For a 60+ year old Soviet airframe? When something breaks you're going to be manufacturing the replacement part yourself. If you buy this you had better have a machine shop handy.

The good news is that the guy who restored it undoubtedly has extensive notes about this particular aircraft, so it won't be quite as difficult to keep running. Still, you'd better be an expert in antique turbine engines if you want to fly it.

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.

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.

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...

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

You can choose to register any aircraft as "experimental" it'll hurt resale value but there's nothing stopping you from modifying your Cessna or your F-16 except some paperwork.

I watched a video last night where someone was using a CNC to cut sheet metal. I wonder if one could make MiG parts using a CNC or 3d printer.

Imagine upgrading the avionics to modern computers too. After a while you'd have a MiG-17 of Theseus..

At an airshow, a mechanic told that a plane like the Fouga Magister (old two seat trainer with two really small jet engines, looks very graceful in the air in my opinion) is something that can be maintained by a single person. Don't know if that meant a full time job and how many flight hours per year etc.

Just don't let the FAA catch wind of your undocumented supply chain...

Most warbirds are not experimental so you can't just build whatever you need and slap it on. Sure you can convert to experimental but you still have the high maintenance costs (FAR 43.1(b)(1)) is the section of law you should google)

Edit: someone looked up the tail number and this one got lucky but don't assume you can just slap your own machined parts on a P51 or something without jumping through hoops.

As if you're going to be able to get official replacement parts from the Soviet factories. I have to assume the person buying this is going to register it as some kind of experimental or historic aircraft where the regulations are looser. It's not like he's going to be carrying passengers at least.

China produced a copy of the MIG-17 (J-5) until the late 1980s, and both it and the MIG-17 were widely exported. I wouldn't be surprised if parts were available.

Was the power plant used in any long lived civilian applications? That could greatly help the parts situation. Still, for the airframe you're probably best off machining your own parts. You'll probably be able to make parts to tighter tolerances than the Soviet factories.

According to Wikipedia, they're still used as snowblowers and ice melters. And this engine isn't unique to the Mig-17, it was used in the Mig-15, IL-28 and Tu-14 bombers, and is one of the mostly widely produced jet engines in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_VK-1

Experimental exhibition has different rules from other categories, but the FAA also allows for owner produced parts on certified planes. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/...

The average American couldn't afford any airplane.

This is exactly the sort of thinking that let Pepsi bail on a jet fighter contract in the 90s.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

Would have been more probable it were a Navy jet, since we know Pepsi once had a large navy. ;)

You'd be surprised. There are a lot really decent planes available around $30k.

Have some fun on Trade-A-Plane.com, look at single engine piston planes.

Around 30k represents half of the "average" American's yearly household income.[0] Once you factor in maintenance and storage it's safe to say most Americans couldn't afford even a "cheap" plane.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

Yes, it would be extremely expensive. The price of the plane for something like this ends up being only a fraction of the total cost of operating it. Between needing to source or machine parts to specification (many of which will be titanium) and the frequent inspections and maintenance needed it's a lot of time and money to keep a plane like this running.

Flying a GA plane is already a fairly expensive hobby... flying warbirds can be on a whole 'nother level of expense.

There's a whole world of (generally old) warbird enthusiasts who hoard hangars full of these old birds and spares for them. There's an associated world of auctioneers and brokers who sell it to them, then buy up the supply from their estate sales when they die and sell it to the next guy.

Soviet jets of that era were designed to be repaired by simpler means than fighter jets from even 40 years ago.

The big problem though is that Soviet jets weren't expected to last very long (in terms of flight hours). For example, jet engine life was much lower than comparable Western aircraft.