trnswrld
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:45 pm

Sorry if this pic has been posted before, but I was doing random searches and came across this horrendous MD-80 tail closeup. Now I am not usually one to say "oh my god that plane is dirty I wont fly on it" but I think if I was waiting at the gate and this thing pulled up I would be very hesitant. I know just because an airplane is dirty or has parts from another airplane doesn't necessarily mean its unsafe, but this is just ridiculous and downright nasty!
Enjoy  Smile



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Calixius Casper Koh

 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:55 pm

Same Aircraft:



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Richard Covington



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Spencer Morgheim - The Arctic Adventure



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Edward Lai



[Edited 2005-10-11 06:05:52]
Delete this User
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:57 pm

If I built a homebuilt, I really want to paint every part of the aircraft in a different color just to screw with the FAA inspectors.

Well, I have my doubts of the strictness of the regulation where that plane is operated, but in those tropic areas, you have to figure the hot/humid conditions do take their toll.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:00 pm

So much bare metal showing through, and I'm not talking about an AA clear coat, either. Bare metal IS unsafe, the paint protects the metal fuselage exterior from the elements and without that protection the metal can fatigue much faster.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1068
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:00 pm

ahh cool that last pic was taken a couple months AFTER the shot that I originally posted. Sure looks great in that newer pic now. Maybe it was being worked on or what not. Either way glad to see it doing good now.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:29 am

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 3):
So much bare metal showing through, and I'm not talking about an AA clear coat, either. Bare metal IS unsafe, the paint protects the metal fuselage exterior from the elements and without that protection the metal can fatigue much faster.

Please explain to be why bare metal can "fatigue much faster"? It may corrode if it is not treated properly, but the stresses that cause fatigue are the same on bare metal as they are on painted metal.

I don't know how AA treats their bare skins but most use clear Alodine 1000 (or equivalent). While painted aluminum surfaces use Alodine 1200 (or equivalent) which turns the aluminum a light golden brown. Either one protects the bare metal, the clear just looks better.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:01 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 5):
Please explain to be why bare metal can "fatigue much faster"? It may corrode if it is not treated properly, but the stresses that cause fatigue are the same on bare metal as they are on painted metal.

I don't know how AA treats their bare skins but most use clear Alodine 1000 (or equivalent). While painted aluminum surfaces use Alodine 1200 (or equivalent) which turns the aluminum a light golden brown. Either one protects the bare metal, the clear just looks better.

Bare metal is more likely to become pitted, which causes uneven corrosion, which changes localized fatigue over the surface of the metal. This is why they paint/clearcoat. Aluminum is tough stuff, but it's not invincible.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
Glasgow
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:20 am

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 3):
So much bare metal showing through, and I'm not talking about an AA clear coat, either. Bare metal IS unsafe, the paint protects the metal fuselage exterior from the elements and without that protection the metal can fatigue much faster.

Surely the metal will have been galvanised in some way and not only relying on the paint as a protective layer?
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:52 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 6):

Corrosion does not cause fatigue. Corroded material may fatigue faster but the original quote was that "bare metal fatigues much faster". The fatigue is there whether the area is painted or not.

If you look at the original photo the bare areas at golden brown, they have been treated with Alodine 1200 and are therefore protected from corrosion, the paint only added a extra layer of protection.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:26 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 8):
If you look at the original photo the bare areas at golden brown, they have been treated with Alodine 1200 and are therefore protected from corrosion, the paint only added a extra layer of protection.

Yes, but I was addressing the metal fatigue, not the photo itself. (Which, you are absolutely correct, is not bare metal.) Technically I see your point, and the original statement was vague to the point of being wrong, but the point s/he was trying to communicate is that bare metal can lead to fatigue problems, which is true.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:32 am

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 9):
the point s/he was trying to communicate is that bare metal can lead to fatigue problems, which is true.

So American Airlines, bare metal aircraft, have more fatigue problems than other aircraft of the same type operated by a airline that paints the entire plane? Say AA MD-80 have more fatigue problems than DL MD-80's?
 
babybus
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:42 am

If I turned up and found that aircraft on the stand, I'm sorry, I would refuse to travel in it.

How can an aircraft get away with looking so un-maintained?

I would be worried going along a road in it, never mind cruising at 30,000ft!

I'm surprised at Singapore letting it into their airspace.
and with that..cabin crew, seats for landing please.
 
Boeing744
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:27 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:16 am

I saw an Iberia 321 that was like that, parked at a gate at FCO. I looked for a picture of it, but could not find one. It looks fairly similar, except this plane had it worse than the MD-80. Does anybody know anything about this plane?
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:20 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 10):
So American Airlines, bare metal aircraft, have more fatigue problems than other aircraft of the same type operated by a airline that paints the entire plane? Say AA MD-80 have more fatigue problems than DL MD-80's?

No, because AA doesn't run bare metal either, in the sense we're talking about here. They have a maintenance regimen that takes these factors into account. First and foremost, they polish their aluminum...if you see the aluminum as it comes off the machine tools it's not shiny like an AA aircraft, it's matte. The polishing gives it that distinctive look, reduces surface friction, and buffs out dings and divots that cause the aforementioned corrosion and stress differential problems.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
efcar98
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 1:57 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:18 am

Isn't that a problem because of the weight of the tail? I know when new planes are painted, the rudder is painted before the horizontal stabilizer so that it can be calibrated because even the weight of the paint needs to be taken into account?
 
eilennaei
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:41 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:51 am

 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:16 am

When you paint a control surface such as a rudder, don't you have to balance it afterwards? Followup question: (Gee! I feel like Sam Donaldson) What happens when part of the paint peels off? Doesn't that unbalance it?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:48 am

Uh Oh Better get Maaco!



That wobegone bird looks like it has seen better days. I'd be a wee bit leary especially if a wreck like this was a foreign carrier. Sorry if I sound a little nationalistic. But...
I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
 
acidradio
Crew
Posts: 1595
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 3:19 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:54 am

Zippy - none of those seven metro locations are anywhere near the airport! But that's what highways are for, right?

Actually, if that coupon weren't expired, I might use it on my car and go to the St. Louis Park one  Wink
Ich haben zwei Platzspielen und ein Microphone
 
socalfive
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2001 5:37 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:36 am

The rudder panel is obviously off another AC. Balance IS the issue here, the rudders are the one and only part of an aircraft that has to be balanced. Since the subsequent picture shows the AC in new paint, it seems to me to be an issue of keeping the plane in service until the D or E check that prompted the new paint, or the scheduled painting
 
Aviation
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:28 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:47 am

That is nasty!


Thanks,
Aaron J Nicoli
Signed, Aaron Nicoli - Trans World Airlines Collector
 
isitsafenow
Posts: 3413
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:06 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 8):

Boy, I don't know about that statement.
Corrosion which is a fancy name for rust has to cause metal fatigue. It may not be the only cause but one of the causes. I think we have all seen cases where something metal has rusted to the point where it breaks. Is not that break fatigue caused by rust?
safe

[Edited 2005-10-12 03:10:19]
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
 
atct
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:42 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:45 am

I have flown many an aircraft with chips, dents, paint missing, spare parts etc., just because the paint doesnt match up, or there is paint chips (note: older USAirways birds, and....Air France) does not make it any more unsafe than a bird out of the paint shop. If you know anything about the aviation sales buisness, a re-painted airplane will sell 4x as fast and for up to 25% more money just because it looks nice, even though it could be corroded beyond belief and the equipment is crap.

I say if its got an airworthy cert., is within its checks (or annual's for G/a) I would fly in it. (this is within reason of course...a cracked prop...well..no thanks).


ATCT
Trikes are for kids!
 
DarthRandall
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:17 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:58 am

Adam Sandlar's song "Piece of S--- Car" comes to mind when I see that picture. All it needs is duct tape!
Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads all the time and don't even think twice about it.
 
yhmfan
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:44 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:06 am

I visited their website and they talk about operating an "all Boeing" fleet of two MD82's......... All the pictures they have on the website is of a 737.....  confused 
Bare metal, painted, decorated or any other way, I think I'll pass on flying this one!

[Edited 2005-10-12 04:28:32]
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:10 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 5):
Please explain to be why bare metal can "fatigue much faster"? It may corrode if it is not treated properly, but the stresses that cause fatigue are the same on bare metal as they are on painted metal.

Because there isn't a protective buffer between the metal and the exremes of flying (Hot, Cold, fast flying dust).

Quoting 474218 (Reply 10):
So American Airlines, bare metal aircraft, have more fatigue problems than other aircraft of the same type operated by a airline that paints the entire plane? Say AA MD-80 have more fatigue problems than DL MD-80's?

AA as has been said takes these measures into account, they buff, shine, and clearcoat.

Quoting Socalfive (Reply 19):
the rudders are the one and only part of an aircraft that has to be balanced.

What about the Elevators and Ailerons?

Quoting ATCT (Reply 23):
does not make it any more unsafe than a bird out of the paint shop.

Chips and dings = exposed metal. Bare exposed metal, any kind, is more risky than right out of the paint shop. Granted a few flakes here and there aren't going to do much, but when a few flakes here and there becomes too much bare metal, for safety reasons, the paint situation should be adressed.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
KevinL1011
Posts: 2858
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:48 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:20 am

Quoting Yhmfan (Reply 25):
"all Boeing" fleet of two MD82's

Can you call an MD built 82 series craft a "B717" after the merger? That's like a 1987 Jeep Cherokee. AMC or MOPAR? It's a MOPAR when procuring spares.
474218, Carl, You will be missed.
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:28 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 10):
So American Airlines, bare metal aircraft, have more fatigue problems than other aircraft of the same type operated by a airline that paints the entire plane? Say AA MD-80 have more fatigue problems than DL MD-80's?

I was going to ask if you were 13, but I checked your profile. You are old enough to know better.

AA puts a clearcoat on their airplanes, this protects the metal, just like paint.


Also, AA flys MD-82,83s.. DL flies MD-88,90s. So not really the same type.
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:47 pm

The definition of fatigue is: "The tendency of material to break under repeated stress." You still have not convinced me that bare aluminum will "fatigue" faster than painted aluminum, the stresses on the painted and unpainted parts are the same. Which was my point in the first place.

I never worked on a AA airplane but when Eastern stripped there fleet the bare aluminum was protected with Alodine 1000, just like I said in an earlier post. I think AA use something similar.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:11 pm

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 28):
Also, AA flys MD-82,83s.. DL flies MD-88,90s. So not really the same type.

I use to work for Douglas and they are all DC-9's to me.
 
Lemurs
Posts: 1320
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:38 pm

Quoting 474218 (Reply 29):
The definition of fatigue is: "The tendency of material to break under repeated stress." You still have not convinced me that bare aluminum will "fatigue" faster than painted aluminum, the stresses on the painted and unpainted parts are the same. Which was my point in the first place.

Sure, that's the dictionary definition. Sit down with a metallurgist and structural engineer and ask them to explain more. You'd get a degree out of it. There's all different kinds of ways to unevenly distribute stress, from bending and flexing, to loss of tensile strength due to defects. Ever see, hear, or read about inspection regimes for turbine parts? They actually spend an incredible amount of time searching for both structural crystalline defects and surface defects with penetrants and the like because they can cause uneven stress across the whole part, and cause it to fail catastrophically. Airframe skins are dramatically less stressed than that of course, but they do carry a lot of load, espc at altitude.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Wow. Don't Think I Would Fly On This Airplane!

Wed Oct 12, 2005 1:54 pm

It's a Lion Air MD82... Anyone in the right mind would avoid it ! :P

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !