BA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2161 posts, RR: 8 Posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7088 times:
I was just wondering how airlines figure out how much a new coat of paint would cost to apply. For example, does blue paint cost more than red? What about the weight too - are certain colours more expensive?
Is there any way at all to actually figure out the amount of paint and the cost needed to paint say a 737 in a certain scheme for example?
747Teach From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 176 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7044 times:
BA777: A few years ago I was involved in painting 747's. If I remember correctly, from bare metal out, we figured about 60 gallons of primer (including catalyst), and 60 gallons of various colors (including catalyst), for a total of 120 gallons. The Crown Metro High Solids paint we used weighed about 10 pounds per gallon, so that works out to about 1200 pounds of paint. I don't recall that any one color cost any more than any other, but we bought in large quanities. With the strip, cleaning, and repaint, we figured about $147,000 per plane. Took about 10 days to 2 weeks, with a crew of about 15 per shift on 2 shifts.
I'm sure the major airlines and paint manufacturers can put their computers to work and figure out about how much paint any particular scheme will require. Regards,
Cory6188 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6984 times:
Another thought. If that's true, then all the airlines can fly bare metal planes around as a cost cutting measure. No one will be able to tell what airline the plane is, but hey, the atmosphere nowadays is to cut costs as much as possible!
I hope FR doesn't see that idea - pretty soon their planes will be all bare metal.
Bio15 From Colombia, joined Mar 2001, 1089 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6968 times:
"So does AA save money then in fuel costs because their planes have very little paint on them?"
Yes, they save money in fuel costs. However, bare metal is not actually bare metal. There is a special polish that needs to be applied on top of the bare metal to prevent corrosion. I heard somewhere that this polish is expensive compared to the regular paint, and it needs to be taken care of more constantly. I also recall hearing that the costs tend to even out with fuel savings so there's not much of a difference.
Smithfly114 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 243 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6940 times:
Actually AA advertises and is proud of the fact that their planes are lighter and cost less to paint ( yes there is the cost of the polish, however it would probably be miniscule compared to the paint)
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3512 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6721 times:
2200 lbs for a DC-10? I think that's way too much. Then how would you explain this if you need 1200 lbs for a 747? A DC-10 isn't any larger than a 747 is it? 300 lbs for a 737 that makes sense. I remember reading somewhere how much paint a 747 needs when being repainted, but I don't remember the figures. I'll look it up in my books when I'm home.
Theiler From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 633 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6705 times:
Just out of curiousity, do these numbers include provisions for vaporization? It's probably quite difficult to calculate the true percentage of paint that actually sees the airframe (though I'm not familiar with av-painting methods).
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16345 posts, RR: 66 Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6666 times:
Sharkskin: It's not really smooth, and yet sharks are very nicely hydrodynamic. It turns out that the surface consists of very small ridges. Experiments show that this reduces drag (from the skin) by 1-2%.
IIRC, CX were playing with this about a decade ago. They painted some of their planes with "sharkskin texture" instead of smooth paint. This decreased fuel burn by a minute amount. Unfortunately the paint job cost much more than a standard one, offsetting the savings. I am not sure how exactly the tests turned out in the end.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 9 Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6646 times:
AA do indeed have paint on many parts of some of their aircraft....figerglass/composite fairings for example.
In addition, the entire A300-600 is painted, as AirBus does not like to deliver unpained aircraft, due to corrosion issues, among others.
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3512 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6643 times:
Not anymore. If you notice all of AA's A300's have the bare metal scheme like all other types, just the rear section of the fuselage, the tail and the center section on the belly are still painted in gray. It was 10 years ago that American removed the paint on the aluminium skin, indeed to save weight and paint each time the aircraft is due for its MX D-check. But you're right, when they were delivered fresh out of the factory from Toulouse France back in the late 80's/early 90's they were entirely painted in gray to prevent corrosion on the aluminum skin.
Jetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6647 times:
I used to own a Schweizer 1-23G sailplane. The paint was pretty ratty when I got it so I had it stripped and repainted. Just for grins, we reweighed it after it had been stripped and it was 40 lbs lighter. (Of course, it had something like 5 or 6 coats of paint in some areas.) You really wouldn't think so, but paint is heavy and excess weight is one of those things that aircraft - any aircraft - don't need.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4787 posts, RR: 17 Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5796 times:
Here's a definitive article from Boeing, which says that net expense of operating polished aircraft are generally a bit *higher* than painted, due to labor required for more frequent repolishing than repainting.
AmeriCam From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 29 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5726 times:
I've heard from multiple sources that the reason for the AA A300 being painted from the factory had nothing to do with corrosion issues. It was actually due to an issue with the supplier of the fuselage aluminum. It was, in fact, that the color consistancy of the aluminum (sheet to sheet) wasn't as uniform as AA had hoped, therefore a descision was made to paint the aircraft, rather than having a flying "disco-ball."
"If you're going to crash, make it a fiery one."
25 Abbs380: I think there is something to what AmeriCam says. I used to work for an airline that bought several new 747f/s which were mostly bare aluminum. They l
26 ExPanAmer: Different colors likely cost more or less than others.In the automobile world, a Quart of red Dupont ChromaPremier is about $90.00. Blue about $60.00.
27 Wheeltug: To rephrase BA777's question - what does the additional weight of this paint actually cost the operator. Is there a rule of thumb for extra weight cos
28 Oryx: No they can't. The public relations (?) department requieres a unique and for the public easy to identify scheme. So the bare-metal-scheme is burned
29 YYZYYT: As it happens there have been recent real-life experiments, by AC. They stripped a 767, anticipating savings of 360 lbs and $24,000 / yr in fuel cost
30 474218: Eastern stripped the paint from their L-1011's too match the remainder of their fleet in the 1980's. And in the 1950's and 60's Eastern motto was "Th