Rotting Planes. Sad.

DaleB said:
Maybe, maybe not. The hangar across from mine is occupied by a mid 1950s vintage Apache that I don’t think has flown since the 80s or 90s.
And a car, and a couple of motorcycles, and stacks and stacks of boxes of stuff, and...
Click to expand...
Your airport management is different from ours. That wouldn’t fly here...
 
This is in a hangar in Toronto. The story I was told is that a Russian billionaire started dating a woman in Toronto and bought her this jet so that she could visit him. They broke up shortly afterwards.
I was told it’s very low time but now has so many outstanding maintenance AD’s, and service due it’s not worth much. The guy keeps paying the several thousand a month in hangar fees.
That’s the story I heard. Can’t vouch for the accuracy.
 

Attachments

  • 750CAE0C-246C-4885-B9CA-90FF8EFE68B7.jpeg
    750CAE0C-246C-4885-B9CA-90FF8EFE68B7.jpeg
    168.8 KB · Views: 144
This is a truck stop somewhere in Ontario, Canada. I pulled in to get gas and saw a bunch of airplanes with their wheels halfway buried in the dirt. The runway no longer existed.
 

Attachments

  • F7CB170E-9C7C-47EC-9E27-CDFDF84A7C00.jpeg
    F7CB170E-9C7C-47EC-9E27-CDFDF84A7C00.jpeg
    313.5 KB · Views: 141
hindsight2020 said:
Never understood the psychology of keeping these things storage-payment current. For all the pride in ownership smears I put up with with my "cosmetically challenged" spam can, at least I'm buying fuel (274 gallons last trip, over $5 average price), incurring mx costs and patronizing destination services (landing/parking/use/potato fees).
Click to expand...
Me either. The guy that owns the Cessna 140 I was using just over a year ago for tailwheel stuff hasn't replaced a cylinder that cracked back in August... the plane's just sitting in a $400+/mo hangar when I could have had it flying and making $$$ for at least 6/hrs a month if we could've gotten it fixed. Big, heavy sigh.
 
This thread made me go look at the foreflight aerial map zoomed in on the Tullahouma, TN airport, KTHA. I don’t know when the picture was taken last, but it shows a DC3 still sitting on the Tarmac East of the main runway. It has been setting there for YEARS with the tires flat.

Where I hangared years ago, Bonham, Tx, there is a Cherokee 235 in a hail shed with no fuel tanks. It’s still there as of last week and has been there a full ten years that I know of. I would assume that they are still paying their rent.
 
AB19E7DA-D999-4F35-972F-5B5C40B1A54C.jpeg
MBDiagMan said:
This thread made me go look at the foreflight aerial map zoomed in on the Tullahouma, TN airport, KTHA. I don’t know when the picture was taken last, but it shows a DC3 still sitting on the Tarmac East of the main runway. It has been setting there for YEARS with the tires flat.

Where I hangared years ago, Bonham, Tx, there is a Cherokee 235 in a hail shed with no fuel tanks. It’s still there as of last week and has been there a full ten years that I know of. I would assume that they are still paying their rent.
Click to expand...
There’s an effort underway trying to raise money and restore that DC-3. Don’t think it’s gained a lot of traction though. Those in the skydiving community know that plane as Mr. Douglas although it doesn’t have that paint job anymore
 
Ah yes, the two rotten planes ay KPTV, They belong to the shop there, I know the owner, they will probly be there forever.
 
RyanB said:
Your airport management is different from ours. That wouldn’t fly here...
Click to expand...
This has come up at my airport. We have a lot of planes that sit in hangars and haven’t been flown in years. However, they pay the rent and keep insurance on the planes. With the severe hangar shortage around here, these hangars could be occupied by planes that would be flown and bring money to the airport in fuel sales.

The question becomes, can an airport that has taken federal and state funding kick someone out because they don’t fly? I think the answer is no, but I’m not sure.
 
Last edited:
RyanB said:
Your airport management is different from ours. That wouldn’t fly here...
Click to expand...

At some of the airports I have seen, that is a best case scenario. I know of one hangar that holds a disassembled parasol of some sort to meet the requirement, and a few that don't even pretend to hold planes.
 
Our hangar leases renew this month. They sent a form with the leases wanting to know the tail number, the insurance details, and if the airplane is airworthy. If not, they want to know if it's actively being worked on and when it will be airworthy. Apparently this is a new thing, so I wonder if they're going to start enforcing the terms of the lease.
 
Not rotting but three hangars @ KFDK contain the stuff for a museum. It's a great group of guys that run it and they have some really nice MD related airplane stuff (as well as airplanes) but it is a 3+ year wait for a hangar and AOPA failed in their plan to build more.

Hangar next to ours has a Bonanza that hasn't been airworthy in 10 years. No, it's not being worked on.

I get it. Stuff happens and planes don't get flyable again as soon as people think they will but when people are waiting to put planes in hangars that fly there needs to be some sort of control.
 
Lowflynjack said:
This has come up at my airport. We have a lot of planes that sit in hangars and haven’t been flown in years. However, they pay the rent and keep insurance on the planes. With the severe hangar shortage around here, these hangars could be occupied by planes that would be flown and bring money to the airport in fuel sales.

The question becomes, can a airport that has taken federal and state funding kick someone out because they don’t fly? I think the answer is no, but I’m not sure.
Click to expand...

I fully expect that it is different from airport to airport. I have seen planes evicted from hangars two different times and was quite pleased. At one airport the lease agreement required that the aircraft had to be within six months of annual. I suppose that if you signed that agreement, then the airport had the right to enforce it.

In our corner of the world, as I expect it is most everywhere, hangar space is scarce. Although I understand the thought process that if you pay the rent you should be able to do as you please, hangars should be used for planes that are flown, not for cheap storage.

If there was a requirement that only airworthy planes are kept in hangars, maybe people would be motivated to sell them on to someone who would make use of them and keep them in the air allowing more people to fly.
 
Pugs said:
I get it. Stuff happens and planes don't get flyable again as soon as people think they will but when people are waiting to put planes in hangars that fly there needs to be some sort of control.
Click to expand...

"But I'm going to get it flying again Real Soon Now!"
 
Unlike a car or motorcycle, as an example, the fixed costs of owning an airplane are quite high. I must admit I am really surprised at the number of people paying tie-down or hangar rent for years, even decades, as the plane becomes a derelict. The pictures on this thread are sobering; some of these are so far gone there's not enough integrity left in the airframe to even part it out.

The "romance" of aviation strikes again, and again?
 
Lowflynjack said:
This has come up at my airport. We have a lot of planes that sit in hangars and haven’t been flown in years. However, they pay the rent and keep insurance on the planes. With the severe hangar shortage around here, these hangars could be occupied by planes that would be flown and bring money to the airport in fuel sales.

The question becomes, can an airport that has taken federal and state funding kick someone out because they don’t fly? I think the answer is no, but I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
The answer to my question appears to be, yes, an airport can kick a non-flying plane out of a hangar.

Question 8. What aeronautical uses of a hangar are permissible?
FAA Response.
  • Storage of active aircraft.
  • Shelter for maintenance, repair, or refurbishment of aircraft, but not the indefinite storage of non-operational aircraft.
  • Construction of amateur-built or kit-built aircraft provided that activities are conducted safely;
  • Storage of aircraft handling equipment, e.g., tow bar, glider tow equipment, workbenches, and tools and materials used to service, maintain, repair or outfit aircraft; items related to ancillary or incidental uses that do not affect the hangars' primary use.
  • Storage of materials related to an aeronautical activity, e.g., balloon and skydiving equipment, office equipment, teaching tools, and materials related to ancillary or incidental uses that do not affect the hangars' primary use; V' Storage of non-aeronautical items that do not interfere with the primary aeronautical purpose of the hangar (for example, televisions, furniture).
  • A vehicle parked at the hangar while the aircraft usually stored in that hangar is flying, subject to local airport rules and regulations.

Frequently Asked Questions & Answers On FAA Policy on Use of Hangars at Obligated Airports
Airports Click Here for Full Page on FAA.gov.
 
Half the open T-Hangars at my home drome, Harvey Field, Snohomish, WA (S43) are filled with RVs and boats. It's privately owned, public use, and I don't know if they have taken federal or state money.
 
I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this: our airport, Watsonville, CA, actually has a special rate for derelict aircraft: $1000/year. Predictably, then, there are a few utterly dead airplanes sitting around here. I can't imagine what the airplane owners are thinking--some of these planes have been sitting out for well over 20 years and must now be virtually worthless. FWIW, I'm pretty sure this airport receives federal funds.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top