There's an element of "know yourself" needed in considering buying one of these. (And buying one to commute in when one already has an Eclipse seems illogical to me. Buy a TBM or a JetProp or something if the Eclipse is too $$ for short trips.)

For me? Knowing how much fun I have in my buddy's Extra-300L, I won't buy a junkyard jet. I have to admit that there's some chance that I am the kind of guy who would eventually want to do low level aerobatics in it after I got completely bored with 4000 FPM climbs and $1000/hr fuel burns. And knowing myself, I know enough not to put myself into that position.

Sure, I'd love to go hire one for a few hours (with hot seats) and probably will someday. I'll also likely go fly Russian fighters someday, and continue to fly 4-5x a year with my buddy in his Extra. That's enough to get it out of my system and not put myself in a position where I someday think "All this money for just this?! Let's go have some fun."

I've heard the low-level acro to loss of control to divot story far too often, and while I've not known any of this pilots, I always read afterwards "he was a safe, conscientious pilot, trained extensively and took it very seriously". Either that's romanticizing the past, being unwilling to examine frankly the contrary facts, or there's something that lives inside the Walter Mitty types with the means (time and money) to pursue this corner of our passion that also leads them to take imprudent risks. I don't think of myself as generally risk-seeking, but I have to wonder if I wouldn't also turn one of these jets into a smoking hole someday, driven by the same adrenaline-seeking that's led others to a similar fate? So, I won't buy one, nor put myself into one unsupervised, lest the same thing snap in my brain that appears to have snapped in others....

I would never buy one. I would sure as hell love to rent or steal one for an hour.

Speaking of that, I had to look up what an L-39 Albatross was, and found this on Wikipedia:

"26 September 1986 Mihai Smighelschi, a 21-year old student of the Romanian Air Force Academy, used an L-39ZA Albatros training plane to fly to Turkey and request political asylum. His aircraft was later recovered and onboard data recorders showed that he had flown no higher than 150 m (490 ft) above ground at 700 km/h (430 mph) to evade radar detection. Smighelschi had less than 100 hours at the time, including high-school glider training, and less than 3 hours on the L-39ZA. Without satellite navigation or indeed any maps, he navigated a straight line over Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey using only ground marks and the memory of a map of Europe he had access to at the Academy. He eventually landed in Kirklareli, Turkey, on a street near a group of jeeps that seemed to have American insignia, breaking the front wheel and the nose of the plane."

Cool story.

I instantly thought of the same thing.

Didn't Todd have one? I remember him telling the story of his ownership that should be required reading for anyone even thinking about owning one of these old jets.

Best,
Rich

The report states Faraldi was flying the British Aircraft Corp. 167 Strikemaster[/quote]
I don't think the problem was "what" he was flying.[/quote] ======

I thought that's what you meant that the L-39 is a flying death trap, all aircraft are flying death traps if one looses control or if there is a significant technical failure of any sort. I think the comment that one has to know "thyself" is the most pertinent here. I know I don't have it in me to exceed my sense of self preservation while flying an airplane because it ain't no fun, and I also give everybody the credit that they will not get span around the axel to where they exceed their own sense of self preservation while flying. Geez that reminds me of the old "there are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots".

Theo, I have owned 3 L39s. So I am speaking from experience. They are a great plane, easy to fly, and the maintenance is relatively inexpensive compared to other complex jet aircraft. Here is the downside, when I owned my planes I was attending all the air sows as static display and getting your tax dollar to pay for my fuel and expenses. This was put out to pasture about 5 years ago. Thus all the flying will be on your own dime. Average cruise is about 170 gallons per hour at 16k feet. Liability Insurance is about 3,000 a year, forget hull coverage, it's too expensive. Here is the bad news, a lot of the L39s out there have not been maintained properly. You need to find one that has been serviced by International Jets, Arlington Jet Center, Vladie at Thermal Airport or Alby at Reno Stead. You will also need to find one that has the 1000 hour TBO engine not the 500 or 750. Finally, and most importantly, if you can't fly the aircraft at least 1-2 hours a week you will get way behind it and end up hurting yourself or someone else. While the plane is simple to fly, you must stay ontop of knowing what to do when the %#$@ hits the fan.

Many moons ago, when I really didn't know what I didn't know. I flew the L39 for about 15 hrs. Didn't consider bailout options/opportunities/procedures anywhere near as much as necessary.

Then I joined teh military, and went to pilot training.

Sorry, the T-34 was hard enough to bail out of without a hot seat at 150 knots and a sliding canopy. As Nate says, the L-39 is a near impossibility.

My opinion is that hot seats should be required for experimental exhibition jets.

Finally, everyone who tried to eject from an L39 in the US is dead! While Hot seats seem nice, the rate of survival is greater with trying to put the aircraft on the ground somewhere vs ejecting. (Assuming you did not have an inflight break up) Two incidents I know of are Steve Freeland who was killed ejecting in Canada and some other guy who ejected when told not to. The pilot continued to bring the plane onto the freeway and walked away, while his buddy tried to eject and there was not enough altitude for proper deployment. These aircraft do to have the Martin Baker 0/0 ejection seats. If you are serious about someone talking you out of buying an L39, I will be more than happy to, just call me.

Flying an aircraft wtihout a 0/0 seat is not new. Many thousands of Air Force aviators flew the venerable T-37 without 0/0's. It's part of the training, part of the mantra.

Yes, but why fly with an ejection seat that is not a 0/0? Every ejection that has occurred in the U.S. in an L39 has been at low altitude. If your going to have hot seats, then you should buy the latest greatest out there. If I had hot seats I would want that added safety of modern technology and pyro and a seat capable of saving my life. Just my 2 cents. You will not survive an ejection in a factory L39 seat at 1000 feet. It's been tried, several times!

A friend of mine has a beautiful L39 here in Pompano Beach. Flies it about once a week. His does not have ejection seats. If something happens he releases the canopy, inverts and you fall out!
Beautiful plane though but very very expensive to fuel

Ha, love this.

Blow the canopy, put in full nose down trim, roll inverted, let go of the stick. It'll throw you out !!!

Yes, that will (hopefully) work, but, save the time, don't bother to roll. The AF changed its guidance regarding a malfunctioning seat in the 70's. Here's why:

Say full nose-down trim gives you -1 G when wings level upright.

If while upright you release the stick, the aircraft G-meter indicates -1 G.
A G-meter on your body would indicate 0 G.
Thus you separate from the aircraft at 1 G
(The aircraft is accelerating towards the earth at 2 G's--God's G, plus the aircraft's, while you are accelerating earthward at 1 G, God's.)

Now if you roll inverted, and release the stick, the plane flies -1 G (level inverted).
A G-meter on your body would, again, indicate 0 G.
Again, you separate from the aircraft at 1 G.
(This time the aircraft is not accelerating "downward," while you fall away with 1 G of separation.)

Also, a zero/zero seat is no panacea. It's the aircraft's upward or downward vector component on the seat at ejection that is crucial. That's why I said ejection seats plus "an unhesitating willingness to use them" is important. Modern seats are very reliable if properly maintained and used within their envelope, and, FWIW, the Soviet Bloc made some excellent seats.

Or....you could set the altimeter to 0 and step out.......