Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Service Life 747Classic Vs 744 Vs 748I  
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

I wonder if the 744 and the coming 748I are constructed to make more flights than the 747 Classics, if they are built to last longer.

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3150 times:

Well service life is really measured in hours, not cycles for a normal 747. The Japanese domestic 747 fleet probably has more landings and takeoffs than any 747 will get, ever. Most 747s can last 50 years at only 2 cycles per day.

So, we can say it won't be a matter of physical durability. The 744 has nothing that would suggest it can take any less than 100,000 or 150,000 hours. But the problem is fuel burn and maintenance costs.

Over time, new technology 773ER got invented. This means an older 744 is nearly obsolete in terms of fuel costs and maintenance bills. The jets are fine, but a superior product has been invented. Therefore, durability has not been an important issue.

Nobody wants to use a 747 for 35 years anymore, even though it WILL last that long. I have no doubt you could D-check a 742 and have it run reliably today until 2020. The aircraft IS that durable. But who would want to? And who will want to use a 748-I in 2040? Probably no one. They could, but they will choose not to.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3132 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
So, we can say it won't be a matter of physical durability. The 744 has nothing that would suggest it can take any less than 100,000 or 150,000 hours.

Except the fact that it's aluminum, and aluminum fatigues. I'm not sure what the design service life is for the 747-400, but fatigue will eventually take down the structure no matter how well you maintain it.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
I have no doubt you could D-check a 742 and have it run reliably today until 2020. The aircraft IS that durable.

If you ran a 747-200 at normal airline rates until 2020, your D-check would be incredibly expensive because of all the structural repairs. So the plane isn't exactly that durable...you're just rebuilding it during checks. There are JT8D's around where the only original part is the data plate. You could say that's an extremely durable engine, but it's really not the same engine you started with. Same situation if you take an aircraft way past its fatigue life.

Tom.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3118 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 2):
Same situation if you take an aircraft way past its fatigue life.

I'm sure, granted I don't know jack about repairing aircraft. But I can say that UPS kept its 741 over 35 years. NW kept their DC-10s over 30 years.

At the tail end (after 20 yrs, say), it really doesn't matter. The aircraft are obsolete and worth next to nothing. Whether they continue flying, or not, is of very little importance. The most important thing is years 0-15, and then 15-25 if all is going well. After that, sure you can keep "it" running. But it probably won't make any sense.

Look at Iran Air. That's as good an answer as any. They run 30 year old Boeings. Saha Air runs 50 year old Boeings. It can be done, if there is no other option.


User currently offlineLockstockNL777 From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3093 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
Look at Iran Air. That's as good an answer as any. They run 30 year old Boeings. Saha Air runs 50 year old Boeings. It can be done, if there is no other option.

I do believe those aircarft have a really low cycle or hour count, the 707´s of Saha practicly "new" (if I´m not mistaken)

btw: are there any real structural changes to the fuselage when comparing the classics with the -400 and -8i?


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3084 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
But I can say that UPS kept its 741 over 35 years. NW kept their DC-10s over 30 years.

UPS is low hour/low cycle compared to a commercial carrier, so that may explain part of their longevity. Douglas is a whole other situation...Douglas had a very different design philosophy when it came to fatigue than either Airbus or Boeing. As a result, they age better (structurally, anyway).

Quoting LockstockNL777 (Reply 4):
btw: are there any real structural changes to the fuselage when comparing the classics with the -400 and -8i?

I suspect they change alloys a lot, but I doubt that the actual detailed arrangement is that different. If you look in the fuselage of a 777 and a 707 the design concept is pretty much the same. Mostly, they play around with the frame/stringer/shear-tie arrangement.

Tom.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2998 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
And who will want to use a 748-I in 2040? Probably no one. They could, but they will choose not to.

I assume that in the light of sky-rocketing fuelprices the ever-increasing need to find alternative fuels will lead to even shorter service life of current types. I doubt that by 2040 we will see 777s or A330s in service still. A state-of-the-art 773ER built in 2008 could be obsolete as early as 2020.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2939 times:

The aircraft itself can last a long time, it is the engines where the issue occurs... Trying to get parts for classics is becoming more and more differcult by the day... so unless re-engine (which simply isn't economic anymore for a classic) then it comes down to engine life.


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24891 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2926 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
UPS kept its 741 over 35 years. NW kept their DC-10s over 30 years.

BA operated some of their original 747-100s (delivered when they were still BOAC) for up to 28 years.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9508 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2824 times:

The 747 was designed as a 20,000 cycle airplane. That does not mean it can't fly more, but rather the components that are designed to last the lifetime of the airplane are tested so that engineers are 95% confident that 95% of the components will last the lifetime of the airplane. As far as I know, this number has not changed with any of the design iterations on the 747.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Service Life 747Classic Vs 744 Vs 748I
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Safety Of Planes Beyond Useful Service Life posted Mon Dec 10 2007 08:53:54 by Thrust
Query About Service Life: B-52 -> Concorde posted Mon Jan 6 2003 19:52:25 by Mirrodie
767 Vs 330 Mx Ease posted Sat Mar 1 2008 13:21:48 by Venus6971
Not Your Ordinary East Vs West Thread posted Thu Feb 21 2008 00:21:35 by LockstockNL777
DC10 Vs MD10 posted Thu Feb 14 2008 05:06:07 by RampGuy
Take-off Runway Length Vs Length Of Runway posted Tue Feb 12 2008 15:02:13 by CRJ900
Civil Aviation Vs Commerical - Who Has Priority posted Sun Feb 3 2008 21:47:05 by Arcrftlvr
Not Your Ordinary A Vs B Thread posted Sat Feb 2 2008 11:02:40 by BravoGolf
744ER Vs. 77W - Payload/Range/economics/etc. posted Wed Jan 30 2008 10:32:14 by EA772LR
BA38: Autothrust Moving Vs Not Moving The Levers posted Fri Jan 25 2008 03:12:13 by Faro

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format