I want to add one thing in defense of the L-39 to this discussion.

While I don't disagree with Todd's excellent point which is appreciated and well taken, there is a completely different level of complexity, work and risk flying an L-39 to flying other Jet Warbirds like those mentioned.

Aside from its well mannered flight characteristics which have made it immensely popular, the L-39 is an airframe currently supported by the factory that continues to provide MRO services for civilian use, flight training, maintenance training, parts support and further airframe/powerplant development (http://www.aero.cz/en/defence-mro/progr ... llTo=obsah). You are not buying an orphan airframe for which there may be a handful of experts, spares, pilots, instructors or information in general. Parts suppliers, maintenance facilities, training services and general support for the airframe abounds compared to other alternatives.

The L-39 Civil Program is real and ongoing. Aero is continuing to develop the L-39 platform and is developing safety improvements, updated avionics and re-engining programs. The two engine programs supported by the factory that have been under development for several years and are close to being available include the Williams FJ44-4M as well as the Honeywell TFE731 engines. The factory is also active in helping customers demilitarize aircraft for civilian use.

Flying an L-39 obviously has risks and is not something one should take lightly - as is flying any other aircraft with this capability, power and speed. But it is a far cry to flying a rocket developed in the 1950's of which there are a handful of samples and instructors available to help you avoid death in the process.

For the size of the civilian fleet, the L-39's safety record also appears to be acceptable. At 220 active aircraft and growing, there are roughly the same number of L-39s flying in the US today as there are Beech Dukes, Piper Aerostars and MU-2s.

From a safety standpoint, there have been 16 fatal L-39 accidents in the last 25 years of which 10 involved low level maneuvering or aerobatics - a high risk activity in any aircraft including a Pitts or an aerobatic homebuilt. There have also been 6 non-fatal accidents including things like gear-ups, running into other aircraft on the ground and successful off-airport landings due to power loss. In the same period of time, 22 Dukes were involved in fatal accidents and 13 in non-fatal accidents. To be fair, for every hour an L-39 flies, a Duke flies several hours more, so this may not be a very good comparison, but the point is that while the L-39 may be something you must treat with respect, it is at a different level of risk than strapping oneself onto a flying missile from the 1950's or 60's.

Alex,

I'm not sure talking with you is going to help the cause of moderation. You're clearly a trouble-inducing individual.

The thing that impressed both of us during our demo flights was how nicely it handled and how easy it was to fly precisely.

My concern is not so much about the liability, but Todd's other point about getting bored after xxx hours.

zeke

HA! I will help you get in trouble.... if you let me tag along!

Find a practical use for the L-39 to combine with the fun and you won't get bored. I get bored flying alone on the 300 nm trips - update the avionics to include a GDL69A for music and this thing would kill that boredom. Here's a nice article on AOPA about the L-39 - https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... mp-to-jets. From this article, the following take-aways are important to highlight:

• Be able to say No and walk away from situations that could get you in trouble.
• You’ve gotta be more than a good pilot to fly these - solid ADM is as important as stick and rudder skills.
• Consistency is key.

At the end of the day, this is applicable to any high performance and highly maneuverable aircraft including many aerobatic hotrods like the Pitts. Here's the video from the same article:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/Xsj7VuhySgs[/youtube]

Found this video of an L-39 doing a gear up landing on a grass runway. Looks pretty benign to me for an emergency landing with minimal damage - the "skidding" distance also seemed fairly short. Sounds like the pilot shutdown the engine just before touchdown.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/JSuOrb0if-U[/youtube]

Found this video of an L-39 doing a gear up landing on a grass runway. Looks pretty benign to me for an emergency landing with minimal damage - the "skidding" distance also seemed fairly short. Sounds like the pilot shutdown the engine just before touchdown.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/JSuOrb0if-U[/youtube]

Eric - I'm curious why would this be?

Eric - I'm curious why would this be?

Grass can much rougher and bunch up and potentially create a greater deceleration force. Also, a wingtip can grab and cause a cartwheel.

Paved surface has much less friction so the deceleration forces are likely to cause less damage and lessens the potential for injury.

Eric

Grass can much rougher and bunch up and potentially create a greater deceleration force. Also, a wingtip can grab and cause a cartwheel.

Paved surface has much less friction so the deceleration forces are likely to cause less damage and lessens the potential for injury.

Eric

I thought the L39 had some restrictions for taking it cross country? Seems like you had to notify your FSDO for each flight outside of your home base? Can you use them IFR or at least in class A?

This stems from the fact that the L39 is typically registered as Experimental-Exhibition. So there are limitations. Just like homebuilts.

First, they're good up to FL280. No RVSM.

Second, when you get your ops specs from the FSDO you list typical airports to include in your list of airports that require no additional approval. Maybe a list of 10-20 airports.

However, it is also possible to have some language in the specs that says something along the lines that you're approved to take training flights to any airports within 500 nm (or whatever) for training purposes that meet yyy criteria.

Finally, even without that, you send the FSDO a letter 1-3 days before your intended flight saying you want to go to xyz airports with tech stops along the way as appropriate.

Not total freedom, but a pretty reasonable trade-off given that we want to operate a jet fighter from the Eastern block.

Zeke

One of the Low Altitude Acro/Maneuvering Risks is GLOC.
Since the A/C is a fast jet quick pulls can get you into trouble, another factor in this is a passenger on the controls with out the experience level of flying these types.
Again, something to understand and train for. Even injuries can change your tolerance to cope with the Gs.
I wish you the best on this.

Agree, not too bad and very workable.

I'm liking Alex's line of thought. Then you can write off a lot of the cost assuming you are traveling for business.

I've got a few hours in a L39 for fun - and it was all that. We used flight suits but I'm not sure if that was for show or for a ligit purpose. How serious of a jet is this? In other words, if you have to suit up and have a one hour preflight to get rollling would one get tired of using it for travel?

This is where ADM and prudence are key. Train and fly this plane professionally. High speed low level aerobatics is a high risk activity in any aircraft even if you're behind a propeller.

OTOH, 130 gph is the block fuel burn of an older Citation (or higher). It's all a matter of perspective. Speaking with Nathan at Code 1, the only practical restriction on the utilization of an L39 is not being able to fly into the main airport of a Class B area. So... can't fly into Houston Intercontinental - I'm sure I wouldn't miss this.

You might want to check in with him-
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=128856&p=1761829#p1761829