Explained: "Exclusive: Leaked Photos of Chemtrail Dispersal System"

[mrfintoil]

http://www.reallibertymedia.com/2013/11/exclusive-photos-of-chemtrail-dispersal-system/

Saw this fresh article just now. The photos might be older, but couldn't find original sources through Google.
Only thing I could find out was that the pump engine is a Gorman-Rupp system http://www.grpumps.com/home

So what is actually going on in this series of images?

These are photos and descriptions provided to me by a confidential informant of what appears to be a chemtrail dispersal system.
You be the judge, but it seems very likely that chemtrails are exactly what this system is for.


Pump Inlet and Outlet - This picture is of the diesel motor that powers the system.
The pump itself is the big disc shaped thing to the left of the big cylinder sticking up with a hose coming out of it.


Ducts - These are the ducts the fluid travels to and from the pump in.


Tanks - Approximately 4 1/2 feet high and 5 1/2 feet long each.
They are installed on a cargo handling system in the main cabin, close to the over-wing exits. One tank is emptied through the widow plug on one side of the plane. Then the unit is switched over to the other tank, which sprays out of the other side of the plane.




Sprayer screws on end - This is the part that actually sticks out of the window plug.
The window plug is on the end that sticks out to show how it goes. Just behind the pipe beside the white bottle is the sprayer that screws on the end after the system is installed in the aircraft.



New window plug - The existing window plug is taken out and this one is put in.
The rubber somewhat seals around the pipe, but not well enough to pressurize the aircraft. It would be unable to fly above 10,000 feet unless everyone inside wore oxygen masks.



Sprayer Exhaust Closeup - This is the left side of the aircraft.
There is a sprayer coming out of one window plug, and an exhaust duct coming out of the other for the engine.

Sprayer Closeup - This is the right side of the aircraft with the sprayer installed.



Sprayer and Exhaust Installed - View from in front of the left wing.

This system explains so much. For years working in the industry I was always on the lookout for anything indicative of a sprayer system. I had a little doubt about the chemtrail story because I never saw evidence of a sprayer system in all the years I worked on airplanes. It didn't dawn on me it would be removable. This system is made so that it can be installed quickly, used, and then removed as desired. When not installed, the aircraft can be used as a normal 737 cargo plane. The system can also be moved from one aircraft to another. Main cabin windows are held in by just a few screws. If I remember correctly, it is eight screws per window. Then put the other window plugs in. I have been told there is also accommodation for releasing a fluid tank from the drain for the deactivated aft lav. This is a 737 cargo plane that has been converted from a passenger plane. They are very common. The workers at the facility saw this thing on a test run in front of the hangar. Water was used in the test. It came out of the sprayers in a fine mist. If sprayed from several thousand feet, people on the ground would never know they had been sprayed. My friend said they were testing to see the spray pattern and next they were going to move the spray nozzles to the back windows and test again. Officially it is said to be a sprayer for oil dispersant. That was the second explanation. The first was that it was a big crop duster. The company realized the workers weren't buying that, and laughing about it. They knew enough about aircraft to know that was impossible. So they changed the story. The supervisors in the plant call it a n****r-killer. (assholes!) The aircraft is going to be sent to Africa when it leaves this facility. When this facility was leased by another company, I worked there for 15 years. There was another aircraft that came through there years ago that requested BLOOD RESISTANT CARPET!!! The scary thing is, there was carpet like that available. Now you tell me why they would know they would need blood resistant carpet ahead of time??? Anyway, I just thought it was noteworthy that this plane was also bound for Africa.

Content from External Source

UPDATE: Explanation here:

I called them and got through. They told me that the modification was for an oil dispersant application. Wouldn't give me the company name probably because it was something under development. I was also told they might move the nozzles further back if the airstream swept too much dispersant along the fuselage.

There is probably a need for quick response worldwide given the experience of the Deepwater Horizon incident. Even Kevin Costner was scrambling to come up with ideas for dealing with a large oil spill. Deepwater drilling is happening worldwide, and a quickly deployable set of spill equipment will probably be part of any drilling contract for the foreseeable future.

I do know that in the Gulf of Mexico the operators set up a not-for-profit comany which developed a containment system ready to be deployed:

http://marinewellcontainment.com/

This is the stack portion of the system which has already been tested out in deep water and is kept on hand in case of an incident.

BP recently gave Tulane University $10 million to develop a new oil dispersant using food-safe ingredients:
http://tulane.edu/research/application/story-dispersants.cfm

So, it looks like this case is closed. A pretty good example of how things can get started by an anonymous email that left more questions than it may have answered, for reasons unknown except to whoever started it. No doubt this will keep coming up again and again and we will see some chemtrail believer citing it as a example of how something 'could' be sprayed. Yes, stuff like insecticides, herbicides, fire dispersants, etc. can be made to come out of airplanes, but this doesn't look at all like the pictures of engine exhaust or aerodynamic contrails, or even emergency fuel dumping we have already looked at.

If we start seeing pictures of stuff coming out of a 737 window, we can begin pointing a finger but I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[Miss VocalCord]

I don't know, but looking at the photo's and the way it is supposed to work I strongly have the impression somebody is making a joke/statement; like with Max Bliss and his whistleblower.

 

[Miss VocalCord]

Thanks to MikeC for this link at ATS which gives a possible explanation:
http://www.allmystery.de/themen/gg3651-2298#id11174812
They suggest it is used for the interior painting/spraying of the aircraft. I haven't found any setup exactly the same as this one.
Something that seems to work on a similar idea is shown in these pictures:
http://www.airnewstimes.co.uk/boeing-747-8i-page-10-89-photo.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flightblogger/3486299820/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flightblogger/3485481235/sizes/l/in/photostream/

 

[Strawman]

A380 is a member here. Maybe he can contribute here as well.

 

[Mick West]

The facility appears to be Commercial Jet, in Miami.
http://www.commercialjet.com/


Possibly their partner:
http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/

Both do conversion of aircraft, generally passenger to cargo

 

[Jay Reynolds]

One thing is for sure, this would not make anything like the contrails people have been calling chemtrails. The fitting of the piping through a window port with just a piece of rubber wouldn't be pressure tight and allow the plane to fly at altitudes people see contrails. As the writer stated, it looks like this could only be used at low altitudes for spraying something.

This actually sound like another case of "defining down" chemtrails. Yes, crop dusters, cloud seeders, and oil dispersant applicators do spray things which are made of chemical elements. So, seeking any confirmation of their false belief, chemtrails advocates when found lacking in their evidence usually end up pointing to something which can be sprayed, even if it looks and acts nothing like the contrails they see in the sky.

If I wanted to do the same and "define down" the idea of "chemtrails", I could say:

BREAKING NEWS!!!!

RUSS TANNER OF GLOBAL SKYWATCH ADVOCATES
SPRAYING CHEMTRAILS OVER MAJOR US CITIES!

Yes, on this past Monday, RussTanner and many of the crowd participating in his weekly conference call were advocating spraying chemical substances over major US cities in the form of skywriting!

Skywriting uses an oil injected into the engine exhaust to spray large spreading clouds of smoke, and he hoped this would bring about "awareness" for his cause. The cost seemed a little high, and I doubt he will ever get the project underway, just like geoengineering through Solar Radiation management, there are quite a few obstacles to getting even a small project "up in the air"!

 

[solrey]

That equipment could be a Modular Airborne Fire Fighting system. The equipment reminded of the MAFF system for C-130's, only on a smaller scale. The B-737 is on a list of planes that have or could be converted to air tankers for firefighting.



I think the dimensions of those tanks are a little bigger than what was quoted in the OP, they would only have to be 5.5'x6'x6.5' to hold over 1500 gallons and two of them would equal the 737's 3,000-3,500 gallon capacity. There was a federal solicitation for next generation air tankers and companies like Commercial Jet would have the capacity to perform the conversion. Keeping all that weight over the wings would be the only way to safely fly so nozzles placed in that area wouldn't be too surprising.

http://wildfiretoday.com/2011/12/02/possibilities-for-new-generation-air-tankers/

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...&id=e00ec8a34024513d98a9a8a13c09d79d&_cview=0

Someone would have to do a first conversion in order to gain approval. Maybe this is it.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The capacity looks right, bu pumps and nozles out the window just don't seem to fit fire retardant operations. I've looked at any pictures of aerial firefighting. None of them look like this. Almost all of them seem to be a "drop" operation rather than a "spray" operation. In other words, the mass of fluid comes out practically all at once. Some do this using gates which virtually open like doors to drop the water, others like the maff system and the 747 tanker use air pressure to blow out the fluid load quickly through very large pping, not nozzles.

Remember, the plane is flying 100 mph, that is a rate of travel of 146 ft/second, so in 10 seconds, the plane would travel 1460 feet, nearly 1/3 mile. 3,000 gallons spread over even 1/4 mile is almost no water at all. The 737 might not even be able to fly that slow.

The MAFFS system described here discharges the entire load in 5 seconds!
http://northshorejournal.org/california-air-national-guard-fighting-wildfires

So, to me what is being shown doesn't look viable for firefighting, but could be something for a much lower rate of discharge.

The performance curve for the Gorman Rupp pump shows it is best suited for flow rates about 1000 gallons/minute or less, so it also doesn't look right for the fast unloading used in firefighting.

 

[MikeC]

Remember, the plane is flying 100 mph, that is a rate of travel of 146 ft/second, so in 10 seconds, the plane would travel 1460 feet, nearly 1/3 mile. 3,000 gallons spread over even 1/4 mile is almost no water at all. The 737 might not even be able to fly that slow.

According to this document 737 "Classic" landing speeds are well over 100 knots (110 mph) unless empty - in which case they are only a little bit above!!

 

[solrey]

The 737 does meet the requirements of the "new generation air tankers". Apparently the USFS wants smaller capacity air tankers and has no interest in Very Large Air Tankers.

On this contract, aircraft must be able to cruise at 300 knots, have turbine engines, and have a “target” capacity of 3,000 to 5,000 gallons, with 2,400 gallons being the minimum acceptable.
[..]
It appears that the Very Large Air Tankers (VLAT), the DC-10 and the 747, would not qualify for this contract since they hold 11,600 to 20,000 gallons respectively. The USFS has made it crystal clear they have no interest in offering exclusive use contracts for these aircraft which can carry four to seven times more than a 3,000 gallon air tanker, and five to eight times more than a P-2.

Content from External Source

I agree that water/retardant dump nozzles over the wings would be an awkward setup. Don't know why I forgot to mention it the first time but despite the description in the OP of an exhaust pipe and spray nozzle, one of them could be the fresh air intake for the motor instead of a spray nozzle. I'm guessing the short one would be the intake and the longer one the exhaust. I wonder if there's more to the system that's not pictured like an aft load dump position.

Just tossing out ideas. Interesting that the USFS is looking for smaller capacity fire fighting tankers so even if that's not what this is, we could be seeing smaller MAFF systems in the near future. I suppose if you could easily fit commercial cargo planes with a MAFF system it might afford more flexibility, faster response time and be more cost effective. They could strategically stage dozens of MAFF systems and hire the planes from carriers, that have invested in retrofits, on an as needed basis rather than maintain a small fleet of dedicated large tankers that probably sit idle for long periods of time. I dunno, seems like that's where they're heading.

 

[Cairenn]

Aren't there discussions / or use of fire retardants on buildings? Could it be for that?

 

[JFDee]

Thanks to MikeC for this link at ATS which gives a possible explanation:
http://www.allmystery.de/themen/gg3651-2298#id11174812

In that posting, A380 identifies the plane visible in the leaked photos as former SX-BMC, now ZS-JRC.

I don't think that assertion is correct. Note how the plane in the photos is already painted in a windowless freighter configuration.

ZS-JRC however was converted to a "combi" configuration, with 72 passenger seats and cargo, as the press release of the ASL group states:
http://www.aslaviationgroup.com/ind...-first-boeing-737-400-combi-starts-conversion

This plane should have windows on about half the length of the fuselage, which we are not seeing on the workshop photos. Furthermore, the painting of ZS-JRC seems to have been completed in Africa, as this press release indicates (note the dates given):
http://www.aslaviationgroup.com/index.php/media/single/Boeing-737-400-Combi-Arrives-in-Johannesburg

Yet annother hint is given in the EXIF tags of the leaked photos. Assuming they have not been tampered with, the photos were taken in November 2013 - long past the ZS-JRC has entered service in Africa.

The press releases from ASL include announcements for seven more 737-400 freight conversions in Miami. It's highly likely that Commercial Jet and AEI are involved with all of these conversions (for three of them this is definitive).

I think we are seeing one of those planes in the leaked photos. For the three "SF" conversions that AEI announced, the identification should be possible:

The aircraft are all ex Qantas high gross weight B737-400’s, (MSN 24440/1992, MSN 24446/1994, MSN 24433/1990).

Content from External Source

http://www.aslaviationgroup.com/images/pdfs/AEI_Media_Release_-_August_2012.pdf

The statement from the 'leak' about the plane being designated for Africa may still be correct; the future operator might be the ASL subsidiary Safair.

 

[JFDee]

Plane identification follow-up for the Ex-Qantas planes:

24440
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/737/24440,EI-STB-Air-Contractors.php

24433
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/737/24433,EI-STD-Air-Contractors.php

24444
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/737/24444,VH-TJS-Qantas.php

The last one is apparently still in service around Australia.
http://www.libhomeradar.org/aircraft/VH-TJS.html

Since the other two seem to have re-entered service already, none of the three are likely to have been in the workshop at the moment the photos were taken.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The pictures show one nozzle over each wing of the plane, and what looks like a diesel engine exhaust pipe on the left side. That covers all the 3 appurtenances seen in the photos, two nozzles and one engine exhaust.

I am wondering what sort of publicly accessible records might exist for airplane modifications? MikeC, you are involved in lots of airplane inspections,
what, when, and how could such information be found? I suppose you might need a unique plane number to use as a reference.

For reasons unknown, and following the examples of past incidents of hoaxing, this set of photos again doesn't give us a tail (serial) number for the unique airplane, even though it had to be right there in front of the person taking the pictures. For whatever reason, so many pictures which are shown in discussions about the "chemtrails" issue are so poorly documented one always has to wonder if the intent is to deceive or just represents very poor practice. Lacking documentation on most of the chemtrails claims has always been an obstacle to verification and confirmation. This is yet another example where such information critical to establishing factual truth has been omitted.

In other words, if a genuine whistleblower were to ever emerge, leaving out crucial details while showing only part of the story renders the effort practically meaningless. At that point, you have to speculate as to why the person would only give you part of the story, and why he/she left out the crucial details needed to make his story factually conclusive. It could indicate an effort to deceive, a reticence to expose fully, or simply negligence.

You have to ask yourself "who benefits" when confronted with the apparent choice the person made to leave out the plane's actual ID, the facility location, contract numbers, company and personal names, etc. Why take a risk yet not go all the way?

 

[Joe]

1 -834 -873-4450 . I called them and Im waiting for a reply to see what the retrofit was .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Here is a more detailed look at the pump and what it can do:

 

[Jay Reynolds]

1 -834 -873-4450 . I called them and Im waiting for a reply to see what the retrofit was .

Great idea, Joe. Maybe I'll call too. Did they say they would call you back?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The nozzle looks very close to these fire hose nozzles, rated somewhere around 100 gallons/minute:
http://www.pokfire.com/pdf/catalog/Page 009.pdf

 

[Joe]

Here is a more detailed look at the pump and what it can do:

They still h

Great idea, Joe. Maybe I'll call too. Did they say they would call you back?

voice mail is all I got . I spoke to the operator first and told her i was from a debunking site and didnt think they wanted bad press so thought they would want to answer my question . Unless its military work I guess they should . if it is military then they got a mole regardless of what that is . They only been there since april so the phots must be recent . Heres a video that was posted on the site showing the facility and the building http://www.dothanfirst.com/story/se...commercial-jet/d/story/TRK8pChhQ0mycJbVmZK2cQ . Just because Im a chemmie as you say doesn't mean I don't want the truth . Looks like the pumps they use for irrigation in the orange groves .

 

[Tim TheToolman Coles]

This is just a bit to weird all the way round. I at first was thinking, NO WAY for spraying. Then, well maybe for something, but obviously not anything to do with the normal contrails that we see of course.. But questions remain....

Why is this not sealed around the outlet with attached spray nozzle? The plate is not even there, so it is just open. Almost like it is not intended to stay that way, or someone just slapped the nozzle on there for the photo... Obviously not flying with it like this.


I could be wrong, but this Nozzle also seems to have a "Hand" Adjustable Pattern Selection. You can see at least one of these position markers on the nozzle. After looking at numerous other type nozzles, these symbols seem to be pretty standard on "Adjustable Pattern" nozzles...

Call me crazy, but why would you have an hand adjustable nozzle being used for a fixed application on board, and attached to a aircraft for flight use?




One of many examples found regarding this:

This just seems like some sort of temporary setup or just slapped on to take the photos.

It is good that a couple of you have tried to make direct contact. Hopefully that will shed some real light on the whole situation.
This just all seems a bit odd, and this configuration makes no sense from an application standpoint.

 

[Joe]

This is just a bit to weird all the way round. I at first was thinking, NO WAY for spraying. Then, well maybe for something, but obviously not anything to do with the normal contrails that we see of course.. But questions remain....

Why is this not sealed around the outlet with attached spray nozzle? The plate is not even there, so it is just open. Almost like it is not intended to stay that way, or someone just slapped the nozzle on there for the photo... Obviously not flying with it like this.


I could be wrong, but this Nozzle also seems to have a "Hand" Adjustable Pattern Selection. You can see at least one of these position markers on the nozzle. After looking at numerous other type nozzles, these symbols seem to be pretty standard on "Adjustable Pattern" nozzles...

Call me crazy, but why would you have an hand adjustable nozzle being used for a fixed application on board, and attached to a aircraft for flight use?




One of many examples found regarding this:

This just seems like some sort of temporary setup or just slapped on to take the photos.

It is good that a couple of you have tried to make direct contact. Hopefully that will shed some real light on the whole situation.
This just all seems a bit odd, and this configuration makes no sense from an application standpoint.

Now I cant even get the operator ? Iv tried twice guess ill send the link to a local paper and let them have fun with it . If its supposed to be secret whatever it is theyve got a problem now . If for some reason you dont hear from me again and it isnt because Mick banned me again seeya

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I called them and got through. They told me that the modification was for an oil dispersant application. Wouldn't give me the company name probably because it was something under development. I was also told they might move the nozzles further back if the airstream swept too much dispersant along the fuselage.

There is probably a need for quick response worldwide given the experience of the Deepwater Horizon incident. Even Kevin Costner was scrambling to come up with ideas for dealing with a large oil spill. Deepwater drilling is happening worldwide, and a quickly deployable set of spill equipment will probably be part of any drilling contract for the foreseeable future.

I do know that in the Gulf of Mexico the operators set up a not-for-profit comany which developed a containment system ready to be deployed:

http://marinewellcontainment.com/

This is the stack portion of the system which has already been tested out in deep water and is kept on hand in case of an incident.

BP recently gave Tulane University $10 million to develop a new oil dispersant using food-safe ingredients:
http://tulane.edu/research/application/story-dispersants.cfm

So, it looks like this case is closed. A pretty good example of how things can get started by an anonymous email that left more questions than it may have answered, for reasons unknown except to whoever started it. No doubt this will keep coming up again and again and we will see some chemtrail believer citing it as a example of how something 'could' be sprayed. Yes, stuff like insecticides, herbicides, fire dispersants, etc. can be made to come out of airplanes, but this doesn't look at all like the pictures of engine exhaust or aerodynamic contrails, or even emergency fuel dumping we have already looked at.

If we start seeing pictures of stuff coming out of a 737 window, we can begin pointing a finger but I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[Joe]

I called them and got through. They told me that the modification was for an oil dispersant application. Wouldn't give me the company name probably because it was something under development. I was also told they might move the nozzles further back if the airstream swept too much dispersant along the fuselage.

There is probably a need for quick response worldwide given the experience of the Deepwater Horizon incident. Even Kevin Costner was scrambling to come up with ideas for dealing with a large oil spill. Deepwater drilling is happening worldwide, and a quickly deployable set of spill equipment will probably be part of any drilling contract for the foreseeable future.

I do know that in the Gulf of Mexico the operators set up a not-for-profit comany which developed a containment system ready to be deployed:

http://marinewellcontainment.com/

This is the stack portion of the system which has already been tested out in deep water and is kept on hand in case of an incident.

BP recently gave Tulane University $10 million to develop a new oil dispersant using food-safe ingredients:
http://tulane.edu/research/application/story-dispersants.cfm

So, it looks like this case is closed. A pretty good example of how things can get started by an anonymous email that left more questions than it may have answered, for reasons unknown except to whoever started it. No doubt this will keep coming up again and again and we will see some chemtrail believer citing it as a example of how something 'could' be sprayed. Yes, stuff like insecticides, herbicides, fire dispersants, etc. can be made to come out of airplanes, but this doesn't look at all like the pictures of engine exhaust or aerodynamic contrails, or even emergency fuel dumping we have already looked at.

If we start seeing pictures of stuff coming out of a 737 window, we can begin pointing a finger but I doubt that will ever happen.

Yea but who took the pictures ? They told me the same thing . I told them they should look into where the pictures came from . I doubt that will put it to rest because its not like they would say its to spread chemtrails

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Yea but who took the pictures ?

Whoever took them seems to have kept that to himself. It didn't really help the cause at all to do so, just like so many elements of this hoax.

One very big unanswered question is who the hydrogeologist is whom I've heard cited by Dane Wigington at least a dozen times. The claim is something like, "I was told by a hydrogeoeogist that aluminum shouldn't be in our rainwater, period." None of his friends seems to ever want him to give out the name, or to check it for veracity. I know who he talked to and that person said no such thing. Dane is lying when he says that.

 

[Tim TheToolman Coles]

Yea but who took the pictures ? They told me the same thing . I told them they should look into where the pictures came from . I doubt that will put it to rest because its not like they would say its to spread chemtrails

Well, I would assume that every detail is really none of our business. Great work Jay. Just that alone at least tells us what it was the photos represented. We are lucky to have that. As far as I am concerned that pretty much wraps it up.

It should be VERY OBVIOUS looking at what the weird configuration is in these photos that anything sprayed out of them would not at all look like anything that we now see in the skies. Nozzles are small, and located above the wings.

Jay said,

I was also told they might move the nozzles further back if the airstream swept too much dispersant along the fuselage.

I would say that would be a given.. I do not see how it could keep from spreading onto the fuselage and tail section in this crazy configuration.

So, we know now that the nozzles and modification was for an oil dispersant application. Great News. That should leave most reasonable and thinking people to not worry about this particular set of photos. I still think it was done as a hoax, but that is opinion. I have no way at this time to verify that..

 

[Tim TheToolman Coles]

Whoever took them seems to have kept that to himself. It didn't really help the cause at all to do so, just like so many elements of this hoax.

One very big unanswered question is who the hydrogeologist is whom I've heard cited by Dane Wigington at least a dozen times. The claim is something like, "I was told by a hydrogeoeogist that aluminum shouldn't be in our rainwater, period." None of his friends seems to ever want him to give out the name, or to check it for veracity. I know who he talked to and that person said no such thing. Dane is lying when he says that.

Well I hit post too soon I guess. That is another great piece of information that we all pretty much knew. Dane, Russ, and the rest of these people are always making claims of people saying this and that, without ever actually providing any evidence for that.

Jay, exceptional work. Above the call of duty...

And I am sure, that the unfortunately, The Myth Will Continue.......................... Cue the music..............

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Dane, Russ, and the rest of these people are always making claims of people saying this and that, without ever actually providing any evidence for that.

This is an accounting of over a decade of undocumented claims that got the ball rolling and kept it going for this hoax:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/proposal-for-a-chemtrails-information-freedom-aagreement.267/

As you can see in the link above, I tried my best to turn these people honest. If they had been willing to open themselves up and not leave so many questions unanswered , most of this would have be over by now. Such hypocrites, demanding answers from everyone, yet ignoring requests to answer for their own statements.

If anyone is interested, I did speak to Sue Priest. She stands by her statement, which was accurate yet has been misquoted for years now in a blatant attempt by Wigington to appeal to her authority. After considering the character of Wigington, et. al., she didn't want to get involved.

 

[Tim TheToolman Coles]

If anyone is interested, I did speak to Sue Priest. She stands by her statement, which was accurate yet has been misquoted for years now in a blatant attempt by Wigington to appeal to her authority. After considering the character of Wigington, et. al., she didn't want to get involved.

And.................... who could blame her.....

 

[MikeC]

I am wondering what sort of publicly accessible records might exist for airplane modifications? MikeC, you are involved in lots of airplane inspections,
what, when, and how could such information be found? I suppose you might need a unique plane number to use as a reference.

the FAA page for STC's has a number of Aeronautical Engineering, but none seem to look like htey might be this - I did a search for "liquid" there too and got about a dozen - including the Everts DC-6 fuel tankers - but nothing for 737's.

If AE are just fitting it then the STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) will be under someone elses name, or may not actually be approved yet so isn't listed.

STC's are approvals to fit types of equipment that are not included in the original design - for example AEI have developed a number of designs to convert 737 passenger aircraft into freighters - Boeing will build you a freighter using their approved design, but the conversion of an aircraft is not covered by the approval to build a freighter from new.

STC's are the approval method for a massive range of modifications - from new engines to complete role changes such as these Pax-freight conversions, to adding in temporary fuel tanks for long range ferry or a bolt-on plastic tank and some booms to a light helicopter to spray agricultural products.

 

[Joe]

Its is unique as far as design . I cant find anything that even comes close . Oil dispersant ? Above the wings and the exhaust of the the engines ? That is going to be a hard sell unless someone can find something similar .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

the FAA page for STC's has a number of Aeronautical Engineering, but none seem to look like htey might be this - I did a search for "liquid" there too and got about a dozen - including the Everts DC-6 fuel tankers - but nothing for 737's.

If AE are just fitting it then the STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) will be under someone elses name, or may not actually be approved yet so isn't listed.

STC's are approvals to fit types of equipment that are not included in the original design - for example AEI have developed a number of designs to convert 737 passenger aircraft into freighters - Boeing will build you a freighter using their approved design, but the conversion of an aircraft is not covered by the approval to build a freighter from new.

STC's are the approval method for a massive range of modifications - from new engines to complete role changes such as these Pax-freight conversions, to adding in temporary fuel tanks for long range ferry or a bolt-on plastic tank and some booms to a light helicopter to spray agricultural products.

So, if we knew the actual plane number we should eventually be able to find an STC for the modification. I figured that there would be a clear paper trail, with all parts down to nuts and bolts used to put the aluminum framework together being traceable all the way back to the lot of steel they were forged from.. In my work on ships we also have regulations covering substantial changes from original designs approved by the US Coast Guard.

Well, if the photos had included the plane number, then most of the mystery would have been over before it started. Too bad the person who emailed the photos out didn't include the key piece of information actually needed, the plane number. In fact, he probably didn't even need to include any pictures at all, just the plane number.

A simple written description as he did, along with a plane number would have actually been all he needed to provide!

Same goes for each and every claim anyone has ever made about "sprayer planes".

All they ever needed was a plane number. These planes don't simply appear out of nowhere, and once registered with a plane number, they don't go away without a trace unless they crash in an unknown place.

If it seems I am implying that a properly documented claim should include a plane number, you are beginning to get my whole point.

 

[MikeC]

So, if we knew the actual plane number we should eventually be able to find an STC for the modification. I figured that there would be a clear paper trail, with all parts down to nuts and bolts used to put the aluminum framework together being traceable all the way back to the lot of steel they were forged from.. ...

There would be such a trail - but it wouldn't be public information. The parts can be sourced from anywhere and their release notes and traceability become part of the aircraft's record.

Back when all records were on paper I had the "pleasure" of helping assemble them for an old 737-100 that was off to the boneyard, and they amounted to a standard forklift pallet loaded about 4 feet high

If it seems I am implying that a properly documented claim should include a plane number, you are beginning to get my whole point.

Indeed - a registration or manufacturers serial number would allow you to look up the a/c on the FAA database and see which STC's had been incorporated. Not all countries have such good public access to a/c records tho - a little ironic perhaps these days that the US does have better info than other places!!

 

[JFDee]

That is going to be a hard sell unless someone can find something similar .

Joe, do I remember correctly that you are based in Florida?

If it ever happens that you come to Miami, can't you try to get a peek into the Commercial Jet area and note down the (visible) plane registrations?

 

[A380]

In that posting, A380 identifies the plane visible in the leaked photos as former SX-BMC, now ZS-JRC.

I don't think that assertion is correct. Note how the plane in the photos is already painted in a windowless freighter configuration.

Here is a windowless airliner: http://www.aerogate.net/forum/showthread.php?t=997

The aircraft is in painting, the windows are taped. Only the emergency exits and the two windows behind it are free. Have freighter actually emergency exits?

Here is the description by Safair:

http://www.safair.co.za/fleet/737-400-Combi

And here is a photo of the left side:

http://www.fap.fi/view_photo.php?id=5071

Here we see the contours of the windows in the cargo door, if we enlarge the image.

And here we can see that all places and the hangar are the same:







But the thing about the plane is just a side issue in the posting at allmystery.de. The core of the posting is that there should be a compressor with inlet and outlet air, which is used in the aircraft. After the conversion to the freighter, the surface sure is so treated. Whether it is this or another plane, this is not quite so important.

 

[Joe]

Joe, do I remember correctly that you are based in Florida?

If it ever happens that you come to Miami, can't you try to get a peek into the Commercial Jet area and note down the (visible) plane registrations?

That facility was Alabama and its only been there since April 2013 . I spoke to the Vice president and he told me the same thing Jay said . he also asked me for the plane number which their was not available in the pictures . Yet he knew what the retrofit was ? Searched their website and that wasnt on their menu of options . Still looking for something similar could be experimental and one of a kind . Miami is south of me 138 miles not exactly my cup of tea .

 

[JFDee]

And here is a photo of the left side:

Good find, I was unsuccessful in my search of a current image for ZS-JRC.

And here we can see that all places and the hangar are the same:

Given that AEI constantly does 737 cargo conversions, this is hardly something to base a plane identification on.

Whether it is this or another plane, this is not quite so important.

Agreed, but identifying the specific callsign might lead to some official documents regarding the modification, which in turn could lift the remaining veil from this 'mystery'.

If we assume that ASL Group is the main client of AEI/Commercial Jet at the moment and that the airplane conversion shown is an order from ASL, there are two candidates left:
N287AL (serial no. 25184)
N288AL (serial no. 25181)
http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/ASL-Aviation-Group#current

These two have been acquired by ASL but have not been assigned to their new posts yet.

Of course the 'leaked' plane could also be completely unrelated to ASL, but the mentioning of 'Africa' in the 'leaked report' might indeed point to Safair as the future operator.

Edit:
N287AL (25184) is designated for Europe Airpost (France)
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/737/25184,N287AL-ASL-Aviation-Group.php

N288AL (25181) is designated for Air Contractors (Ireland)
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/737/25181,N288AL-ASL-Aviation-Group.php

So, no obvious link to Africa. The conversion dates would closely match though.

 

[A380]

If we assume that ASL Group is the main client of AEI/Commercial Jet at the moment and that the airplane conversion shown is an order from ASL, there are two candidates left:

But ASL writes itself:

The aircraft was ferried to Pemco's facility at Dothan, Alabama to start the process, with the work due for completion in February 2012. Once back into service the B737-400 will be capable of carrying 72 passengers and nearly 11,000kg of containerised maindeck freight over distances of 3,700 kilometres.

Content from External Source

http://aslaviationgroup.com/index.php/media/single/ups-anticipates-prohibition-of-merger

This is consistent with this information by Safair:

http://www.safair.co.za/fleet/737-400-Combi

In the first picture we can read at the nose gear "HF" - N143HF:



And it was this plane:

http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/737/27143,ZS-JRC-Safair.php

 

[Joe]

Heres a video of the plant from a few days ago that was posted on the site ,http://www.dothanfirst.com/story/se...commercial-jet/d/story/TRK8pChhQ0mycJbVmZK2cQ

 

[Jay Reynolds]

That facility was Alabama and its only been there since April 2013 . I spoke to the Vice president and he told me the same thing Jay said . he also asked me for the plane number which their was not available in the pictures . Yet he knew what the retrofit was ? Searched their website and that wasnt on their menu of options . Still looking for something similar could be experimental and one of a kind . Miami is south of me 138 miles not exactly my cup of tea .

Joe, just take a few days off, go down and ask to see the plane.
Might also help to tell them Jay Reynolds sent you......

 

[A380]

Here is an article:

http://www.wtvy.com/home/headlines/New-Pemco-Tenant-Named-201627721.html

That would mean:

Miami: AEI and Commercial Jet
Tampa: Pemco
Dothan: until the beginning of April 2013 Pemco, then Commercial Jet. Here was my mistake, I was permanently at Pemco (same places, descriptions, etc).

Heres a video of the plant from a few days ago that was posted on the site

That was Apr 12, 2013, Commercial Jet new in this hangar. Photographs at reallibertymedia.com are from Dothan, that means, ZS-JRC is wrong. If Commercial Jet is in this Hangar since April 2013, it could be these freighter:

Moderator Note - deirdre

below links for aeronautical engineers have been moved on their website, dates can be searched here:
http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/news/

http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/CargoAir 737-400SF Redelivery 7-23-13.pdf
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/737/24474,LZ-CGR-Cargo-Air.php

http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/AEI Redelivers Fourth ASL B737-400SF conversion 9-25-13.pdf
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/737/25261,EI-STE-Air-Contractors.php

http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/Kahala 737-400SF Redelivery 10-7-13.pdf
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/737/25052,OY-JTI-Jettime.php

http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/AEI Redelivers Fifth ASL B737-400SF 11 Pallet Conversion 11-19-13.pdf
http://www.planespotters.net/Production_List/Boeing/737/25184,F--Europe-Airpost.php

But: Last EXIF-Data are from Nov 22, 2013. If they are correct the aircraft would still be there. Then it might be one of these:

http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/Kahala Orders Four AEI 737-400SF 4-23-13.pdf
(The first will be converted at one off AEI’s North American Conversion Facilities, but the other?)

http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/ASL three more AEI B737-400SF 5-28-13.pdf
(Begin: Mai/Jun 2013)

http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/Farnair eight AEI B737-400SF 6-13-13.pdf
(Begin: Aug 2013)

List:

http://www.aeronautical-engineers.com/news.html