
Last Airworthy MiG-17 Is Up for Sale - prostoalex
https://www.flyingmag.com/story/aircraft/last-airworthy-mig-17-for-sale/
======
siberianbear
The question I really wanted answered was "how much is he asking for it?" I
did a lot of searches on various search engines but couldn't find the answer.
I guess it falls into that "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" category.

I did find a classified ad for the plane. The owner's phone number is there.

[1] [https://www.trade-a-
plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&ma...](https://www.trade-a-
plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&make=MIKOYAN&model=MIG+17&listing_id=2382482&s-type=aircraft)

~~~
coolspot
Last time I checked MiG 15 was $5M.

~~~
clamprecht
Are you sure you aren't thinking of a different Mig?? Mig 15s go for pretty
cheap, like in the $100,000 range. I heard one was for sale in Brazil for
$60,000. (good luck getting it home!)

[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-1987-02-13-me-2216-s...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-1987-02-13-me-2216-story.html)

[https://www.trade-a-
plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&ma...](https://www.trade-a-
plane.com/search?category_level1=Jets&make=MIKOYAN&s-type=aircraft)

~~~
coolspot
I won’t do research right now, but as I recall airworthy MiG 15 modified to be
legal in the US costs much more than museum-grade technically operational
unmodified MiG 15.

------
clamprecht
I don't think this is the last airworthy Mig-17. Bill Culberson flies N1713P
and I believe I saw it fly as recently as 2019 in Alabama. Here is the
FlightAware page, and you can see photos in the 2nd link:

[https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N1713P](https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N1713P)

[https://flightaware.com/photos/aircraft/N1713P](https://flightaware.com/photos/aircraft/N1713P)

~~~
clamprecht
Here's an article about Bill's Mig 17, with photos:

[https://planeschemer.com/plane-schemer-
blog/mig-17-n1713](https://planeschemer.com/plane-schemer-blog/mig-17-n1713)

------
justin66
Looking at the listing as shared by another poster, it's striking how little
the thing weighs:

 _The empty weight is 8640 lb (3919 kg) and the maximum takeoff weight is
13375 lb (6069 kg)._

It's maximum takeoff weight is still well below the empty weight (18,900 lbs)
of an F-16.

~~~
nickff
You're comparing a light, subsonic interceptor with no search radar and
primitive missile capabilities (only available on the last versions) to a
relatively modern multi-role fighter.

~~~
zokier
> relatively modern multi-role fighter

F-16 first flight was 45 years ago. Or put other way, F-16 first flight was
significantly closer to MiG-17 first flight than F-35 (which gets to represent
modern aircraft) first flight (24 years vs 32 years)

And F-16 was explicitly designed to pretty light-weight aircraft for its time,
compared to e.g. its contemporary F-15:

> Boyd's design called for a light-weight fighter with a high thrust-to-weight
> ratio, high maneuverability, and a gross weight of less than 20,000 lb
> (9,100 kg), half that of its counterpart, the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

(it did end up bit fatter than that though..)

------
pm90
This may be a silly question, but: how would an average American be able to
afford the parts required to restore a fighter jet? It can’t be cheap? Am I
correct to assume the person who did this is probably a person “of means”?

~~~
mcpherrinm
That model jet started production in 1952, so probably doesn't have much
electronics or fancy materials.

Modern machinist tools are widely available and not totally unaffordable. I'd
guess the current owner probably made a lot of their own replacement parts.

~~~
ben7799
Who knows what the regulations are for a Soviet warplane brought into the US
but for most planes the owners are not able to just machine new parts unless
the plane is under an experimental certification. A lot of home built planes
are under experimental certification. Civilian factory built planes and US
warbirds are not and so they can't just machine new parts freely or the
airworthiness certificate is at risk.

The regulations go on forever. If you make new parts you risk having to re-
certify the plane which makes an expensive and difficult project get much
harder.

~~~
ksherlock
Per the FAA's N-number lookup, it's experimental. I'm guessing Soviet aircraft
built to destroy the US didn't bother with FAA certification.

[https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?N...](https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=620PF)

~~~
ashtonkem
Probably not, but it would’ve been hilarious if they’d gotten one.

------
therockspush
A couple comments at the bottom of the article make it sound like there are a
few more airworthy ones out there.

~~~
breser
There's quite a few MIG-17 with FAA registrations.
[https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.asp...](https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/AcftRef_Results.aspx?Mfrtxt=&Modeltxt=MIG-17&PageNo=1)

The original article says it's the last airworthy MIG-17PF, while this site
just says MIG-17. I suspect the PF is critical to the last airworthy claim.
There were a number of variants of the MIG-17.

------
RickJWagner
He should hang on to it until Top Gun 2 arrives. Could be money-making schemes
will become available then.

------
jeffreyrogers
What is the purpose of those spike things on the leading edge of the wings?

~~~
vonmoltke
They are Pitot tubes[1], part of the system that calculates the aircraft's
altitude and speed.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-
static_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-static_system)

~~~
ben7799
The large ones on the ends of the wings seem way too long to be pitot tubes.

~~~
greedo
Those are the two pitot tubes. The other tubes on the fuselage forward of the
canopy are cannons. Aft of the canopy are radio aerials. This [1] only
mentions the right-hand pitot tube, but since they appear to be identical, I
assume it was just an oversight on the document's author.

[1][https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-
RDP80T00246...](https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-
RDP80T00246A001300090001-7.pdf)

~~~
ben7799
Actually reading your document the long spikes at the end of the wingtips are
not mentioned as the Pitot tubes.. that document says the pitot tube is
mounted on the right wing 1/4 of the distance in from the tip.

~~~
greedo
Yeah, I think that has to be a mistake, either in translation or just an
error. They're obviously both pitot tubes, and there's nothing mount 1/4 of
the distance from the wingtip.

------
monadic2
Why do people venerate war machines? I understand the interest, but putting
money into it? Surely there are better places that money can go.

~~~
sdinsn
You can ask that about pretty much every luxury good and hobby. The simple
answer is that people do what interests them, not what is "better" (according
to whatever your biased perspective is) for the world.

~~~
monadic2
There’s no way you can pass off a fighter jet as a “hobby”. That’s intentional
neglect of society at that point, and again to venerate a weapon.

~~~
bdefore
It gets gray real fast. The Internet as we know it grew out of military
research to maintain communication channels during nuclear war.

~~~
monadic2
I’m not sure what your point is—the internet always had wider applicability
than war.

Anyway, that neglects the point that both a MiG and military investment have
piss-poor returns and you might as well burn the cash. Like how hard is it to
invest in the people around you? What goes wrong in your life where you spend
on a fucking MiG rather than feeding people? It’s sociopathic behavior.

~~~
RandomBacon
Why are you here instead of out volunteering. Why are you using a computer
when it could be sold to feed people.

I have a feeling you're starting to break the rules of this site. I'm not
going to bother replying anymore.

~~~
monadic2
I have no issues actually doing the things you’re mocking. I’m very secure in
my own ability to contribute to society.

Oh god not the rules! How will this produce complacent founders?

