Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Long Is The Lifespan Expected For A380/B787  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1987 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 11 months 3 days ago) and read 10254 times:

Hi All. After watching some pictures of B727 / DC-8F still active and healthy, I have some questions, I hope you can give me your opinions..
Is there any estimate for the expected lifespan for this new models of Airbus ( A380 and maybe the A350) and Boeing ( 787) ?
Are this expectations affected for the extensive use of composite materials in those models ?
How different are this expectations compared with an aircraft with less composites in the main structure ( Aluminum aircraft ) ?


Thanks !!

Rgds.
G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCentre From Canada, joined Mar 2010, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10031 times:

Life expectancy is mostly dependent on cycles.... Considering the aforementioned aircrafts are long-haul ones (long sectors and long down times on the ground waiting for the return flight), they should be fine for 20+ years.
Exceptions are EK and SQ... Aircrafts wont last that long in their colors  .



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10031 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Composites are expected to increase the usable lifespan of an airframe, so they should lboth last scores of years, I would expect.

User currently offlinejben From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 77 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9594 times:

For the A380, Airbus has tested the airframe out to 47,500 cycles (http://www.airbus.com/company/aircraft-manufacture/how-is-an-aircraft-built/test-programme-and-certification/). For the A320, Airbus announced a program back in 2008 to extend the airframe life to 120,000 flight hours.

This story about the 787 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2010/09/13/awx_09_13_2010_p0-254245.xml&headline=Fatigue%20Tests%20Begin%20on%20787&channel=comm) mentions that for the design it is for 44,000 cycles, with the fatigue airframe they are going to 165,000 cycles.

For aircraft, particularly lately, planes are retired a long time before they reach their cycle limit. A point is reached where it costs more to maintain the aircraft than the financing costs of a new aircraft.

For some aircraft with no replacement, the manufacturer will develop a life of type extension to prolong service life, replacing large parts of the aircraft such as the main barrel, wing box, engines, avionics and other parts. If you have the money, you can keep an aircraft flying pretty much indefinitely. Just think of the Basler BT-67. It's a DC-3, the last of which rolled off the production line in 1942. It's a completely upgraded airframe though and is basically a new aircraft. A better example is the B-52, if the USAF retires them when they expect to (after 2045), the airframe will be over 90 years old.

[Edited 2011-10-22 00:44:31]

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9364 times:

Quoting jben (Reply 3):
For the A380, Airbus has tested the airframe out to 47,500 cycles ...
This story about the 787 ... mentions that for the design it is for 44,000 cycles, with the fatigue airframe they are going to 165,000 cycles.

This story ... about the 787 mentions that for the design it is for 44,000 cycles, with the fatigue airframe they are going to 165,000 cycles.

The standard procedure is to take the number of fatigue test cycles achieved and divide that number in half, ie 47,000 test cycles would lead to a operational life of 23,500 cycles. A design life of 44,000 cycles would have required 88,000 fatigue test cycles. However, this does not mean the aircraft is worn out at 23,500 or 44,000 cycles, that is the point where the manufacture and operator must have in place a program (service bulletins/maintenance plans) that can be accomplished that will extend that life.

Quoting jben (Reply 3):
A better example is the B-52, if the USAF retires them when they expect to (after 2045), the airframe will be over 90 years old.

The B-52's that will be operation in 2045 were built between 1960 and 1962. So they will be about 85 years old. Additionally, the military does not put the hours and cycles on their aircraft airlines do. The C-17 was designed to operate 1,000 hours a year while a civilian airline operates about 3,000 hours a year.


User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9304 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 4):
The B-52's that will be operation in 2045 were built between 1960 and 1962. So they will be about 85 years old.

It's not your father's Air Force, but it might be your grandfather's airplane...

Quoting 474218 (Reply 4):
Additionally, the military does not put the hours and cycles on their aircraft airlines do. The C-17 was designed to operate 1,000 hours a year while a civilian airline operates about 3,000 hours a year.

But does the type of flying make a difference? Not too many civilian jetliners performing low level missions, or dropping into unimproved airstrips.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 873 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 9128 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Composites are expected to increase the usable lifespan of an airframe, so they should lboth last scores of years, I would expect.

Their structures are still full of metal parts, including all of the fasteners holding the composites together, so scores of years is optimistic for an economical lifetime.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 4):
The standard procedure is to take the number of fatigue test cycles achieved and divide that number in half

At Boeing the design requirement is 3x the design service objective.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 9094 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 6):
At Boeing the design requirement is 3x the design service objective.

Must be some thing new?

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1997/news.release.970317a.html


User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9082 times:

Quoting moose135 (Reply 5):

But does the type of flying make a difference? Not too many civilian jetliners performing low level missions, or dropping into unimproved airstrips.

No, it really doesn't. At least not for the B-52. Flying low does provide a lot of buffeting issues to be sure, but there are two things to remember there... They don't actually fly low for anything like the majority of a given mission, and when they do, the fatigue involved with that is more than balanced by the fact that they're not pressurized (in the cabin spaces) during that phase of the mission.

Also there are other factors to consider as well. Not too many airliners have TBOs as short as B-52s, not too many B-52s have to deal with being into tight ramp corners where casual skin damage occurs most; they also don't land on short runways or deal with noise abatement procedures. Plus their components are typically replaced a great deal more often than civilian aircraft have to live with. Also, they don't carry cargo close to their operational limits very often either.

These planes are warriors in name only. The truth is that they are actually coddled very well compared to their civilian counterparts.

I should think that a good comparison (operationally I mean) would be more like the life of a DC-10 vs KC-10. You don't have a lot of technical or parts differences between the two, so what the conditions of one vs the other are will be based only on ops. I'm relatively certain that the KC-10s are in much better shape, age per age.


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 873 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9033 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 7):
Must be some thing new?

Interesting. For the 787 it is definitely 3x DSO. I had assumed that this was an example of Boeing setting design requirements above the certification requirements as I know of quite a few other instances of this. Maybe this is a response to the tendency of operators to fly airplanes beyond their nominal DSO.

I'll have to dig into the design manuals on Monday.


User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9030 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 8):
These planes are warriors in name only. The truth is that they are actually coddled very well compared to their civilian counterparts.

Well, except for that part where they get shot at...  



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9003 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 9):

Interesting. ... I'll have to dig into the design manuals on Monday.

Using 50% has been standard for years, but maybe with these new "plastic" airplanes who knows.

Please let us know!


User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8857 times:

Quoting jben (Reply 3):
a DC-3, the last of which rolled off the production line in 1942
http://www.ruudleeuw.com/skytrain.htm
http://www.boeing.com/history/chronology/chron06.html
I seem to always recall it was May 1944 (ie the month before D-Day). These two pages infer production into 1945, the first quoting 45- serial numbers, the second talking about delivery (which of course is not the same as production, but it seems odd a gooney would be built and not be delivered for 3 years in that particular era). I'm sure there's a better doc somewhere - just all I could quickly find.

Quoting moose135 (Reply 5):
but it might be your grandfather's airplane.

Hmm - 20 year old crewman in 1960, with newborn, who is 20 in 1980, who's kid is 20 in 2000, then 2020, then 2040.
Is that your Great Great Grandfathers airplane?   

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 8):
The truth is that they are actually coddled very well compared to their civilian counterparts
Quoting moose135 (Reply 10):
Well, except for that part where they get shot at

Agree - I think if I was going to be counting on something when someone else was shooting at me, I would coddle it as much as possible up until that point...at which time it is going to be excessively abused, but the boss is probably expecting to have to replace a few airframes anyway. (How did that line go...up until the release point, you're flying for your country, after, you fly for yourself?).



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
User currently onlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2191 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 8683 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
After watching some pictures of B727 / DC-8F still active and healthy

Is it fair to say that the B727 and DC-8 and other aircraft of that era flew a lot less than modern aircraft do today, thus they have less wear and fewer cycles and can fly for many more years still? This making these aircraft unique, as newer aircraft are worked much harder and simply scrapped when they reach a certain number of cycles...?

The DC-8-63 has become a great freighter aircraft, but I assume they flew a less demanding schedule as a pax airliner in the 1960s-1980s than the B767/777/747 and A330/340 do today. Many flights were not daily and they had longer ground stops.



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlinejben From Australia, joined Aug 2006, 77 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 8679 times:

Basically all production between 1942 and August 1945 was for the military C-47 and variants. I was actually mistaken though, after the war, the final DC-3 delivery was actually delivered in March 1947.

My bad!

Quoting BE77 (Reply 12):
Quoting jben (Reply 3):
a DC-3, the last of which rolled off the production line in 1942
http://www.ruudleeuw.com/skytrain.htm
http://www.boeing.com/history/chronology/chron06.html
I seem to always recall it was May 1944 (ie the month before D-Day). These two pages infer production into 1945, the first quoting 45- serial numbers, the second talking about delivery (which of course is not the same as production, but it seems odd a gooney would be built and not be delivered for 3 years in that particular era). I'm sure there's a better doc somewhere - just all I could quickly find.


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2086 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 8598 times:

The day will come that some obscure African airline will pick up an old and decrepit A380 and use it to tirelessly shuttle people around intra-African routes.   And on that day, everyone who reads this now will suddenly feel very old.   


Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13120 posts, RR: 100
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 8537 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For perspective, manufacturers expect to support a new airframe 30 to 40 years after EIS.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Composites are expected to increase the usable lifespan of an airframe, so they should lboth last scores of years, I would expect.

Plus the metal parts are of better alloys or with superior coatings.

I suspect today's airframes will be retired on fuel burn. I'm not betting long term on cheap oil.   

Quoting jben (Reply 3):
For aircraft, particularly lately, planes are retired a long time before they reach their cycle limit. A point is reached where it costs more to maintain the aircraft than the financing costs of a new aircraft.

Agreed. But if the plane is converted to a freighter, the maintenance burden is less. Freighters also 'stop clock' the airframe to minimize the C and D checks. HA does that with their 717s during the slow season too.

Quoting moose135 (Reply 5):
It's not your father's Air Force, but it might be your grandfather's airplane...

We have B-52s being flown by grandchildren of prior B-52 pilots.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10025 posts, RR: 96
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 8483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 16):
I suspect today's airframes will be retired on fuel burn. I'm not betting long term on cheap oil.

I suspect that keeping the "systems" in working order (as opposed to the "structure") constitutes a large part of the economic airowrthiness of an old airframe....

Keeping old systems working gets increasingly difficult, especially if they're so old that the supply chain that begat them and maintains them is falling to pieces

Rgds


User currently offlinetrigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 8451 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 16):
We have B-52s being flown by grandchildren of prior B-52 pilots.

Lightsaber

IIRC, there was a story floating around somewhere about 3 generations of pilots flying the same B-52 over the years. A SAC pilot, then his son during Desert Storm, then his son during the recent conflicts.


I figure every aircraft should get the same cycles/hours/age as a NW DC-9. Just sayin'....  


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13120 posts, RR: 100
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8192 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
Keeping old systems working gets increasingly difficult, especially if they're so old that the supply chain that begat them and maintains them is falling to pieces

Very true. That is one reason why products that stay in production a long time are supported a long time (viable supply chain). I use the MD-80 as an example. Due to rapid retirements of the type, the vendors are not moving enough product.   AA has just started pulling MD-80s from service in mass. In 2013, with the A319 deliveries, that accelerates. At that time, I suspect too much of the MD-80 supply chain will disapear.

Quoting trigged (Reply 18):
IIRC, there was a story floating around somewhere about 3 generations of pilots flying the same B-52 over the years. A SAC pilot, then his son during Desert Storm, then his son during the recent conflicts.

I recall reading that too... I wish I had the link.

Quoting trigged (Reply 18):
I figure every aircraft should get the same cycles/hours/age as a NW DC-9.

   You don't set a high bar, now do you.   115k cycles...   

The only two aircraft I'm aware of that sees examples retired within spitting distance of the cycle limit is the DC-9 and 737. (I'm sure I'm about to get a laundry list of other types). Most airframes tend to be retired earlier on economics.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinetrigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8165 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
The only two aircraft I'm aware of that sees examples retired within spitting distance of the cycle limit is the DC-9 and 737. (I'm sure I'm about to get a laundry list of other types). Most airframes tend to be retired earlier on economics.

With the re-engine program of the KC-135/707 and DC-8 over to the current engines, what was the R&D status with regards to the engine pylons? I figure alot of the tooling is gone now unless there is still a program going on with the re-engining.


User currently offlinejetpilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8006 times:

Quoting trigged (Reply 20):
With the re-engine program of the KC-135/707 and DC-8 over to the current engines, what was the R&D status with regards to the engine pylons? I figure alot of the tooling is gone now unless there is still a program going on with the re-engining.

Cammacorp who re-engined the DC-8 with CFM -56 engines stopped modifying DC-8's in 1986. All tooling has been destroyed. Grumman built the engine pylons.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7908 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 19):
AA has just started pulling MD-80s from service in mass. In 2013, with the A319 deliveries, that accelerates. At that time, I suspect too much of the MD

Yes. Of course, at the same time the the retired MD-80s will be used for parts... which works well for some parts and not so well for others. Anything that wears out on a regular schedule (e.g., tires, engine components) will still need a supply chain.

Question: which systems have a specified lifetime and must be replaced on a regular schedule? Are cockpit instruments something that can be used forever if they work, for instance?


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7899 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 15):
The day will come that some obscure African airline will pick up an old and decrepit A380 and use it to tirelessly shuttle people around intra-African routes.

My first reaction is that it almost feel that way already, with AF running dented and probably soon pretty dirty A380s around. And just wait for BA to get theirs, their cabin cleanliness and other standards will make you feel like being "tirelessly shuttled around"  

My second reaction was to think back and make a wish that Concorde had been more widely deployed. If they had manufactured 100+ copies, by now we'd have badly maintained end-of-life Concordes flying for near-bankrupt airlines in countries with shoddy safety standards. If not for anything else, it would have made for exciting adventure possibilities. Think of the a.net trip reports! And Travolta would have one, plus a few ones maintained by local aviation clubs... I can dream, can't I?


User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7890 times:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 22):
Are cockpit instruments something that can be used forever if they work, for instance?

To briefly oversimplify, they'd need to stay in calibration.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic How Long Is The Lifespan Expected For A380/B787
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...
Spinner, How Much Is The Economic Gain? posted Wed Feb 9 2011 16:18:50 by alwaysontherun
How Long Is Your Flight? posted Sun Jul 25 2010 08:32:11 by AncientPelican
How High Do The Bottom Of An A380 Fuselage Stands? posted Wed Sep 3 2008 12:59:52 by 747400sp
ATC How Difficult Is The Training? posted Thu May 29 2008 21:02:59 by Thunder747
How Reliable Is The ILS Really? posted Fri Apr 11 2008 08:10:36 by ArniePie
How Long Was The 757 100 Suppost To Be? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 01:10:58 by 747400sp
How Long Does The FAA Keep Records Of Arrivals? posted Tue Nov 7 2006 16:34:55 by Lenbrazil
Where Is The Trim Wheel On A380? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 16:02:47 by Keta
How Stable Is The MD-11 On 2 Engines? posted Sat Jul 10 2004 05:05:36 by NightFlier
How Much Is The Seperation posted Thu Feb 12 2004 12:31:36 by HAWK21M
Where Is The Trim Wheel On A380? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 16:02:47 by Keta

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format