I am surprised no one posted this one yet. it is on the Ebay main page. i have no idea the value of this bird but i would have to beleive alot of pilots cut there teeth on one of these. I am not well read on jets being a WWII guy. Is this plane comparable to an AT-6 back in the day or is it a entry level trainer?
Soulcrusher
13,000 dollars for a jet! And a zero hour spare engine too?! OMG!
If I buy it, will somebody step up to for filling it’s tank?
Hey trexx there is a company right here in my town that manufacures JP3 for the military. I know one of the owners daughters. Mabye I can get you a good deal. it can’nt be much more expensive than gas these days!
Soulcrusher
Jet fuel was $6.29 when I flew down to Columbus, OH on Tuesday evening. 100LL avgas is about $5.15, yikes! I’m so glad I don’t have to buy my own fuel! [8D]
The L-29 is a great little jet. There is a gentlemen near here, at KTEW who has a pair of them, they make an occasional appearance at local airshows. It was an Eastern Bloc military trainer, so not too many U.S. pilots have flown them, although more and more are coming here. They are a tough-built, easy-to-fly bird that is inexpensive to maintain - for a jet that is! It’s big brother, the L-39, has a similar reputation. They run $250-350K… half the cost of a new Beech Bonanza, in other words. A steal. They’re often used for aerobatic or emergency upset training for pilots of larger, passenger-carrying jets. The only real downside is that they require a type rating to fly, but that’s entire appropriate given the level of performance they have. The rating’s expensive though… if this one really goes for $13K (I don’t think it will) the owner’ll spend more on the rating than on the plane! [(-D]
Kevin 
That is some cool info there Kevin. In the add under the question part of the add someone asked if the ejection seat rockets were removed and the exposives for the canopy blow were intact. The owner replied that it was manditory for these items to be removed from the plane before it can be sold. So if you need to punch out how do they expect you to get out without having a run in with the tail section?
Soulcrusher
I’d guess it has something to do with not selling or transporting hazmat/explosives? But I’m really not sure. To be honest, I’m not sure I would trust a Soviet-built ejection seat unless it had been totally refurbished by an extremely well-qualified person. There is a well-known flight instructor in California who gives MiG-15 checkrides, and that’s his opinion, as well. Quality control was not always a strong point of Ivan’s military hardware.
That’s a decision that would require some homework, and talking with a flight instructor and mechanic who are qualified on the aircraft. The aircraft may not be considered legally airworthy without a working ejection system, then again it may. I just don’t know enough about the L-29 to be able to say.
By the way, I mentioned the L-39, which is the newer “big brother” to the L-29. In case anyone’s interested, here’s one:
Kevin
There has been a lot of argument and rule changes on ejection seats and other pyrotechnics on warbirds now being flown by civilians. There are several F-86’s and other such US manufactured planes around that have bang seats. The FAA has changed the rules back and forth as to whether they can be armed or not. Keeping ejection seats in prime working order is a complicated task and can ONLY be done by people with a lot of the proper training. I am not sure which would be worse in an emergency, not having one at all or having one that likely won’t work correctly when you pull the handles.
Darwin, O.F. [alien]
What, the FAA can’t make up it’s mind? I thought they know everything! [:-^]
I wouldn’t be surprised if some owners of these warbirds disable the ejections seats. They’re expensive to maintain, and there’s no risk of anyone shooting bits of your plane off. I don’t know if airshow pilots like Dale Snodgrass keep theirs functional. Of course, a former military pilot like him would be used to always having one. I personally wouldn’t want to count on having a funtioning seat, only to get a nasty shock when I pulled the handle. I’ve done spins in Cessna 152s and never felt uncomfortable with the fact that there was no real good way to bail out. Just my [2c]
Kevin
I can kind of understand the problem associated with the question of the ejection seats. i am an auto technician and I often deal with airbag systems. even this smal amount of pyrotecnicks {hope I spelled that right!} can be very dangerous. There are redundant saftey sytems and procedures when it comes to handing and repairing these systems. They are not even allowed to ship airbags by plane only surface shipment. i can only imaging how much more complex and dangerous these ejection seats systems are. I guess when you are flying a plane and enjoying it you can not worry about what might happen. Just enjoy the ride and when it is your time to go then so be it!
Soulcrusher
yardbird brings light to a fav sidebar of aviation that I’ve been sort of following.
Since I read about the English bloke that owns a BAC Lightning and a Hawker Hunter and his dealings with this issue.
The U.S. (FAA) seems to be aligning with the idea that a private airplane needs a pilot at all times especially if airborne and whether it’s about to crash or not is no matter. Apparently it’s a chilling thought that pilots may exit and leave their airplane careening, unguided and heading towards the ground. It’s a hard idea to sell apparently.
I can see the FAA’s logic on this one. If you’re not in combat, there is very little need to be able to bail out of an aircraft. The FAA usually requires pilots (and any passengers on board) to be wearing parachutes when doing aerobatics, but they don’t seem particularly concerned with the question of how you’d get out of the aircraft in the first place. Just open the door/canopy and jump, I guess.
The only other instance where I think bailing out would be appropriate would be an out-of-control fire onboard. But most jets have fire-suppression systems, and even if you totally lose power as a result, the aircraft is still perfectly flyable: it flies 'cause it has wings, not 'cause it has an engine, after all. [;)] With a proficient pilot at the controls (emphasis on “proficient”), the aircraft can be glided to a safe landing probably 9 times out of 10. If the fire is totally unstoppable though, by all means bail out if you can.
We had a student pilot here at LCC about a year ago who experienced a failure of the overvoltage regulator in our Cessna 172. The resulting power spike caused a fire. He simply shut down the electrical system - which immediately stopped the fire - and returned to the airport and landed without incident. $20K worth of avionics was fried, but both pilot and aircraft were okay otherwise. A jet pilot with a type rating ought to be able to handle any emergency that the aircraft can throw at him, without losing control in the process. That’s the whole point behind the requirements for a type rating.
What the FAA definitely does not want happening, is to have pilots bailing out of aircraft when it’s not really a dire emergency, and then have the pilotless aircraft go bashing into a house, or school, or hospital, etc. and cause fatalities and/or massive property damage on the ground. I sure wouldn’t want to be that pilot in the aftermath of such an incident, either.
Now, having said that, I don’t think that the FAA should require ejection seats to be disabled. If the owner/operator can prove that the required maintanence and inspections have been performed, and the pilot is properly trained in the operation of the ejection seat, then by all means, they should be allowed to put this safety system to use. If I owned one of those warbirds, I’d keep mine operational, just because I like to have a squawk-free aircraft at all times. I don’t like seeing those “Inoperative” placards anywhere.
Kevin