Quote: Whoever buys the plane will have two weeks to work with a contractor in Roswell to tear it apart. The tear down has to be witnessed by personnel from the Department of Defense to make sure it can never fly again.
Is it normal to mandate something like this in a sale?
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6810 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 42030 times:
Well, in another thread someone claimed to have flown in a 747 built in 2006, which I promptly labeled a counterfeit, as all 747's delivered after 2005 were freighters. Perhaps the government wants to keep parts away from whoever is counterfeiting 747's?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
trigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 537 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 41962 times:
DOD has gone to the practice of forced demil-ing almost all aircraft they sell. If this is owned by DOD, then it doesn't surprise me. This is why you will never see aircraft that are modern now flying the airshow circuit in 50 years because the DOD refuses to sell them. 50 years ago you could buy any surplus aircraft you wanted, now you can't hardly get anything.
planespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3520 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 40939 times:
Quoting trigged (Reply 6): This is why you will never see aircraft that are modern now flying the airshow circuit in 50 years because the DOD refuses to sell them.
Well, the last few generations of military aircraft are quite a bit more complex than even F-86/Mig-15 era surplus.
Keeping and maintaining a WWII fighter aircraft flyable isn't too much different than maintaining a complex and turbocharged general aviation single from the '60s (I'm talking about it from a maintenance/technology standpoint - not expense) ... holding onto an F-100, F-4, A-7 or whatever other Vietnam-era or later aircraft would be quite the challenge for anyone except for someone with the deepest pockets.
falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6066 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 39227 times:
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 13): Clearly, if nothing can be salvaged then this will reduce it's value further.
it will be interesting to see who will buy it.
If you can get it cheaper than the value of the scrap metal and the labor cost to cut it up, you have a money maker. You could also sit on it and wait for the scrap prices to go up, but then again it could go down. Looks like you would have to cut it up on the spot and they may want it gone in a hurry.
I love scrap. I would buy it and cut it up if I could and got a deal on it.
sf260 From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 39087 times:
Quoting planespotting (Reply 12): holding onto an F-100, F-4, A-7 or whatever other Vietnam-era or later aircraft would be quite the challenge for anyone except for someone with the deepest pockets.
AH-1 Cobra and OV-10 Bronco are flying in civilian hands, which are both typical Vietnam era aircraft. The cost is no more than a Mustang/Spitefire-type of aircraft.
(Trojan, Skyraider, Skymaster, etc served in Vietnam too but are a decade or more older.)
Apart from that I think you are quite right, it becomes increasingly difficult to operate some newer ex mil aircraft. Sadly enough...
About that 747, the aluminum would probably be worth around $120-130k, but it takes quite a job to to recycle it and make it something usable...
We had two Grumman OV-1D Mohawks until the mid 2000's when we sold one of them because we didnt have enough pilots to fly both. We still fly the one we have now to airshows. Both flew Vietnam and the first Gulf War.
Ironically, we were in talks to recieve a second one again, but we wouldn't fly it.
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 37315 times:
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 13): Clearly, it is likely that this training makes the aircraft no longer airworthy. Also the damage caused by this training could give hints about the nature of the training.
I'd venture to guess that's exactly why they don't want this aircraft to see the light of day. Especially when it comes to ingress and egress points.
Or, -they could spend some money on it (forget about the current economical restraints....)
by repainting it, just like what they recently did to the old firetrainer at FBU, which was trucked up to GEN