Blue Angels F-18A Hornet on E-Bay

On 2/6/04 12:04 AM, in article
. net, "Joe Delphi"
wrote:



http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/S...18/973/973.htm


From the photos it appears that the wings have been cut off and the canopy
removed. Also looks like nose landing gear is missing. It definitely
looks like it needs more than a "once over" to me.

JD




Lot 6... Probably needs a lot of work with regard to engineering support and
depot-level mods depending on when it flew last.

I've seen a few jets-turned-private... and the more complex the jet, the
more I wonder how these folks truly maintain them. In the case of the
F/A-18, it's a pretty complex game.

--Woody

NO!
Nobdy can buy any military aircraft that is still supported by FMS
without definitive approval from the State department PERIOD, it's
definitely a bogus ad.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:55:10 -0500, "Mr Smith"
wrote:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 72


What do you guys think ??

Legit or bogus ?

Sorry, but that is false. There have been several privately owned A4's
(while the A4 was still in service) a handful of T-38's and 2 F-5's flying
today with private ownership. FAA registered. Not only are the T-38 and F-5
supersonic, they both could be loaded out with weapons. (That would not be
legal but the ability is there)

I had the opportunity to fly one of the F-5s and an A-37 so I know this is
factual. I personally know a gentleman who owns and flies an A-37
regularly. He has one the most impressive collections of military aircraft
one could own. T-34, T-28, P-51, F4U along with his A-37 and several
others.

If I had the time or inkling, I could go the FAA site and compile a list of
privately owned "current" US military fighter, attack and trainer aircraft.

Jake

PS - All CIA and NASA birds are registered civil aircraft and could be, if
these agencies so desired, sold to private concerns. I included the CIA as
many CIA aircraft used in SE Asia made their way back to the US in private
hands and are still being flown today. (Mary, I know some of the NASA birds
would NEVER be sold)



"fudog50" wrote in message
...
NO!
Nobdy can buy any military aircraft that is still supported by FMS
without definitive approval from the State department PERIOD, it's
definitely a bogus ad.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:55:10 -0500, "Mr Smith"
wrote:



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 72


What do you guys think ??

Legit or bogus ?

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 17:00:51 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

PS - All CIA and NASA birds are registered civil aircraft and could be, if
these agencies so desired, sold to private concerns. I included the CIA as
many CIA aircraft used in SE Asia made their way back to the US in private
hands and are still being flown today. (Mary, I know some of the NASA birds
would NEVER be sold)

Well, sort of. We assign N-numbers to them, but we don't always
bother to tell the FAA which numbers go with which airplanes. I was
looking at the N8nnNA registrations one time and found that the only
two aircraft listed had been given to museums a while back.

We also really can't sell them, exactly. We have to put them on the
surplus list, the same way every other agency has to. The list is
circulated in-agency, within Federal agencies, and then to state,
county, etc, agencies in order. Only after every governmental agency
in the entire United States, including the Antelope Valley Mosquito
Abatement District, has failed to request the item can it be sold to
the public. And I think that GSA handles the actual sale.

We surplused the C-47 Gooneybird and a large public university in the
south picked it up. It was in flyable condition, too. In fact, we
made a mistake and sent the N-number with it and had to have them
re-number it because we didn't mean to include the N-number (we
couldn't, actually, because these aren't transferrable).

In case you're ever thinking of buying anything off the gov't surplus
lists, let me give you a little warning. Don't expect to get an
unappreciated treasure this way.

We usually don't surplus our aircraft because they're either research
aircraft, promised to a museum, or ex-military aircraft, with
restrictions on disposal (or both). Typically, the support aircraft
get turned into displays or gate guards. We gave the city of
Lancaster a clapped-out old F-18 for the baseball stadium; the stadium
is "The Hangar", where the Jet Hawks play, and the city fathers
thought that every hangar needs an airplane, I guess. A few years
later, the USAF gave the city an F-4D to put by the Metrolink station.

The KingAirs would probably be surplused, though, since they're just
stock airplanes, with FAA certifications and everything. They've been
maintained to FAA standards, too. But we'll fly them until they
really can't be operated properly because it's so hard to get
replacements.

Then there was the PA-30 Piper Twin Comanche....

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Bogus-AFAIK, it is not legal to buy a current combat (or previous for that
matter) aircraft as these are owned by the US gov't and are leased to the
military, essentially.

This was an issue when some private buyers wanted to buy an F-8...had to get
it from France, not the US, when many were still at D-M...

Samo with the F-104 'what's his name' had...he bought it literally in pieces,
as in 'cut up'...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

(Pechs1) wrote:
Bogus-AFAIK, it is not legal to buy a current
combat (or previous for that
matter) aircraft as these are owned by the US
gov't and are leased to the
military, essentially.

This was an issue when some private buyers
wanted to buy an F-8...had to get
it from France, not the US, when many were still
at D-M...

Samo with the F-104 'what's his name' had...he
bought it literally in pieces,
as in 'cut up'...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter
and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
I seem to remember a U.S. News and World Report article in '98 about stuff
falling thru cracks in the system: they mentioned a retired USN A-6 pilot
who went to AMARC and left with an airworthy A-6E. Engines, starter cart,
etc. He didn't intend to fly it, he did put it up at the entrance to his
horse ranch as sort of a gate guard.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Mr Smith wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ategory=46 72

What do you guys think ??

Legit or bogus ?

I say Legit,, However

appears to be what they claim..

http://www.airwarbirds.com/f_a-18_pics.htm

However I doubt that the F-18 could be flyable.
their website sez that the aircraft is complete, but judging from the photos
it appears to be some "damage" may just be photo angle.
but since this company flies military aircraft, and is offering this
bird for such a low price, I'll bet that its not flyable, and would be good
for display or movie work only...... OR IF it could be made flyable
for several millions invested past the purchase price.

dano- It seems to me that the A-4 might actually be a good candidate for
private ownership. It's relatively small and simple, mostly electrical,
electromechanical and hydraulic I assume (not of the complexity of the
60s, 70s, 80s), single engine BRBR

I think the only 'gotchas' would be slat rigging, which is certainly an art in
itself. A poorly rigged slat could spell disaster.

The other is the ejection seat in the 'E' model, which I would not ever sit in.
Bug Roach's seat failed in the 'E' he was flying, the rocket motor failed and
he hit the tail as he went out. A static test of 10 rocket motors in storage
had 7 failures. I grounded my 'E' models and refused to fly them after that.
Just wrapped them up, took them outta reporting and looked for ways to get them
to D-M.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

I think the only 'gotchas' would be slat rigging, which is certainly an
art in
itself. A poorly rigged slat could spell disaster.

Not usually a problem if only called upon to do their job in 1 G level
flight. It's slat behavior in the flight regime at 300+KIAS that mark the
work of a capable airframes shop.

R / John

A poorly rigged slat could spell disaster.

Not usually a problem if only called upon to do their job in 1 G level
flight. It's slat behavior in the flight regime at 300+KIAS that mark the
work of a capable airframes shop.

OK, I've never been there, or done that. But it seems to me that the slats
are *really* simple. Obviously I'm missing something here. What is it
about the design and/or maintenance of the slats that requires "a capable
airframes shop?"