The plane seems to be missing the entire vertical stab/rudder assembly, flap assembly, and both engines. Would making this plane serviceable actually be worth it? It seems that the cost would simply be too great considering the amount of missing parts and the age of this A/C (build in 1985).
Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
Citationjet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 22236 times:
CAN this plane become airworthy and WILL the plane become airworthy are two different questions. Given that truely historic aircraft in worse shape (like a B-17 or B-29) have been totally restored with less than that to start with, the answer is it CAN be done. However, economically it doesn't make sense, given the numbers of existing 737-300s available that wouldn't require the amount of work, it means that it most likely will not happen.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6039 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 21649 times:
Actually, it wouldn't be that hard; CFM56-3's are a dime a dozen (haha), flaps are changed every so often anyhow (on condition), and the vertical can be replaced.
I don't see anything there that looks too difficult/costly, especially given that everything missing clearly went somewhere, perhaps to overhaul.
The catch is, what we CAN'T see in this photo. If other things have been robbed for service on other aircraft, well, it's pretty much a high tide to swim against.
Aesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 7381 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 21584 times:
Looks to me like the aircraft has been used as parts donor, I don't think you would do that if the end goal was to make it fly again. Take one or two things because you need them ASAP, sure, but it looks stripped of a lot of things !
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3971 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 20966 times:
Problem with aircrafts just sitting around is that operators tend to consider them as convenient spare parts stores.
The thinking is always along the lines of: 'we'll get an APU from that one in the mean time, since it doesn't need it, and then we'll overhaul the old one later when it goes back to flying'.
And before they know it they end up with an aircraft so derelict it's not even worth trying to make it airworthy again...
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7309 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19631 times:
When evaluating a derelict aircraft you have to consider not only what it will take in parts and labor to replace what is missing, but also the state of the paperwork. If it is not in order then virtually every part needs to be inspected and/or overhauled, which immediately makes the project impossible.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
TrnsWrld From United States of America, joined May 1999, 999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 14843 times:
According to the pictures photographer the aircraft is just being worked on and the vertical stabilizer being replaced. Bolt the tail, engines, and wing flaps/slats back on and looks pretty complete to me
I'm no aircraft mechanic, but looks like it might just be going through a heavy check especially considering the paint was cleanly removed from the fuselage.
SavannahMark From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7581 times:
Judging by the work they've done on her exterior (sanding down to bare metal in preparation of new paint), I'm of the opinion there are plans to put her in the air again. Maybe plain white finish in preparation for sale - who knows.
strfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1697 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6933 times:
that plane has been robbed down to "Parade REST"! Yes it can be restored! with MUCHO Dinero, and about 2 months after all parts are in hand because it's down to Overhaul criteria as it looks right now. I'd estimate $3.5-5.2M depending on Corrosion. I have seen far worse repaired and was a rep for a B720 that went through restoration. The airplane was modified to carry JT8D-219's and it flew like a raped APE as a concept for replacing the KC135's engines with PW's rather than the CFM-56. The project came in on time and under Budget as well !!
falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6245 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6347 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2): I don't see anything there that looks too difficult/costly, especially given that everything missing clearly went somewhere, perhaps to overhaul.
That is what I was thinking. Maybe that plane is in the middle of an overhaul and all the parts were removed for repair/rebuilding/replacement. I have some old films of planes getting a heavy check and they have all kinds of stuff removed.
beakerltn From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5911 times:
It's the undercarriage that gives it away to me.. far too good for it not to be put back into service. If an airframe was not going anywhere the tyres get deflated at it generally looks like it stuck where it's sitting. That one looks ready to go.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26508 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5809 times:
Why would anyone want to spend the huge amount of money to return that hulk to service? Would be much cheaper to acquire an intact retired 733, for example those now being retired by LH, which would need much less work.
migair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 2110 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5108 times:
Stored in Karachi (Coastal City) without a proper protection will create a big amount of corrosion, that is one of the causes can make a plane end its life, So it will be difficult to send it to service again.
It´s cheaper to lease another plane than make this serviceable again.
Yakflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4849 times:
I am in agreement with SavannahMark. The picture was taken this month and it appears to me the plane is in the middle of a heavy maintenance visit. Nobody strips the paint off an airframe to scrap it. Based on the comment attached to the picture and what we can see, it looks to me like it will be painted and reassembled. I think the reason it looks so bad to some of the commenters is that the paint is off making it appear like a derelict.
speedbird11 From UK - England, joined Feb 2010, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4255 times:
ATDB shows aircraft being parted out. She has 67625 hours 59472 cycles on her. Had the plane still had some paint on her I would have said she's a definate part out. However, the complete back to bare metal strip down suggests other use. Financially it makes no sense as there is more money in the parts value. If PIA really needed the capacity then much cheaper 300's are available. Odd........
SavannahMark From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3626 times:
Wish I had spent more time looking at the larger photo. Peaking throw the starboard emergency evacuation door, the interior looks completely stripped. Yes, I believe it to be a part out but find it odd they would have sanded it down to bare metal. Has the Pakistani government finally enacted some real environment laws that requires the removal of potentially hazard paints and/or solvents prior to the scrapping of aircraft/ships? Would certainly be a step in the right direction.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 10114 posts, RR: 52
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3199 times:
While fundamentally it can become airworthy, I somewhat doubt an airplane in that condition could ever get anything other than a temporary airworthiness certificate, and not a certificate acceptable for commercial operations. It depends on the regulatory authority and Pakistan is more flexible than the FAA or EASA.
The FAA would revoke the airworthiness for that airplane because it no longer airworthy meeting its approved design. To get it back, an operator would need to demonstrate that the airplane is airworthy and capable of passing all inspections. While anything is possible, it would be very difficult to get approval to operate that airplane again since it is sitting out in an exposed environment. The corrosion in the cabin with a missing exit door would be extremely extensive. Most airplanes parked in the desert and parted out do not have valid airworthiness certificates.
There is a storage and preservation program that is included in the maintenance manual for airlines to keep store airplanes. When airplanes are parked and parted out not following those procedures, getting an airworthiness certificate to resume commercial operations is very difficult.