certification is sad but true.
>
Back, decades ago, it used to be that the second letter of the N number
indicated the type of airworthiness certificate (NX for experimental,
NC for standard, NR for restricted...). However, that's largely gone
by the wayside (although if you have an old bird, the FAA will let you
continue to play that game.
Roger Halstead
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI) www.RogerHalstead.com
N833R World's Oldest Debonair? s# CD-2
"Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3A353640...@sensor.com...
>
>
> HECTOP wrote:
> >
> > Ditch ?gove...@aol.compost? wrote:
> > ? What is this aircraft registered as? Experimental Exhibition?
Thanks...
> >
> > Put in a query in www.aircraft.com search for L-39. It turns up about
10-12
> > of them on the market, most are US registered and none have the trailing
X
> > in the number, that probably says that is it isn't experimental. You
could
> > probably e-mail the sellers for further detailed info. All are in the
range
> > of $400-500K, and my heart bleeds for one ;-/
>
> Actually, I don't know what "X" you are looking for, but pulling up the
> FAA database for registered L-39's, of which, there are 86 (including the
> ones listed on aircraft.com with N numbers). Of this only one is listed
> as having a Standard airworthiness certificate (and that one is probably
> an error). They all seem to be ex-ex.
I remember one being listed for sale with a standard airworthiness
certificate a couple of years back. It was painted blue and white just like
the T-38 used in the movie Dragnet.
It also had a price that was about five times that of a standard L-39 at the
time.
Roger (K8RI)
HECTOP
> You waited too long.
> When they first became available you get one in the $60,000 US range.
> I saw a really nice one, with a spare brand new engine, for 65 or 66
> thousand and that was only about four or five years ago.
Applying some creative russian "business" techniques I probably could get a
hold of one at about that much, complete with legit documentation and what
not and put it on a container ship in Odessa. Then go through all the seven
circles of hell getting in certified, since I never done that before, like
many other things it'd probably be an eye-opening experience to say the
least. What really scares me is the burden of owning and keeping up with
costs of flying that bird which is most likely in the ballpark of at least
$1000/hr. So unless it's co-owned by a club or partnership, it best left out
for a daydream. And then again it's a demanding airplane compared to the
spamcans we're flying, a sure way to get into farming without some serious
training and fast jet experience.
HECTOP
> I remember one being listed for sale with a standard airworthiness
> certificate a couple of years back. It was painted blue and white just like
> the T-38 used in the movie Dragnet.
Doesn't Standard Airworthiness Certificate mean a type certification, i.e
applicable to the whole series like Bonanzas and Debonairs, eg? Or there is
a provision to just take one unique aircraft and certify it? What a shame
for not certifying the whole type ;-/
Mike Rapoport
operate. They are a LOT cheaper to fly than a real jet fighter or P-51.
Mike
MU-2
HECTOP wrote in message <3a354...@news2.lightlink.com>...
Ditch
>applicable to the whole series like Bonanzas and Debonairs, eg? Or there is
>a provision to just take one unique aircraft and certify it? What a shame
>for not certifying the whole type ;-/
>
I'm not sure. I know guy that owned an Albatross (The Grumman kind) that was
in the experimental catagory. He went thru tons of FAA paperwork and test
flights and a bunch of arguments and money later he now has an HU-16 that has a
standard airworthiness cert.
Why he did it is beyond me, but oh well.
HECTOP
> I know a couple of people who have L-39s and they are about $350hr to
> operate. They are a LOT cheaper to fly than a real jet fighter or P-51.
How come http://www.jetwarbird.com/prices.html charges $1700/hr for
dual-time on L39, even taking into the account that the instructor get his
cut too. A $1350 return on the $350 cost is quite a business I'm willing to
look into myself, wouldn't you? I'm basing my understanding on your keyword
_operate_, not just fuel-only cost which is probably what you meant.
According to http://www.l39.com the fuel burn of the bird is specific fuel
consumption 56.9 kg/kN.hr and Maximum static thrust is 16.87 kN. I'm a bit
lazy to calculate and translate that into gallons/pounds/dollars and hour
right now, but anyone up for the task can probably average maximum down to
nominal and come up with the fuel price tag alone.
RT
>
> Mike Rapoport <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > I know a couple of people who have L-39s and they are about $350hr to
> > operate. They are a LOT cheaper to fly than a real jet fighter or P-51.
> According to http://www.l39.com the fuel burn of the bird is specific fuel
> consumption 56.9 kg/kN.hr and Maximum static thrust is 16.87 kN. I'm a bit
> lazy to calculate and translate that into gallons/pounds/dollars and hour
> right now, but anyone up for the task can probably average maximum down to
> nominal and come up with the fuel price tag alone.
Back of envelope guesstimation cruise = 170 gal/hr (E&OE :-)
Seems high, but I doan know nuthin about jets
Mike Rapoport
turbines burn much less fuel at altitude than at sea level. It is probably
burning 80GPH at 20,000', maybe less. In any event, the L-39 is a very
simple airplane which accounts for its low cost to operate.
They can charge $1700/hr because very few people are offering this sort of
flying and they are selling very few hours of training. What people charge
for training is not necessarily related to the cost of flying. If they
thought that you were going to buy an airplane, I'm sure that they would
train you for much less. I'm not interested in any business that only makes
$1000/hr for a few hours a week, particularly if comes with huge liability
exposure.
The $350/hr figure doesn't include insurance or hanger. The people that I
know who own L-39s all have large hangers and several airplanes.
The biggest drawback to these airplanes is that you need an air starter and
not very many places have them, so you can't just fly around and land where
you want.
Mike
MU-2
HECTOP wrote in message <3a356...@news2.lightlink.com>...
k...@ki-aikido.com
HECTOP <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote:
>Doesn't Standard Airworthiness Certificate mean a type certification, i.e
>applicable to the whole series like Bonanzas and Debonairs, eg? Or there is
>a provision to just take one unique aircraft and certify it? What a shame
>for not certifying the whole type ;-/
In the case of some aircraft, they can be brought into the US on
either a standard or an experimental type certificate.
Taking the Chipmunk as an example, most in the US are on
Experimental/Exhibition tickets. There are 2 that I know of that are
in the Standard Category and to maintain that certification, they have
to jump through all the hoops the British Government inflicts on the
planes flying over there. One person estimated that it had cost him
around $30000 in extra work to keep his airplane in the standard
category.
*************************************************************
* Kevin D. Jones (k...@ki-aikido.com) *
* The Ki Aikido Center *
* (510) 796-6754 *
* http://www.ki-aikido.com *
* DHC-1 N68031 *
* MU-2 N40MZ *
*************************************************************
HECTOP
> The $350/hr figure doesn't include insurance or hanger. The people that I
> know who own L-39s all have large hangers and several airplanes.
Yeah, that makes sense. Throw on top of that certain avionics upgrades, US
instrumentation (I'd hate to fly meteres and km/h), initial investment cost
including certification and "destination charge", depreciation (those birds
rather limited lifecycle), and that becomes an expensive toy. But of course
I was the one crying for a $300-400K jet-rocket, wasn't I? Of course that's
pretty close to my pipe dream, but being a realist I'm not looking to put
myself into a machine like that, without at least few hundreds of jet and
aerobatics exposure. As L-39 has gotten countless professional and
non-professional pilots into farming, as recently as this year one at a UK
airshow and another in Chezch Republic.
k...@ki-aikido.com
Mike Rapoport <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The biggest drawback to these airplanes is that you need an air starter and
>not very many places have them, so you can't just fly around and land where
>you want.
Not that the operating limitations on an Experimental/Exhibition
Turbojet allow one to just fly around and land where you want anyway
:-).
One of the big restrictions of the Experimental category is that use
is restricted in various ways, usually to operations within 600 NM of
base and landing at the same airport as you departed from for training
flights, and they're only allowed to be used for proficiency and
exhibition.
Causes great pain to those who think they've found a cheap 2 seater
business jet :-)
HECTOP
> Not that the operating limitations on an Experimental/Exhibition
> Turbojet allow one to just fly around and land where you want anyway
> :-).
Just one interesting caveat. What if it's not N-registered? Let's say she's
a Canadian (I dunno their laws, they might be even tougher, who knows) or
Bermudan, Jamaican, Mexican whatever, and is registered there as a standard
aircraft (y'know those places down south, one can register an elephant as an
aircraft for a few pesos). Same thing could apply for a pilot certificate,
once could convert it into a carbon copy in the country of registry. Then I
probably could fly it all over the place, and as long as I comply with ICAO
rules and US FAR's, well "sorry, senor, no spoika inglizi ;0)"
This is one of those "russian business" things I'm talking about, one learns
to think like that :)
Mike Rapoport
your plans to the FSDO.
Mike
MU-2
k...@ki-aikido.com wrote in message <913tt3$mfh$1...@triton.dnai.com>...
Seth Masia
I'm impressed as hell at the depth of your knowledge of Eastern Europe, and
your handle indicates you come by it honestly. Where did you learn to fly?
Seth
"HECTOP" <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote in message
news:3a353...@news2.lightlink.com...
HECTOP
> Hey, Nestor:
> I'm impressed as hell at the depth of your knowledge of Eastern Europe, and
> your handle indicates you come by it honestly. Where did you learn to fly?
Thank you :) most of my knowledge of recent changes was acquired in 1994
when my intended 2 week family visit to Kiev turned into a three and a half
month adventure working for a US organization there and pushing their
interests through the local maze of "the way it's done there" ;) If it
wouldn't be for that, I probably wouldn't have a slightest clue.
As per learning to fly, I have posted my Born in the USSR story awhile ago
which pretty much covers my first inroads into aviation, it's at
http://www.maxho.com/ussr . And here in the US for the first few years since
arrival in 1989 could be euphimistically described "as learnin' to earn a
buck" (I had my first job in the US 8 days after arrival, at local Mcdonald's
;) so until year and a half ago flying was mostly out of my reach. But that
was because I spent an awful lot travelling, lived full-time anywhere for
about a year or two each in Phoenix, Houston, Miami and NYC more permanently
on and off. So my true flying began with CFA(avoid them like plague) at CDW
and then moving to neighboring FBO with real nice folks (who changed my
cynical view on "not nice" people in aviation, acquired in CFA), then polished
somewhat with Scottsdale Flyers in SDL and Phoenix East in Daytona Beach, and
back to CDW which is pretty much my homebase right now.
To top this all off, to say that I love flying would be an understatement, I
fly an awful lot for a private pilot, probably more than an average non-CFI
timebuilder, but I don't have even a slightest intention on becoming an
airline pilot, I just wanna be the best darn private pilot there is :)
Ashley Connell
needed any help starting them.
Mike Rapoport
Ashley Connell wrote in message <39bdae04...@news.cox-internet.com>...
Vance Cochrane
APU that is used to start the engine.
> The biggest drawback to these airplanes is that you need an air starter and
> not very many places have them, so you can't just fly around and land where
> you want.
vec
Ron Natalie
Ditch wrote:
>
> >Doesn't Standard Airworthiness Certificate mean a type certification, i.e
> >applicable to the whole series like Bonanzas and Debonairs, eg? Or there is
> >a provision to just take one unique aircraft and certify it? What a shame
> >for not certifying the whole type ;-/
> >
>
> I'm not sure. I know guy that owned an Albatross (The Grumman kind) that was
> in the experimental catagory.
Most of the Grumman Albatrosses are in the Restricted category (moved over
from the military long ago) or Experimental.
We were talking about the Czech jets though.
Mike Rapoport
they had an APU.
Mike
MU-2
Vance Cochrane wrote in message <3A35C437...@slip.net>...
Michael
> Just one interesting caveat. What if it's not N-registered? Let's say
she's
> a Canadian (I dunno their laws, they might be even tougher, who knows) or
> Bermudan, Jamaican, Mexican whatever, and is registered there as a
standard
> aircraft (y'know those places down south, one can register an elephant as
an
> aircraft for a few pesos). Same thing could apply for a pilot certificate,
> once could convert it into a carbon copy in the country of registry. Then
I
> probably could fly it all over the place, and as long as I comply with
ICAO
> rules and US FAR's, well "sorry, senor, no spoika inglizi ;0)"
>
> This is one of those "russian business" things I'm talking about, one
learns
> to think like that :)
Won't do you any good. For purposes of flight over its own territories, any
ICAO member need not honor a pilot certificate issued to one of its own
citizens by another member state.
In other words, if you are a Mexican pilot flying a Mexican registered
aircraft in the US, you're covered. If you're a US citizen with a Mexican
ticket in a Mexican registered aircraft, they don't have to let you fly.
Michael
k...@ki-aikido.com
HECTOP <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote:
>Just one interesting caveat. What if it's not N-registered? Let's say she's
>a Canadian (I dunno their laws, they might be even tougher, who knows) or
>Bermudan, Jamaican, Mexican whatever, and is registered there as a standard
>aircraft (y'know those places down south, one can register an elephant as an
>aircraft for a few pesos).
I imagine the airplane would then have to be based out of the country,
no? I just brought a plane in from Canada and step 1 was to get a US
registration and CoA since it was going to be based in the US.
Hoping down to the Islands every time you want to fly the plane would
probably reduce it's utility more than faxing the FSDO every time you
want to fly :-).
HECTOP
> Hoping down to the Islands every time you want to fly the plane would
> probably reduce it's utility more than faxing the FSDO every time you
> want to fly :-).
That certainly would be burdensome, and I brought this up just for the sake
of discussion the options. But most likely FAA has established time frames
that an non-US aircraft can be based/flown in the US without need to be US
registered, especially if it's owned by a foreign corporation. And opening
one off-shore is not rocket science and then registering the aircraft to it.
There are quite a few Mexican biz-jets circulating between Signature Flight
bases (I've seen one and the same plane at several bases every now and then)
probly on some Mexican business or whatever. So it's just a matter of flying
the aircraft every so often off-shore to comply with the "time based in the
US" limitation, and then on back. I'm sure that FAA and IRS would most
likely frown upon this, but unless there's a law broken, that's all they can
do.
HECTOP
> In other words, if you are a Mexican pilot flying a Mexican registered
> aircraft in the US, you're covered. If you're a US citizen with a Mexican
> ticket in a Mexican registered aircraft, they don't have to let you fly.
You could be right, but I'd really like to see a related FAR or another
regulatory statement on that.
Ron Natalie
HECTOP wrote:
>
> k...@ki-aikido.com wrote:
> > Hoping down to the Islands every time you want to fly the plane would
> > probably reduce it's utility more than faxing the FSDO every time you
> > want to fly :-).
>
> That certainly would be burdensome, and I brought this up just for the sake
> of discussion the options. But most likely FAA has established time frames
> that an non-US aircraft can be based/flown in the US without need to be US
> registered, especially if it's owned by a foreign corporation.
It's a no brainer for civil airliners of established airworthiness standards
(like the Mexican Lears). Ex-military trainers are a different story.
Ron Natalie
HECTOP wrote:
>
> Michael <cre...@flash.net> wrote:
> > In other words, if you are a Mexican pilot flying a Mexican registered
> > aircraft in the US, you're covered. If you're a US citizen with a Mexican
> > ticket in a Mexican registered aircraft, they don't have to let you fly.
>
> You could be right, but I'd really like to see a related FAR or another
> regulatory statement on that.
14 CFR 375.
Michael's statement appears not to hold for the US policy. They will
accept a foreign certificate (even if the holder is a US citizen).
Or you can fly it under your US certificate (if your certificate
covers it). Of course, all the ICAO stuff only applies to civil
aircraft. Do the Czech's consider the L39 a civil aircraft? If you
register it in a third ICAO state there are additional hoops
that the member state needs to meet inorder to get the reciprocity.
HECTOP
> It's a no brainer for civil airliners of established airworthiness standards
> (like the Mexican Lears). Ex-military trainers are a different story.
Well the key criteria here would be "used for transportation", under one or
another countries law that aircraft can be registered under their
equivalent of Part 135 and be a certified as a transport (even painted white
and yellow with Don Pedro's Aerotaxi logo" ;). After all one seat
can be used to transport a pax, and de facto can be used as a mean of
transportation, I don't think that'd be much of a legal onus for a good
aviation lawyer.
I just skimmed over applicable paragraphs of Part 91 and it seems to be
fairly unrestrictive to foreign registered civil aircraft, pretty much
saying "as long as you do as Romans do" you're ok (unless the bird is on
Cuban register, but that's whole different Elian altogether). There are some
caveats for jet/turbine aircraft, but those mostly refer to ecological
regulations.
The irony is that I can fly a RA- registered An-2 for example over Bering Strait
into Alaska and have more priviliges with it than if I bought it in the US
N-registered, complied with all inspections and certificated (ex-ex). C'est
la vie.
All in all this scheme probably could be legalized and safeguarded by
retaining a good aviation lawyer (and I know one who represents Airbus here in the
US). That of course gives me no reason other than to dream about that bird,
as I've mentioned before about being sober enough no to put myself into a
plane I can't handle proficiently and won't touch unless I'm well trained in
jets to begin with.
Now the cost of retaining a lawyer and other aspects vs investing extra into
just getting a Standard Certificate and not playing chicken with the law
might favor the latter after all.
Ron Natalie
HECTOP wrote:
>
> I just skimmed over applicable paragraphs of Part 91 and it seems to be
> fairly unrestrictive to foreign registered civil aircraft, pretty much
> saying "as long as you do as Romans do" you're ok (unless the bird is on
> Cuban register, but that's whole different Elian altogether). There are some
> caveats for jet/turbine aircraft, but those mostly refer to ecological
> regulations.
That's because Part 91 doesn't have the rules. I gave you the part numbe
covering operation of foriegn registered civil aircraft.
HECTOP
> That's because Part 91 doesn't have the rules. I gave you the part numbe
> covering operation of foriegn registered civil aircraft.
Thanks :) I'll review the CFR. But to heck with it, I ain't buying an L-39
anytime in foreseeable future.
But having said that, my flying expenses in the last few months began to
exceed $500 a week on rental planes, I'm becoming more and more convinced
that it's about time to think of my own spam can. Will report on progress.
HECTOP
> 14 CFR 375.
I just turned www.faa.gov/avr and altavista upside down looking for that
part to no avail, maybe you have a link?
Ron Natalie
HECTOP wrote:
>
> Ron Natalie <r...@sensor.com> wrote:
> > 14 CFR 375.
>
> I just turned www.faa.gov/avr and altavista upside down looking for that
> part to no avail, maybe you have a link?
>
Most of the sites only have 1-199. I recommend the Summit Aviation CDROM.
I've got just about every piece of interest FAA pub loaded on my harddisk
now.
HECTOP
> Most of the sites only have 1-199. I recommend the Summit Aviation CDROM.
> I've got just about every piece of interest FAA pub loaded on my harddisk
> now.
Thanks, I'll see to getting myself one.
Mike Rapoport
Mike
MU-2
Ron Natalie wrote in message <3A36949...@sensor.com>...
Ditch
Yes I know...I started the thread.
-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*
Jerry Kurata
"Ditch" <gove...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20001211141817...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
> What is this aircraft registered as? Experimental Exhibition? Thanks...
>
>
Ditch
I heard about that. That is what prompted the question I asked. They are
thinking they are going to put it on line, but if it is in the Experimental
catagory, it ain't gonna happen.
sta...@nospamflightleveldesign.com
<rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I know a couple of people who have L-39s and they are about $350hr to
>operate. They are a LOT cheaper to fly than a real jet fighter or P-51.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
>
mike, sorry, but that is just not even close to being true. if they
are operating it for 350/hour, they are doing so with free fuel. how
do i know this? i am director of operations for a company that
operates one (N39DF). the TRUE D.O.C.s are around $1100 -$1500 an
hour, depending on whether or not you are taking set asides for an
overhaul on the cycle limited engine, or have a spare that came with
the sale and are simply planning on replacing the run out engine.
further, to the person that said they are a handful to fly, the L-39
is one of the sweetest, easiest to fly turbine powered aircraft in the
world. it has a straight wing, simple systems, huge tires and brakes,
trailing link gear, the list goes on and on. remember, this aircraft
was designed to be flown (and maintained) by eastern block trainees.
the most difficult thing about transitioning into the L-39 is learning
how to taxi it, as it has a fairly awkward system involving the stick
mounted handbrake (which looks and feels just like the brake level on
a schwinn bicycle) which must be squeezed while depressing a rudder
pedal past a detent which deactivates the opposite wheel's brakes, and
then swings over the castoring nosewheel.
as for flight charactersitics, the one thing most people don't like
about it is the fact that after you have busted ass trying to get it
to spin, it is, despite being a very tight, fast spin, almost too easy
to recover from. other than that it is very, very easy to fly. speed
control, for example: if you need to slow down/go down NOW, is
accomplished by a belly mounted speed brake that will literally push
you into the straps when activated. that way you can hold thrust
output for when you retract and nail your altitude while holding
airspeed at the bottom.
as for prices, you can pick one up for between $100 - $125K, ready for
re-assembly. they are airworthy, after a fashion, but the systems and
labels are written in either czech, russian, or eastern-european
language of the month. most hire someone to "americanize" them, like
we did, swapping out some of the systems and most of the instruments
and indicators. bottom line, for about $300K TOTAL you have an
absolutely gorgeous, easy to fly, fairly fast (plan on block speeds
around 380 - 400 MPH for flight planning purposes) aircraft. ours
came in at that with a 0-time engine, leather interior, king-based
ifr avionics, bose stereo, and prismatic paint. another great thing
about this aircraft is that it is powered by a Stage III noise
compliant turbofan. launch at 0600 and you are literally quieter than
the citation in line behind you.
as for certification, they are ALL experimental/exhibition. period.
you have to list upon registration the airports within 600 nm you
think you will fly to on a regular basis; beyond that range, you
simply send a fax with destination and time to your local fsdo and
launch.
take a look at our website: www.jetcams.com pictures/specs galore
and a heck of a wallpaper shot on the gallery page. we call it the
bird of play.
alan staats
sta...@NOSPAMflightleveldesign.com
www.flightleveldesign.com
sta...@nospamflightleveldesign.com
<rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>The biggest drawback to these airplanes is that you need an air starter and
>not very many places have them, so you can't just fly around and land where
>you want.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
mike, where are you getting this information? that is also completely
false. the aircraft has a self contained apu.
alan staats
sta...@NOSPAMflightleveldesign.com
www.flightleveldesign.com
sta...@nospamflightleveldesign.com
>Ditch <gove...@aol.compost> wrote:
>> What is this aircraft registered as? Experimental Exhibition? Thanks...
>
>Sadly it is only Experimental/Exhibition.
>
>Just found a site full of US info for L-39, complete with Q&A including
>certification info. Take a look at http://www.l39.com
>
>--
>HECTOP
>PP-ASEL/BOFH
>http://www.maxho.com
>maxho_at_maxho.com
...one last thing: we brought ours up to this year's reno as a second
pace plane (or safety plane) for the unlimiteds. after talking and
brainstorming with airboss rick van dam, we came up with the L-39
class which will debut at next year's reno ncar. 7 identical L-39s
will be raced on the unlimited course, flown by the top seven pilots
from the unlimited, sport racing, t-6 classes. RARA has signed off on
the idea, as has the FAA and insurance carriers. should be fun.
alan staats
sta...@NOSPAMflightleveldesign.com
www.flightleveldesign.com
HECTOP
> further, to the person that said they are a handful to fly, the L-39
> is one of the sweetest, easiest to fly turbine powered aircraft in the
I said it, and to me a Cessna driver it probably will be a handful to fly.
I'm way past the point of underappreciating any new step in flying,
especially a radically new type. You've just gotta give the due respect to
anything you haven't done flying yet, or else it'll come back after you with
a big stick.
> world. it has a straight wing, simple systems, huge tires and brakes,
> trailing link gear, the list goes on and on. remember, this aircraft
> was designed to be flown (and maintained) by eastern block trainees.
i.e. idiots? right? trainees all over the world are pretty much the same,
some are overly shy, some are overly confident. But all deserve a chance.
> you into the straps when activated. that way you can hold thrust
> output for when you retract and nail your altitude while holding
That doesn't sound like a good flying to me. Unless done aerobatically, if
pilot can't manage his aircraft's speed and attitude properly without having
himself thrown all over the cockpit, he shouldn't be flying that bird solo
in the first place.
> labels are written in either czech, russian, or eastern-european
> language of the month. most hire someone to "americanize" them, like
No problemo, got native russian here, najdetsa byk, byla korova by...
> we did, swapping out some of the systems and most of the instruments
> and indicators. bottom line, for about $300K TOTAL you have an
> absolutely gorgeous, easy to fly, fairly fast (plan on block speeds
> around 380 - 400 MPH for flight planning purposes) aircraft. ours
> came in at that with a 0-time engine, leather interior, king-based
> ifr avionics, bose stereo, and prismatic paint. another great thing
> about this aircraft is that it is powered by a Stage III noise
> compliant turbofan. launch at 0600 and you are literally quieter than
> the citation in line behind you.
You are trying to sell us one or two, aren't you? ;)
> take a look at our website: www.jetcams.com pictures/specs galore
> and a heck of a wallpaper shot on the gallery page. we call it the
> bird of play.
Sure will, sure is ;)
sta...@nospamflightleveldesign.com
>sta...@nospamflightleveldesign.com wrote:
>> further, to the person that said they are a handful to fly, the L-39
>> is one of the sweetest, easiest to fly turbine powered aircraft in the
>
>I said it, and to me a Cessna driver it probably will be a handful to fly.
>I'm way past the point of underappreciating any new step in flying,
>especially a radically new type. You've just gotta give the due respect to
>anything you haven't done flying yet, or else it'll come back after you with
>a big stick.
the operative term is "turbine powered." can your average cessna
pilot transition into one? yes. does he or she need to pay close
attention? yes? is it as difficult as moving up to, say, a 30 series
lear, or a falcon 10/100 or a westwind II? not by a very long shot.
>
>> world. it has a straight wing, simple systems, huge tires and brakes,
>> trailing link gear, the list goes on and on. remember, this aircraft
>> was designed to be flown (and maintained) by eastern block trainees.
>
>i.e. idiots? right? trainees all over the world are pretty much the same,
>some are overly shy, some are overly confident. But all deserve a chance.
no. not idiots at all. historically, eastern bloc armed forces tend
towards simpler, more robust and easier to maintain armaments,
including aircraft, fielded in larger numbers than their western
counterparts. compare it to a pinto or a tweety of the same era
simply on the basis of flight hours to maintenance manhours, tool
requirements and such...
>
>> you into the straps when activated. that way you can hold thrust
>> output for when you retract and nail your altitude while holding
>
>That doesn't sound like a good flying to me. Unless done aerobatically, if
>pilot can't manage his aircraft's speed and attitude properly without having
>himself thrown all over the cockpit, he shouldn't be flying that bird solo
>in the first place.
ludicrous assumption and conclusion. fly something slick sometime;
then get asked to expedite your descent while holding it under 250.
>
>> labels are written in either czech, russian, or eastern-european
>> language of the month. most hire someone to "americanize" them, like
>
>No problemo, got native russian here, najdetsa byk, byla korova by...
sorry, only russian i know is yup tv*** maht. in flight, i'd prefer
to try and read english, for the sake of expedience.
>
>> we did, swapping out some of the systems and most of the instruments
>> and indicators. bottom line, for about $300K TOTAL you have an
>> absolutely gorgeous, easy to fly, fairly fast (plan on block speeds
>> around 380 - 400 MPH for flight planning purposes) aircraft. ours
>> came in at that with a 0-time engine, leather interior, king-based
>> ifr avionics, bose stereo, and prismatic paint. another great thing
>> about this aircraft is that it is powered by a Stage III noise
>> compliant turbofan. launch at 0600 and you are literally quieter than
>> the citation in line behind you.
>
>You are trying to sell us one or two, aren't you? ;)
nope. but you can hire us to shoot for you, at dawn, out of john
wayne in socal, and the neighbors won't mind at all.
>
>> take a look at our website: www.jetcams.com pictures/specs galore
>> and a heck of a wallpaper shot on the gallery page. we call it the
>> bird of play.
>
>Sure will, sure is ;)
thanks.
>
>--
>HECTOP
>PP-ASEL/BOFH
>http://www.maxho.com
>maxho_at_maxho.com
alan staats
sta...@NOSPAMflightleveldesign.com
www.flightleveldesign.com
HECTOP
> On 13 Dec 2000 13:22:32 -0500, HECTOP <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote:
> attention? yes? is it as difficult as moving up to, say, a 30 series
> lear, or a falcon 10/100 or a westwind II? not by a very long shot.
Well, in a recent post I expressed my opinion on skill and judgement
ratio, sure you can teach a grasshopper to fly a jet in 20 hours, but can
you make him think like a jet pilot should, in the same timeframe?
> no. not idiots at all. historically, eastern bloc armed forces tend
> towards simpler, more robust and easier to maintain armaments,
Yup, that's always been the pre-emptive concern and feature of anything
russian (hence Warsaw Pact too), planes, tanks, trains, whatever. But I
was about to go into a lengthy tirade about "whattdoya think, it was
mongolians who chased your gramp's outta Korea and 'Nam"? ;>
> ludicrous assumption and conclusion. fly something slick sometime;
> then get asked to expedite your descent while holding it under 250.
Since you know what you're talking about, right. But still I'm all for attitude
flying first and mechanics second. I just transitioned from all kinds of
regular 172's into a complex RG, and it's like night and day compared to the
former. Slick and fast (for a spam can), and a handful try to slow'er down
from 130KIAS cruise into 75KIAS straight-in or base-to final without using gear and
flaps, but just this morning I exercised just that and with some planning and
thinking ahead of the plane, it can be done (good practice). As per expediting descent,
(not in the context described above) slowing down to Vfe, dumping all flaps and gear,
carb heat and throttle out, nose'er over and she's descending like a Buick LeSabre all
at 75KIAS as the doctor ordered. That works in a 172RG, I see no reason for similar technique
not to work in other planes as well.
> sorry, only russian i know is yup tv*** maht. in flight, i'd prefer
> to try and read english, for the sake of expedience.
that's "yob tvoyu mahts", "tvoyu" being "your's" :))
works great for distracting a russkie in a dog-fight ;>
>>> take a look at our website: www.jetcams.com pictures/specs galore
Very interesting sites, looks like you've aced both flying and photography
:)
Best regards
sta...@nospamflightleveldesign.com
>
>Well, in a recent post I expressed my opinion on skill and judgement
>ratio, sure you can teach a grasshopper to fly a jet in 20 hours, but can
>you make him think like a jet pilot should, in the same timeframe?
depends on the student... lufthansa regularly puts their ab initio
people in to the right seat of a 737 with far less than 500 hours...
they start in A-36 bonanzas and work their way up to barons, cheyenne
IIIs and then 73's. and the process works, too. look at their safety
record. ditto with the military (not the safety record, obviously);
remember, this aircraft was intended as a military aircraft first, to
be flown by people who eat, sleep and breathe aviation 24/7
>
>> no. not idiots at all. historically, eastern bloc armed forces tend
>> towards simpler, more robust and easier to maintain armaments,
>
>Yup, that's always been the pre-emptive concern and feature of anything
>russian (hence Warsaw Pact too), planes, tanks, trains, whatever. But I
>was about to go into a lengthy tirade about "whattdoya think, it was
>mongolians who chased your gramp's outta Korea and 'Nam"? ;>
i could tell. look at kursk for the perfect example of that
philosophy of numbers; as to korea and nam, well, that is open to
interpretation. personally, i blamed johnson and mcnamara.
>
>> ludicrous assumption and conclusion. fly something slick sometime;
>> then get asked to expedite your descent while holding it under 250.
>
>Since you know what you're talking about, right. But still I'm all for attitude
>flying first and mechanics second. I just transitioned from all kinds of
>regular 172's into a complex RG, and it's like night and day compared to the
>former. Slick and fast (for a spam can), and a handful try to slow'er down
>from 130KIAS cruise into 75KIAS straight-in or base-to final without using gear and
>flaps, but just this morning I exercised just that and with some planning and
>thinking ahead of the plane, it can be done (good practice). As per expediting descent,
>(not in the context described above) slowing down to Vfe, dumping all flaps and gear,
>carb heat and throttle out, nose'er over and she's descending like a Buick LeSabre all
>at 75KIAS as the doctor ordered. That works in a 172RG, I see no reason for similar technique
>not to work in other planes as well.
>
...and so it does. watch a high performance aircraft in an overhead
break sometime; at about 90 degrees into the break, the gear is on
the way down, and the flaps are transitioning. it not only looks and
feels great, it works.
>> sorry, only russian i know is yup tv*** maht. in flight, i'd prefer
>> to try and read english, for the sake of expedience.
>
>that's "yob tvoyu mahts", "tvoyu" being "your's" :))
>works great for distracting a russkie in a dog-fight ;>
well, mishka only told me how to pronounce it, not how to spell it.
it might help to end a "dog-fight", but it can start a bar-fight.
>
>>>> take a look at our website: www.jetcams.com pictures/specs galore
>> www.flightleveldesign.com
>
>Very interesting sites, looks like you've aced both flying and photography
>:)
>
thank you, again.
alan staats
sta...@NOSPAMflightleveldesign.com
www.flightleveldesign.com
HECTOP
> depends on the student... lufthansa regularly puts their ab initio
> people in to the right seat of a 737 with far less than 500 hours...
> they start in A-36 bonanzas and work their way up to barons, cheyenne
Yeah I've seen Sabena guys training in Archers and Senecas at SDL for same
purpose. Well it's a euro-thing, beyond me, I won't even try understand ;)
> i could tell. look at kursk for the perfect example of that
Kursk was a military disaster that could've happened to anyone, and happened
to the US subs as well. A la guerre comme a la guerre.
> ...and so it does. watch a high performance aircraft in an overhead
> break sometime; at about 90 degrees into the break, the gear is on
> the way down, and the flaps are transitioning. it not only looks and
> feels great, it works.
Yeah I've been aboard aplenty Tower Air 747's where the crews couldn't give
less toss about the livestock they were carrying, throwing those spoilers
all open on approach and unbelted pax flying into the seat in front ;)
I can still feel all the noise and rattle they made, but heck for $79
one-way to MIA had to put up with.
Blue skies
sta...@nospamflightleveldesign.com
>
>Kursk was a military disaster that could've happened to anyone, and happened
>to the US subs as well. A la guerre comme a la guerre.
>
...no. the tank battle AT kursk.
alan staats
sta...@NOSPAMflightleveldesign.com
www.flightleveldesign.com
HECTOP
> On 13 Dec 2000 16:06:46 -0500, HECTOP <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote:
> ...no. the tank battle AT kursk.
gagagagagaga :))))))
/* hiding under the couch */
Mike Rapoport
considered the L-39. I remembered that it had an airstarter but didn't
recall that it had an APU. I decided for various reasons not to pursue the
sport plane idea. I have a friend in Boise that has one and another local
guy (KMEV) has one, but I never got interested enough to go fly one.
Mike
MU-2
sta...@NOSPAMflightleveldesign.com wrote in message
<3a37b9cf...@news.primenet.com>...
Roger Halstead
--
Roger Halstead (K8RI) www.RogerHalstead.com
N833R World's Oldest Debonair? s# CD-2
<sta...@NOSPAMflightleveldesign.com> wrote in message
news:3a37caf1...@news.primenet.com...
> On 13 Dec 2000 13:22:32 -0500, HECTOP <ma...@remove.maxho.com> wrote:
>
> >sta...@nospamflightleveldesign.com wrote:
> >> further, to the person that said they are a handful to fly, the L-39
> >> is one of the sweetest, easiest to fly turbine powered aircraft in the
<snip>
> >> you into the straps when activated. that way you can hold thrust
> >> output for when you retract and nail your altitude while holding
> >
> >That doesn't sound like a good flying to me. Unless done aerobatically,
if
> >pilot can't manage his aircraft's speed and attitude properly without
having
> >himself thrown all over the cockpit, he shouldn't be flying that bird
solo
> >in the first place.
>
> ludicrous assumption and conclusion. fly something slick sometime;
> then get asked to expedite your descent while holding it under 250.
There is an old saying about almost all high performance whether piston or
turbine. You can come down, or slow down easily, but not both at the same
time.
After a thousand hours in a Debonair I can keep the speed up much closer in
than I could 10 years ago. Far closer than I'd have even attempted back
then.
Roger (K8RI)
George R. Patterson III
>
> I know a couple of people who have L-39s and they are about $350hr to
> operate. They are a LOT cheaper to fly than a real jet fighter or P-51.
A few years ago, the owner of Red Star aviation posted that his fuel
costs were about $300/hour.
George Patterson, N3162Q.
Mike Rapoport
fuel at my home field. Even at $2, fuel wouldn't be $300/hr.
Mike
MU-2
George R. Patterson III wrote in message
<3A3A46BC...@earthlink.net>...