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 ... "
AvConsultant From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 13550 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.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13808 posts, RR: 63
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 13325 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.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8644 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9398 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
Ferrydxer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6177 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.
Diamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5053 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?
Larshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5014 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.
TropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4500 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.
Atpcliff From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4294 times:
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???
TRY. It's all you have control over, and it's what God wants.