Is there such a thing as a fighter jet caliber private plane

>negative stability fly by wire
>capable of supersonic speeds and supercruise
>midflight refueling capabilities
>massive storage for stuff that can be dumped mid-flight at transonic speeds at the touch of a button
>ejection seats
>hardened against EMP
>low radar signature
>requires a team of highly trained technicians to fix stuff every time something goes wrong, which is often
>etc, not designed for war
Think about what you're asking

>>1094636
Not an F-22, just a small super sonic jet built for fun.

>>1094637
You generally can't fly those over land without special arrangements. Which means over water only. Which means in flight refueling

You would need a much larger airframe to have enough gas to get anywhere supersonically without a tanker to help, and that pretty much rules out a small agile personal fun jet

You can of course buy military jets that are no longer wanted

There's a company in florida that has like 100 of them but they use them to train military pilots under contract, not pleasure flight

>>1094635
I'm sure if price was no object you could probably get the manufacturer to build you one custom, sans any classified hardware and weaponry of course -- but without even looking I don't think it would be capable of flight without classified technology.

Again, if price was no object, you could probably get a small private jet customized in any way you want -- but it would be extremely expensive.

>>1094718
>he doesn't know the FAA inspects your plane if you do even as little as reupholstering your seat

>mfw no Carreidas 160

>>1094718
>it would be extremely expensive
for you

File: image.jpg (107KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x667px

Maybe the Textron AirLand Scorpion. Very light duty fighter jet intended for coast guards and the like. ~20 million $, made by Cessna

>>1094635
plenty of people own retired military aircraft

http://americaloveshorsepower.com/23-military-aircraft-civilians-can-legally-own/23/

>>1094956
There's a guy at my dads airport who has two mig-29s he bought off the Ukrainian military.

Weapons ready. All they need are missiles.

Aerion is only supersonic private jet and its still in development.

File: Fouga_CM_170_Magister_(N71FM)_-_1.jpg (295KB, 1972x1022px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1972x1022px

>Not just buying an old French trainer.
There has to be a catch to these things being so cheap. I can absolutely afford one to the point that I might start working on getting a PPL this week just to buy one of them.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/mobile/search?category_level1=Jets&make=FOUGA&model=CM-170+MAGISTER&listing_id=2275806&s-type=aircraft

>>1095103

migs are cheap too until you look at operating costs.

>>1095145
The operating costs shouldn't be that bad on the 170 since it uses a common engine to pretty much all other jet trainers.

Fuel burn isn't that crazy either. Like 80 gph while cruising at 25,000 ft. and 220 kts. The biggest problem I found is that it was built for jet-b fuel and I have no idea if you can just use jet-a instead.

>>1094959
What country is this in?

>>1094635
There are a number of ex-military jet trainers in private hands.

Czechoslovakian L-39 is very easy to get ahold of and popular with private pilots. Only Mach 0.8, though. Supersonic trainers very rarely make it into private hands - for example, I think under ten T-38s have made it into the civil aviation world, and most of them are owned by aerospace companies for use as chase planes.

>>1095103
Not supersonic. Not even particularly fast.

>There has to be a catch to these things being so cheap.

Operation&maintenance costs are a bitch, moreso on jets.

File: passenger warning.jpg (49KB, 360x248px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 360x248px

>>1094635
Viperjet is probably the closest thing to what you're describing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YmofGeZu3Q
>>1094637
>supersonic
The only (theoretically) supersonic private aircraft ever flown was the BD-10, and in practice it never achieved supersonic flight (or at least never survived it, anyways).
>>1094719
Not the FAA personally, but a licensed mechanic, yes. Though for amateur-built aircraft, after the initial airworthiness inspection by FAA officials upon completion, the builder himself receives a special repairman's certificate allowing him to inspect, repair and modify his own airplane.

File: 1346227283485.jpg (170KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 800x600px

>>1095331
>that stupid fucking plate

>>1095325
>Mach .82
>Not fast.

>>1095339
According to wikipedia the 787 cruises at that speed.

>>1095342
Are you calling a 787 slow?

>>1094641
Just b/c a plane is capable of supersonic flight does not mean it flies at top speed constantly, nor is it treated as such.

File: bd10-2.jpg (51KB, 600x521px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x521px

>>1094635
Called private jets, experimental category. There have been some. Not supersonic, but "fighter-jet inspired" perhaps. BD-10, Javelin, Paris Jet. Even a couple of (significantly slower) ducted fans are flying now.

File: Paris-Jets.jpg (28KB, 550x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x400px

>>1094635
Paris Jet. 4-seater, similar to the Magister. John Travolta owns one, for grocery shopping or something.

File: PJ11 dreamer 2.jpg (10KB, 388x130px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 388x130px

>>1094635
Actually a ducted fan, powered by a regular 300-hp piston engine. Jet fighter looks, Cessna performance (and fuel burn).

File: JG-2_Panther_Replica_02_c6b7032e4d.jpg (16KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 450x300px

>>1094635
A homebuilt jet in Australia, a scale replica of the F-9 Panther. Uses a surplus T-58 engine core (which is usually a turboshaft engine used in helicopters).

File: longez jet.jpg (275KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1600x900px

>>1094635
Long-EZ has been a tremendously popular homebuilt over the years...and a handful have been made with jet engines. Not supersonic of course (<300 mph) but sure gets enough attention at the local fly-in.

>>1095317
America

>>1095103
Can I have 1,000 dollars please?

also apparently you can just rent a jetfighter and fly into the stratosphere for like 20,000 dollars if you go to russia.

Good luck you rich faggots.

>>1095441
That's 100 000

>>1095445
no, the guys said he could easily afford a 100k plane. I was asking him to just give me 1k. Im begging him for money online. If I gotta suck a dick Ill suck a dick. Il suck ewvery dick in this thread.

Jets and stuff.

>>1095668
You'll never have any sort of wealth sucking dicks, jackass.

Get a real job, save your money, invest it, cut out the shit that really doesn't matter(flashy electronics, impulse purchases, etc.), and then you can afford the things that really interest you.

As far as the Fouga goes, the catch I've found is that the engines may need to be overhauled every 900 hours.

>>1095685
can you buy me a fighter jet? I invested my billions into the stock market and it's kind of tied up right now.

File: ancap-meme-generator.png (66KB, 547x402px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 547x402px

>>1094635
>recreational fighter jets

>>1094959
Uhh...nope. In USA, you can buy them FLYABLE, but not ready to be used as a weapons platform. They have to be cleared by BATF, which frowns on such things. They can LOOK ready for war, they just can't actually BE ready for war on US soil without jumping through an insane number of flaming hoops. All weapons must be removed before entering the country... after your team of lawyers has gotten past that, its not much different than a regular plane.

>>1094959
No fucking way its weapons ready. Firecontrol systems have to be disabled or the ATF, FBI and/or the FAA are going to break your door down and shoot your dog.

Buy an F-86/CL-13

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_North_American_F-86_Sabres#United_States

>>1099458
Saab J35 Draken (Mach 2) for sale:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&make=SAAB&model=J35+DRAKEN&listing_id=2275441&s-type=aircraft

File: advanced-turboprop-trainer-prototype-P01.png (216KB, 463x373px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 463x373px

>>1094635

Many high-performance trainers, aerobatic aircraft, and air racers are capable of WILDLY outperforming state of the art fighter aircraft in ACM.

>>1095325
>Not supersonic. Not even particularly fast.

Supersonic capability is only just barely relevant to modern air theaters. I can't even think of an engagement in the last 20 years where anything but sortie rate and munitions performance envelope mattered in the slightest.

File: archangel_06.jpg (601KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 1200x800px

>>1099491
>I can't even think of an engagement in the last 20 years where anything but sortie rate and munitions performance envelope mattered in the slightest.

*Which is why stuff like the Archangel is gaining traction in certain roles. Literally a fucking cropduster refitted for close-air-support.

It's also why the F-35 program is more focused on future-proofing, multirole, and especially on advanced logistics than it is on airframe performance envelope.

>>1099491
Those Pilatus trainers are pretty bad ass. That's my dream aircraft. You basically have jet performance yet get the turboprop economics.

>>1099495
>posting on /n/
>describes turboprops as "economical"

Do you even have enough money to drive a turbocharged automobile? Or even like... buy a sporty, modern bicycle?

We're talking about airplanes that are designed to be economical for small governments...

>>1099497
Compared to jets, they're VERY economical. Overhauls are at much longer intervals than pistons as well.

And yeah, I do drive a turbocharged car and fill it with premium gas too! I guess you could say I'm part of the top 15%

>>1099499

>Wasting money that could be invested towards attaining your dream

Nah. You're part of the bottom 85%.

>>1099500
As if I could ever seriously justify spending 1-2 million on a jet trainer.

>>1099505

You could certainly log some hours.

A gentleman that drops by our hangar from time to time has logged time in a MiG-15, for example. Thousands of hours in a 747 and he still can't shut up about it.

>>1098994
That's just what I was told...

>>1095410
i wonder what the range and fuel consumption will be...

>>1094641
>You can of course buy military jets that are no longer wanted
One of my dad's rich friends tried, but the State Department wouldn't let him.

>>1099562

What you don't understand is that your dad's rich friend is actually gutter-trash poor.

File: 9aa44a5485b09efd54f09f226b6a4080.png (87KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 420x420px

>>1095331
>that extreme faggotry

File: 1024-08-1-2.jpg (65KB, 930x497px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 930x497px

BEST TRAINER CUMMIN THRUUU

File: RFB_Fanliner_D-EBFL_LEB_10.06.77_edited-4.jpg (297KB, 1024x705px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1024x705px

and

File: 60717.jpg (469KB, 1024x702px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1024x702px

i like this one to

Why are contra-rotating propellers not common in these high performance prop trainers?

>>1100232
cause the engineers were lazy, but seriously if the centrifical mass of the prop isnt too large then the weight and complexity might not make sense. But single propellers never satisfy my autismo.

>>1100261
Contra rotating props are like 15% more efficient than standard props. You also don't have that moment of torque.

>>1095396
thanks, captain pedant

>>1099532
Not great... the good news is, you can hit max VNE speed even while climbing. Bad news is ... everything else. T-58 engine burns approx. 60 gallons/hr at full power, so you'll never even fly for an hour unless you install drop tanks. A gallon a minute...plan those flights carefully!