Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
IL-78 Abandoned In Michigan - Update  
User currently offlineDiamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 63
Posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13933 times:

This is an update to the following archived thread:

Illyushin Il-78 In TX Finally Departs-for Oshkosh! (by 2H4 Jul 17 2009 in Civil Aviation)

According to the article below, the aircraft is close to being auctioned off as unclaimed property. Based on various photos in our own thread and elsewhere, the aircraft has been moved at least 3 times.

" ... shortly after the crew were sent home, the jet had a flight plan filed for a trip to Keflavik, Iceland, though it hasn’t taken to the skies since. The Marquette County Mining Journal says that the plane has been impounded after Air-1 filed a lawsuit alleging that the plane’s owners owe over $60,000 in unpaid bills for all the work Air-1 did on the plane back in Texas ... "


http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2009/09/ilyushin.jpg

edit: additional link http://miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/533137.html?nav=5006

[Edited 2009-09-18 11:22:23]


Blank.
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30886 posts, RR: 87
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13931 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If Air-1 is granted the plane, they should turn it into a tanker and bid it for KC-X.  duck 

User currently offlineAvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 13749 times:

This is entertaining. Several years ago an investor, severely, over pays for a Russian aircraft before he secured a NATO contractor. Fast forward years later, after being an eye sore in N. Texas it's moved to Oshkosh where the crew is arrested for immigration violations and the plane is soon to be up for auction. Incredible.

User currently offlineBrandonfs88 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13563 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I saw it up close and personal when I was up there last month, She's a beast.

User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13986 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 13524 times:

Some years ago a Kazakh crew landed an almost new Tu-154M (one of the last ones built) in HAJ. The aircraft got impounded because the airline owed the airport several tenthousand Euros for landing and handling fees. Still the airline didn´t bother to pay. Finally, after a year or so, the airport offered the aircraft to anybody who would pay the accumulated fees, which was very low for a rather new aircraft.
Within days the Kazakhs paid up.

Note on the side: If I had the money, I would buy the aircraft (problem would be the paperwork though, mainly the maintenace records) and start a cargo airline.

Jan.


User currently offlineSalukipilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11445 times:

You would think that photographer would have focused on the airplane instead of the loudspeaker....


Silver Airways Captain
User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 10665 times:



Quoting Salukipilot (Reply 5):
You would think that photographer would have focused on the airplane instead of the loudspeaker....

Welcome to the world of autofocus  Embarrassment

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3010 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 10213 times:

Looks like an IL76, what's the difference?


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlinePylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1503 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9675 times:

It is IL-76D as far as I can see.
Interesting what is the reg.No. I guess it's one of those hundreds horses use for cargo.
I saw the main landing gear on another thread - it's not bad.

Buy - and re-sell to Travolta.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9007 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9597 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
If Air-1 is granted the plane, they should turn it into a tanker and bid it for KC-X.

AFAIK the aircraft is a tanker and was imported to the US in an attempt to secure a US Navy contract. The US navy has a contract for the use of a civilian tanker as they kept on breaking the hoses attached to KC-135 booms. The contract stayed with Omega Tankers (http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/vms/), and the IL-78 became surplus to requirements.

Quoting Brons2 (Reply 7):
Looks like an IL76, what's the difference?

The IL-78 is the designation given to the IL-76 based tanker, you can see the refuelling pods on the wings. Normally they also has a refuelling pod attached to the rear port fuselage.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineFerrydxer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6376 times:



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 4):
Note on the side: If I had the money, I would buy the aircraft (problem would be the paperwork though, mainly the maintenace records) and start a cargo airline.

That aircraft would make a good outsized cargo hauler if it wasn't for those Soviet era DK-30P gas guzzlin engines. It would be good for hauling oil drilling or mining equipment to and from Alaska from the lower 48.



Government: FUBAR on everything we touch!
User currently offlineDiamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 63
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5252 times:

This is a somewhat of a tech/ops question, but shouldn't de-rail the entire thread:

We know they parked vehicles around the aircraft to block it from being flown out in the middle of the night. One might assume they also drained the fuel tanks. So, what is the danger/risk to this aircraft of having its fuel tanks empty for months at a time?



Blank.
User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5213 times:



Quoting Diamond (Reply 11):
We know they parked vehicles around the aircraft to block it from being flown out in the middle of the night. One might assume they also drained the fuel tanks. So, what is the danger/risk to this aircraft of having its fuel tanks empty for months at a time?

Why would they drain the fuel tanks? Also it can be dangerous to let the fuel tank contain fuel for a long time without draining water to prevent microbes from eating the wing skin.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4699 times:

I don't believe they can carry commercial cargo on this aircraft without a one-time emergency exemption from the US DOT just like the An-124's receive. The only reason the An-124's obtain them is that there aren't any "oversize" capable airlifters in the US commercial inventory. I don't believe this aircraft can be considered an oversize capable aircraft?

For this aircraft to fly commercially in the US by a US carrier would require an FAA type certification or some similar authority and that would be unlikely. It would also need to be Stage III. If someone can address this please do.


User currently offlineAtpcliff From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4493 times:

Hi!

I don't think it needs to be Stage III. I think DC-9s are Stage II, and the older Learjets definitely are not Stage III. This plane is already "N" registered, so I assume that means it would be legal to use it in the US???

cliff
NBO



TRY. It's all you have control over, and it's what God wants.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
IL-114 Now In Use By Uzbekistan Airways? posted Tue Sep 23 2008 00:45:26 by Mfz
Could A Cape Air Model Service Work In Michigan? posted Sun Apr 13 2008 08:37:22 by JetBlueGuy2006
Interflug IL-62 Landing In Field posted Mon Feb 25 2008 23:04:08 by Planenutz
Skybus In Michigan? posted Tue Nov 20 2007 22:31:06 by JetBlueGuy2006
IL-76 Damaged In Incident posted Sun May 13 2007 01:39:48 by MissedApproach
Thai To AMS In 2007, Update? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 04:01:43 by A388
American Airlines In Michigan posted Tue Oct 17 2006 17:54:35 by JetBlueGuy2006
Mesa In Hawaii Update posted Wed Jul 12 2006 05:55:11 by TVNWZ
Jet Service In Michigan posted Sat Mar 25 2006 02:08:38 by Zrs70
GA Plane Landing On I 75 In Michigan posted Thu Mar 9 2006 02:57:36 by Nwafflyer