Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Still Not A W/O?  
User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1118 times:

This will not fly again !!

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/sa747/5.shtml http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/sa747/6.shtml



9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1071 times:

Looks like a write-off to me. The structural integrity has been compromised significantly. Regards.


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1057 times:

I'm not an aeronautical engineer (nor do I play one on TV) but my guess would be that if Boeing could re-build that JAL 747 from the floorline down (on-site, off-runway, in the dead of an ANC winter), than they could darn sure so something like, maybe, repair/convert this aircraft into a nose-loading freighter...


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Scandpix



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt



Boeing also spliced the nose of a new 707 on and older one damaged in a terrorist attack long ago, so they sure have the expertise to do whatever the airline (or hull insuror) wanted them to do.


User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1051 times:

It's dead, Jim

 Sad

(check out those other pictures, #3 and #7:

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/sa747/3.shtml
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/sa747/7.shtml

must've been going at a fair clip for the nosegear to `make it to the other side', like that)


User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6341 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1035 times:

The damage is not as bad as it looks. It could be repaired without much difficulty, but a fair amount of money. Whether repairs are economically feasible is the question.


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offline242 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 498 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1014 times:

Sure, it can be fixed. Bring the speed-tape, the BIG roll!  Wink/being sarcastic

It's pretty much up the insurance company whether this aircraft will fly again.


User currently offlineWatewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 976 times:

There's nothing a little duct tape can't fix.

User currently offlineZbeeblebrox74 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 966 times:

Ok, my $10 input. From the looks of it, the fractures in the fuselage are obviously very severe, but at the same time they seem to be limited entirely to Section 41, mostly along the assembly point. My guess is that if the damage is indeed limited to this section, the plane could fly again if a new nose section is fitted (eg cannibalize one of KLM's B747-206B SUDs currently sitting in the desert).

If, however, the structural damage extends beyond the first passenger door into the much larger forward fuselage assembly I'm pretty sure it's a writeoff (could still be fixed but probably cheaper to buy a new one). I do hope they can repair it. Sure looks like a major 'oopsie daisy'!!!


User currently offlineZbeeblebrox74 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 962 times:

Ok, a closer look at the photographs shows me that unfortunately the nosegear has been shoved quite a way back into the forward fuselage, beyond Sec 41 which could mean bad news  Crying

User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 943 times:

The latest Airliners magazine out of the UK has an awesome article on the onsight restoration of the JAL 747 at ANC. They literally re-built a 747 out in the open.
It cost 21 million at the time, which was cheaper than a new one for 35 or 40 million (twenty years ago prices!).


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...
EK Still Not Happy With 787/350XWB posted Mon Oct 22 2007 08:37:04 by B7x7
Udvar-Hazy Still Not Happy With A350XWB posted Tue Jun 19 2007 17:22:20 by Lumberton
Open Skies: EU Still Not Taking "no" For An Answer posted Mon Jan 29 2007 19:29:40 by Kaitak
New TSA Liquid Rules Still Not Updated In Malaysia posted Sat Oct 7 2006 22:04:59 by Malaysia
Why Is This 747 Still Not Flying? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 00:22:05 by EZEIZA
Swiss Still Not In Star Alliance Timetable posted Fri Mar 24 2006 18:44:10 by Mozart
Industry Capacity Still Not At Pre 9/11 Levels posted Tue Aug 2 2005 15:23:02 by DAYflyer
John Leahy (Airbus) Still Not Concerned About 7E7? posted Fri May 7 2004 15:00:30 by Navion
Still Not A W/O? posted Thu Sep 6 2001 02:57:25 by Hkgspotter1
AA Is Still Not Biggest! posted Sun Jul 29 2001 19:01:16 by SESGDL