dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) (07/20/89)
>Me too! Unfortunately the US military wants to keep jet aviation all to >itself, so even its tamer aircraft are never sold to civilians. (Both >the Starfighter and the T-38 were rebuilt from hardware that slipped out >basically by accident.) Hypothetical Question: Let's say you just happen to have hit the PA state lottery last April, and walked away with $115 Million. You will receive 5.75 M for 20 years. You save diligently for 6 -7 years. What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from doing the following: 1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever. 2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars. 3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''. 4. Fly away with same after filling the tank. (assuming you already have a license). Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?). dsc@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu David S. Channin Research Fellow Division of Orthopaedic Surgery Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center 717 - 531 - 6698
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/21/89)
In article <8907201027.AA07833@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu> dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) writes: > ... What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from > doing the following: > 1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever. > 2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars. > 3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''. > 4. Fly away with same after filling the tank... > > Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?). The answer to item 3 will be "sorry, that is a USAF aircraft that is not for sale to civilians without government approval". This is partly because the USAF paid for development and "owns the rights" to some degree, and partly because practically all of the military-aircraft manufacturers are utterly dependent on US government business and are desperately anxious not to annoy their big customer. And the US government feels that private citizens should not be allowed to own jet fighters. -- $10 million equals 18 PM | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology (Pentagon-Minutes). -Tom Neff | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (07/21/89)
In article <1989Jul20.184051.19979@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <8907201027.AA07833@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu> dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) writes: >> ... What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from >> doing the following: >> 1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever. >> 2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars. >> 3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''. >> 4. Fly away with same after filling the tank... >> >> Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?). >The answer to item 3 will be "sorry, that is a USAF aircraft that is not >for sale to civilians without government approval". This is partly >because the USAF paid for development and "owns the rights" to some >degree, and partly because practically all of the military-aircraft >manufacturers are utterly dependent on US government business and >are desperately anxious not to annoy their big customer. And the US >government feels that private citizens should not be allowed to own jet >fighters. Change the scenario to: 1. Walk into the Bede offices in wherever. 2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars. 3. Say,``I'd would like that nice BD-5J that's in the showroom''. 4. Fly away with same after filling the tank... and you'll be on your way. Just speaking personally, as a fairly frequent flier, I'd really prefer that fighters be limited-distribution items. There are enough things to worry about, without worrying about some yahoo out there in an F-something with sidewinders at my 747's six. A more practical example is the private F-86 (bought surplus from the RCAF) that hit the Farrell's in Sacramento. I work at a facility that flies high-performance aircraft (F-15, F-16, F-18, F-104, F-111, T-38 currently) and I have some real definite opinions about required piloting skills. We require our test pilots to fly a minimum of 200 hours per year, with specified minimums for each aircraft, to maintain proficiency. That F-86 driver had very low total time, low jet time, and was what I'd consider non-current. I think that there are certain minimums that should be required. Just because you can afford an airplane, doesn't mean you can fly it. Look at the stereotype about MDs and Bonanzas. More incidentally, the reason you can't buy a T-38 is because they're no longer in production. But I don't know why those posters who despise the government and all its fruits are panting to buy those fruits. Let's see some consistancy here! :-) -- M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer Dryden Flight Research Facility Of course I don't speak for NASA
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (07/21/89)
In article <1989Jul20.184051.19979@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <8907201027.AA07833@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu> dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) writes: > > ... What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from > > doing the following: > > 1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever. > > 2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars. > > 3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''. > > 4. Fly away with same after filling the tank... > > > > Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?). > > The answer to item 3 will be "sorry, that is a USAF aircraft that is not > for sale to civilians without government approval". This is partly > [... And the US > government feels that private citizens should not be allowed to own jet > fighters. But, Henry! The T-38 *isn't* a fighter...though I suppose you could add an external gun pod after you got it home. :} You're probably right anyway. Darn.
stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler) (07/21/89)
In article <SHAFER.89Jul20132937@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >>In article <8907201027.AA07833@osteocyber.ortho.hmc.psu.edu> dsc@OSTEOCYBER.ORTHO.HMC.PSU.EDU (david s. channin) writes: >>> ... What are the laws, regulations, etc (if any) that prevent you from >>> doing the following: >>> 1. Walk into the Northrop offices in wherever. >>> 2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars. >>> 3. Say,``I'd would like that nice T-38 that's in the showroom''. >>> 4. Fly away with same after filling the tank... >>> >>> Why wouldn't this scenario work?? (or would it?). > >Change the scenario to: > > 1. Walk into the Bede offices in wherever. > 2. Pull out a bank check for x million dollars. > 3. Say,``I'd would like that nice BD-5J that's in the showroom''. > 4. Fly away with same after filling the tank... > >and you'll be on your way. Just speaking personally, as a fairly >frequent flier, I'd really prefer that fighters be limited-distribution >items. There are enough things to worry about, without worrying about >some yahoo out there in an F-something with sidewinders at my 747's six. > > [...] > >Just because you can afford an airplane, doesn't mean you can fly it. >Look at the stereotype about MDs and Bonanzas. > I used to consider that a stereotype until about the 3rd time a Bonanza tried to run me down.... Why is it always Bonanzas making straight in's at uncontrolled airports? (This probably belongs in rec.aviation) --Andy stadler@apple.com
berry@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Berry Kercheval) (07/21/89)
In article <33335@apple.Apple.COM>, stadler@Apple (Andy Stadler) writes: >I used to consider that a stereotype until about the 3rd time a Bonanza >tried to run me down.... Why is it always Bonanzas making straight in's >at uncontrolled airports? I've noticed that too. I have seen the following happen: Bonanza nearly clips the 152 I'm in AFTER we're cleared to land, and lands ahead of us. He got a license suspension for that... Bonanza goes out Altamont pass (about 900 ft??) VFR when the ceiling was 1100. Bonanza comes to LVK and can't find the airport even though he claims to see the "gravel pits" less than 2 nm SW. Controller has to give him a vector. Bonanza lands gear up at Harris Ranch on 4 July this year (well, I saw the aftermath) Now I have nothing against Bonanzas as aircraft, and I am sure that most Bonanza owners are fine, safe, concientious pilots (Hi, pHIL!), but something seems to attract bozos. Alene calls this the "Cadillac driiver" phenomemon, as she has noticed that a disproportionate number of Cadillacs seem to be driven by jerks. Oddly, though, I was talking to one of the LVK controllers once and he said that the worst things he saw when at SFO were inevitably PanAm planes or Mooneys. He theorized that PanAm captains came in, drove over to PAO and took off in their Mooney... --berry (If you are with PanAm or fly a Mooney or Bonanza, I don't mean to offend you. THese are general observations and not all mine even. Specific people are different; probably MOST Bonanzas, Mooneys and Clippers are fine! It's the few bad apples...)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/22/89)
In article <SHAFER.89Jul20132937@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >... Just speaking personally, as a fairly >frequent flier, I'd really prefer that fighters be limited-distribution >items. There are enough things to worry about, without worrying about >some yahoo out there in an F-something with sidewinders at my 747's six. Anybody with any sense who wants to shoot down your 747 will just hang the Sidewinders on a Learjet -- less conspicuous, and perfectly adequate performance for the job. (You can hang Sidewinders on almost anything.) >...I have some real definite opinions about required >piloting skills. We require our test pilots to fly a minimum of 200 >hours per year, with specified minimums for each aircraft, to maintain >proficiency. That F-86 driver had very low total time, low jet time, >and was what I'd consider non-current... >Just because you can afford an airplane, doesn't mean you can fly it. I have no quarrel with the idea that anyone who owns his own jet fighter needs to be properly qualified to fly it. I see no reason why a civilian is incapable of acquiring the qualifications, though. >... I don't know why those posters who despise the government and all >its fruits are panting to buy those fruits. Let's see some consistancy... If a private market in such things were allowed, we wouldn't have to buy things designed by the government. Which sort of brings us back to spaceflight, since that's the big problem with space launchers too... -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
patrik@tessan.datessa.se (Patrik Andreasen) (07/24/89)
(Various postings about how you can't by a fighter as your own personal toy) But howzabout a F-20 Tigershark? After all the USAF didn't want it, and there are 3 (or two?) prototypes that Northrop built on their own money.
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (07/24/89)
In article <1989Jul21.193401.19303@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes, referring to small, high-performance jet aircraft: >If a private market in such things were allowed, we wouldn't have to buy >things designed by the government. Then buy a BD-5J. There isn't one cent of government money in BD-5Js. Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft does exist, why is this market _so_ small? Why is there essentially only one entry in the market? Maybe the market has decided that this isn't an appropriate place to allocate resources? I am, of course, assuming that the market is rational. Since this is apparently also your assumption, I don't think we're very far off. I think that, to some extent, the same argument applies to the market and private space efforts. I'd like to point out that I'm part of the aeronautical side of NASA and not connected to the space portion except as a tax payer and interested bystander. But we have a joke that the first A in NASA is 6 point and the S is 36 point. -- M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer Dryden Flight Research Facility Of course I don't speak for NASA
aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (07/25/89)
In article <SHAFER.89Jul24092455@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft >does exist, why is this market _so_ small? Price. >Why is there essentially only one entry in the market? There are more than one. I know of people who own F-86's. A company in Addison Tx. has imported some Alpha jets which it sells (for about 2M each). A company in CA inports MIG-19's from China and is attempting to get permission to import MIG-21's. The Alpha and Mig-21 will do better than mach 1. Finally, although not jets, there are a lot of WWII fighters out there. >Maybe the market has decided that this >isn't an appropriate place to allocate resources? The great thing about a free market it that it isn't monolithic. There is nobody allocating resources. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen Sherzer | DETROIT: | | aws@iti.org | Where the weak are killed and eaten | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (07/25/89)
In article <191@tessan.datessa.se> patrik@tessan.datessa.se (Patrik Andreasen) writes: >(Various postings about how you can't by a fighter as your own personal toy) >But howzabout a F-20 Tigershark? After all the USAF didn't want it, and >there are 3 (or two?) prototypes that Northrop built on their own money. One. The other two were destroyed in crashes--one in Canada, one in Korea (I think)--during flight demonstrations. Probably G-LOC, maybe the T-38/F-5 inverted pitch hang-up. -- M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer Dryden Flight Research Facility Of course I don't speak for NASA
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (07/25/89)
In article <2335@itivax.iti.org> aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <SHAFER.89Jul24092455@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >>Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft >>does exist, why is this market _so_ small? >Price. Exactly. This is precisely what I've been saying. >>Why is there essentially only one entry in the market? >There are more than one. I know of people who own F-86's. A company in >Addison Tx. has imported some Alpha jets which it sells (for about 2M >each). A company in CA inports MIG-19's from China and is attempting to >get permission to import MIG-21's. The Alpha and Mig-21 will do better >than mach 1. >Finally, although not jets, there are a lot of WWII fighters out there. Yes, but these are _all_ government-funded. Some of the members of this discussion keep saying that the government is bad, that nothing produced for the government is any good, and that free enterprise is the answer. I was pointing out that the free-enterprise "fighter" was a dismal failure, contrary to the arguments of the free-enterprise-only enthusiasts. >>Maybe the market has decided that this >>isn't an appropriate place to allocate resources? >The great thing about a free market it that it isn't monolithic. There >is nobody allocating resources. "The market" is a term for all the businesses and consumers (real and potential) of a product. Thus I was saying that if this were such a great business opportunity, some capitalist would be out there building "fighters" and making a lot of money. Since that isn't happening, maybe this isn't a great business opportunity. So the market isn't allocating resources to it. This assumes, of course, that there is no external effect, such as legal prohibition, on the market. Back to Econ 1A! :-) -- M F Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer Dryden Flight Research Facility Of course I don't speak for NASA
plocher%sally@Sun.COM (John Plocher) (07/25/89)
+---- M F Shafer writes | Then buy a BD-5J. There isn't one cent of government money in BD-5Js. | | Since a private market for high-performance, jet "fighter" aircraft | does exist, why is this market _so_ small? +---- It's not the market that's small, it's the plane :-) Actually, the BD-10J sounds like an even hotter bird - Mach 1+ !!! -John Plocher
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (07/25/89)
In article <28805@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, berry@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Berry Kercheval) writes: > In article <33335@apple.Apple.COM>, stadler@Apple (Andy Stadler) writes: > >I used to consider that a stereotype until about the 3rd time a Bonanza > >tried to run me down.... Why is it always Bonanzas making straight in's > >at uncontrolled airports? > > Alene calls this the "Cadillac driiver" phenomemon, as she has noticed that > a disproportionate number of Cadillacs seem to be driven by jerks. Or watching the 310 driver sail into a *WIDE* down wind leg to Angwin (top of a ridge north of Napa) which just happened to coincide with an active jump zone at nearby Pope Valley (I *told* you it was wide...), apparently with his head down in his lap. Could just as well been under the hood at the time. Couldn't understand why everyone was, like, irritated at him. (I *called* in on Unicom...!") The jumpers in the air (on their way down, literally) were just glad that he missed all of them.