Comments on: 2 Sukhoi SU-27UB Aircraft for sale on the open U.S. Market

By: Alemu Shiferaw

Alemu Shiferaw — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:58:11 +0000

our company went to overhaul 3 su-27 aircraft in your company p/s send me overhaul cost?

By: Fabrizio

Fabrizio — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 05:27:23 +0000

Those planes do NOT belong in a museum! They have basically 0 fly hours. Whoever stated they belong in a museum doesn’t understand a shit about aeronautic. In a museum belong planes with 30 years of service that can’t fly any longer due to over stress. James, get out of here.

By: john youngs

john youngs — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:33:28 +0000

Ejection seats are perfectly legal within the US – most jet warbirds (F-86 Sabres, F-104 Starfighters, MiG-21′s, MiG-17′s, etc; have them. The only requirement for ejection seats is that you are required to notify the airport manager (staff) of the airfield (or the local sheriff’s office if it’s an un-controlled field) the plane is based at, that you have an aircraft with explosive-powered seats. This is because of the potential of the hazards of fighting a possible fire around a plane so-equipped. This is an FAA regulation.

By: James

James — Tue, 04 May 2010 21:04:34 +0000

Have either of those planes sold yet?

By: ronald bean

ronald bean — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:54:01 +0000

I’ll buy those planes, do they come with experienced pilots, I’ll give the pilots 100,000 per year. I got a J.E.T. mission coming up and need to train my flac boys.

By: erhue

erhue — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:23:04 +0000

These planes are solely suitable for purchase by a very rich enthusiast, because having almost zero- time engines doesn’t make sense for a museum.

By: Scott Schaefer

Scott Schaefer — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:01:32 +0000

What a great toy for the person that can afford it and qualify to fly it!

Are ejection seats allowed in a demilitarized military plane? I thought that they were prohibited in the US with the exception of active military planes. Ejection would be the way to get out of a un salvageable situation. Bailing out of this aircraft or attempting to land dead stick really are not options.

By: James

James — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:18:01 +0000

What I am thinking is Tonopah and the testing of foreign military aircraft that still is ongoing even though the original program that had us flying Mig-17′s, 21′s and the 23′s was terminated in 1989. And what I am thinking is the price is not too bad especially if you want intel on those planes like you sampled with the Moldavian Mig-29′s. Most definitely, I am surprised the Air Force did not spring for greenbucks to buy the pair once it came to Rockport Illinois last year.

Ultimately, the best use for those two is museum pieces. I can envision one at National Museum of the Air Force and the other at Udvar Hazy Museum. Deep pockets are needed and one who can easily afford them is aviation enthusiast Paul Allen who is close buddy and co-founder of Microsoft with Bill Gates. A cut rate deal of 7 million can be negotiatied for the pair and they can be flown to their respective museums by USAF pilots or hauled there by truck..

By: John Morgan

John Morgan — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:27:20 +0000

Scott, there is no provision for fuel as underwing stores on any variant of the SU-27. All fuel is internal and all u/w hardpoints are for weapons. ALL weapons capability has been permanently removed from these a/c. This makes these SU’s the cleanest, lightest and best performing SU-27UB’s anywhere in the world!

Best Regards, John Morgan

By: scottfmurphy

scottfmurphy — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:28:30 +0000

Daniel,
I’ll try to answer your questions as best I can:

You’re correct, with the hard points removed there is no accommodation for extended range drop tanks.

I guess I should clarify the US restriction, they’re not restricted from flying outside the US, they’re restricted from being sold to any non US buyers – for obvious export reasons.

As for the training required to operate them, the guys at Pride indicated that you’d have to have a minimum of 1000 hours PIC and experience in high G conditions. They said that anyone who had been flying something like the L-39 would easily be able to transition into the Flanker. There is no type rating required to go faster than the speed of sound, you would have to go out into international waters. There is apparently a restriction on Mach if you have a US Pilot Certificate unless you receive special permission from the FAA – not a type rating, but “special permission”. I assume that if you did go faster than sound over international waters and didn’t have special permission, you would be violated when you got back into US airspace.

I’m not sure why the information was taken down, I do know that the jets have not been sold as of this comment.

Hope that helps!