Swiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4112 times:
Quoting Ghost77 (Thread starter): I did a search but found nothing, does anybody knows what is the maximum number of hours and cycles for an Airbus 320 according to Airbus???
And, same numbers apply for the A318/319/321???
Thanks
g77
The whole thing?
Or a certain part?
There are parts in an a/c you will expect, and plan to change. Others, you won't.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3949 times:
With the A320 having been in service for two decades, examples are clocking up a considerable number of hours, testing the original design goals.
The original design goal of the A320 was for 48,000 cycles and/or 60,000 hours. A320 fleet leaders have already exceeded 60,000 hours with 40,000 cycles also surpassed.
There has been a need to see an increase in the design life and Airbus are working towards a massive tripling such that aircraft could potentially fly for 180,000 hours or 90,000 cycles whichever is reach first.
Based on a utilization of 3,500 hours per annum, the 180,000 hours would equate to 50 years. Aircraft values are currently based on an economic life of 25-30 years though 20-25 years is seen as more prudent.
The tripling of the design goals should allow values to achieve a higher level.
320tech From Turks and Caicos Islands, joined May 2004, 487 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3837 times:
The high time A320s in Air Canada's fleet are approaching 60,000 hours and 25,000 cycles. No indication that they're going to be retired.
The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the manufacturer and impossible for the AME.
GST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3803 times:
There is really no problem with keeping the aircraft going on and on, assuming the appropriate spare parts remain in production. There are really relatively few components that would cause an operator to think of scrapping the aircraft, rather than replacing it. Things like main wing spars.
For example, one of the Monarch A300s has a crack in its spar. Whilst it is within limits the aircraft will fly, but I doubt that an airline will pay to have the wings removed, and put back on again with a new spar for an old aircraft, when it would be much cheaper to retire it.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3763 times:
Quoting GST (Reply 6): Whilst it is within limits the aircraft will fly, but I doubt that an airline will pay to have the wings removed, and put back on again with a new spar for an old aircraft, when it would be much cheaper to retire it.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3612 times:
Quoting Airbuster (Reply 5):
whatabout the AF and BA A320-100's any info on how much cycles/hours those have logged to date? It's been more than 20 years!
ab
Didn´t BA retire theirs last year. The A321 flew first time commercially 20 years ago, if I recall right.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3599 times:
Quoting GST (Reply 6): Things like main wing spars.
Sponsor Message: 
From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5127 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Turks and Caicos Islands, joined May 2004, 487 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 927 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
