747Teach From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 176 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1630 times:
Dripstick: The exact weight of paint would be hard to determine, as some is lost during application. And of course, paint schemes vary widely, from complete coverage to only stripes or logos. From my personal experience, a full coverage paint job on a 747 consumes about 60 gallons of primer with reducer, and 60 gallons of topcoat with reducer. When applied with electrostatic paint equipment, most of the paint goes onto the surface, not into the surrounding air. And one manufacturer's high-solids paint weighs about 10 pounds per gallon. So the weight would be somewhere in the vicinity of 1200 pounds.
When new paint jobs are applied, some operators will remove the old paint, and prime and paint back out from the metal surface. And some operators will only prep the existing paint surface, and apply the new paint over the older paint. Of course, successive layers of paint eventually mean more weight to carry around. As most paint removal chemicals will attack the fiberglass surfaces, the fairings are often just prepared by scuff-sanding, and the new primer and paint applied over the old paint. I've worked on many fairings that had 12 to 15 different layers of primer, anti-static, and topcoat applied during successive paint jobs.
The best technique to find out how much the paint job would weigh would be to weigh the aircraft just prior to the initial paint application, then reweigh the aircraft after the paint job is complete. Boeing has probably done this at least once, and could perhaps supply an accurate figure. And just for your interest, the last full paint job on a 747 I was involved with cost approximately $147,000, for materials and labor. Regards,
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3434 posts, RR: 49 Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1552 times:
From a previous post, same subject, last summer:
And for those who continue to claim there is no cost savings by not painting airplanes, the following from AA Pilot Q&A forum:
Painted vs. Non-Painted
Q: Over the course of a year, what is the estimated fuel savings operating an AA non-painted 757 vs a painted one like United for example? What's the weight difference?
A: Sorry for the delay. The weight difference between a polished and a painted B757 is about 200lbs. With about 120,000 annual departures, this translates into about $300,000 annually in savings in fuel.
The above numbers were for AA's 757 fleet only.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
747Teach From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 176 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1513 times:
PanAm747: "But even with stripes and logos you HAVE to paint the white background on." Gee . . . . guess we'd better call American, Eastern, Flying Tigers, Northwest Cargo, et al, and tell them to get their paint guns out.
Penguinflies From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 980 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (11 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1280 times:
this is from an old boeing article "paint versus polishing"
Summary Though the wieght of paint adds to fuel consumption, the fuel-cost savings offered by polished surfaces is outweighed by the cost of maintaining the polished surfaces. However, because this difference is a very small percentage of operating cost, many operators decide to paint or polish their airplanes based on marketing and environmental impact considerations. Some believe that a distinctive image can best be achieved with a full paint scheme, while others believe the image can be projected best by mostly polished surfaces. The availability of safe solvents and facilities that comply with environmental laws can also play a role in the choice between painting and polishing.