Civilian F-16 and F/A-18

[Fouga23]

Anyone know what became of civilian owned restoration projects F-16A #78-0061/N324DC and F/A-18A #161973?
They were everywhere on the net in the early 2000's but seem to have gone off the radar?

[Wildchild]

F-16:

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N324DC.html
http://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N324DC

These pictures may be other F-16's...

http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item302030.html
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item302035.html
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item302040.html
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item333133.html

F-18:

http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stic ... 73/973.htm

[JohnB]

I can't imagine the DoD or Homeland Security being happy about the prospect of one flying.
To say nothing of the FAA....

[DoraNineFan]

I can't imagine the DoD or Homeland Security being happy about the prospect of one flying.
To say nothing of the FAA....

[Deleted....]

[oshosh84]

I can't imagine the DoD or Homeland Security being happy about the prospect of one flying.
To say nothing of the FAA....

All it would take is for you to help get a few people in DC get elected.....
Would be easier just to buy a Mig29, Mig31, SU27+, or USA built but foreign owned aircraft using the same process.

As for the FAA all it would take is an X.
oh...and money...lots of it.

Personally I would love to see a stripped down and refurbished early block f-16 with a F100-PW-229.....
Breaking time to climb records would look great on a resume.

[Fouga23]

I can't imagine the DoD or Homeland Security being happy about the prospect of one flying.
To say nothing of the FAA....

Why? There are civilian MIG-29, 23, Sukhoi 27's and a lot more modern hardware flying in the US. All with no problem. But when it's a US made jet, it would mean the end of the world?

[Tinker51]

I can't imagine the DoD or Homeland Security being happy about the prospect of one flying.
To say nothing of the FAA....

Why? There are civilian MIG-29, 23, Sukhoi 27's and a lot more modern hardware flying in the US. All with no problem. But when it's a US made jet, it would mean the end of the world?

Never attribute logic and common sense to any decision made by the FAA or Govt. in general.

[12XU2A3X3]

Just wanted to give my perspective as a youngin who crews vipers. I've found points made in the past about maintainability with regard to flight control computers to be preicent. That being said, even with every other hurtle cleared, I don't think the FAA would ever allow a aircraft with a hydrazine powered anything to fly on the civilian side; but hey I might already be wrong.

[JohnB]

I don't think the FAA would ever allow a aircraft with a hydrazine powered anything to fly on the civilian side; but hey I might already be wrong.

As an Air Force public affairs officer, when the F-16 first came out a huge thing was made about the hydrazine in the event of a crash.
I've never heard of any issues onece it was in service though. Then again, I've never worked a F-16 crash.

[The Inspector]

But ask why the NHRA banned hydrazine as fuel additive years ago, something to do with Prudhommes 'on fire in the lights' wheel stand in the Hot Wheels Duster @ Seattle in 1976 and a couple of top fuelers detonating while sitting waiting to fire in the staging lanes.

[eagle21]

I don't think the FAA would ever allow a aircraft with a hydrazine powered anything to fly on the civilian side; but hey I might already be wrong.

As an Air Force public affairs officer, when the F-16 first came out a huge thing was made about the hydrazine in the event of a crash.
I've never heard of any issues onece it was in service though. Then again, I've never worked a F-16 crash.

Hydrazine requires all kinds of special precautions if there is a spill, or even if the system is activated on the F-16. Something like a 1000 foot perimeter-especially downwind-and a time for it to dissipate before you can go in. I would think that the FAA would not be real happy about an aircraft with hydrazine routinely going to civilian airports, particularly without specially trained and certified personnel available. Just to shut the jet down requires the hydrazine system to be safety pinned first, to prevent accidental discharge due to "loss of power" during the shut down.

On the other hand, as far as I know, the F-18 doesn't require any special precautions (nor the F-15 for that matter), other than the usual care around the ejection seat. But, I never crewed the F-18, just worked around them at airshows.

Just some thoughts, others may have different information,

John

[Avnut]

I concur with Fouga23's statement, "But when it's a US made jet, it would mean the end of the world?" As my father says, "Only in America."

[Wildchild]

I concur with Fouga23's statement, "But when it's a US made jet, it would mean the end of the world?" As my father says, "Only in America."

Your dads Larry the Cable Guy?!?!?!?!

[JohnB]

But ask why the NHRA banned hydrazine as fuel additive years ago, something to do with Prudhommes 'on fire in the lights' wheel stand in the Hot Wheels Duster @ Seattle in 1976 and a couple of top fuelers detonating while sitting waiting to fire in the staging lanes.

I didn't say I'd drink the stuff, but you've never heard media reports of problems following a F-16 crash...of which there have been a few over the last 30 years.

[Fouga23]

I didn't say I'd drink the stuff, but you've never heard media reports of problems following a F-16 crash...of which there have been a few over the last 30 years.

Maybe because the media isn't aware? Over here (Belgium), Most involved in aviation know to get the he!! away from the hole if one crashed until the hydrazine tank is secured an confirmed not to leak. Nasty stuff that can basically act as a nerve gas.
So there is a reason for the F-16 not to fly as a civilian jet, but the F-18 should be possible? That brings me back to my original question:

Anyone know where these two jets are now? Since the company that sold them went belly-up they seemed to have dropped of the radar.