How old is too old?

[ADB25]

Hi guys,

Been following this forum for years but have only just joined, so here it goes!

Having flown at a number of clubs in the UK, i have noticed a huge difference is a/c quality. For example this weekend I flew at a local airfield to me for the first time and was shocked at the state of the pa-28 the club provided for me to Fly. It was an early 70's aircraft and it wasnt hard to see its age.

I understand that an aircraft as long as it has been looked after, maintained and serviced they can go on and on and on. But how old is too old, when is it time to park a GA aircraft in the hanger for good? Surley there is a point where it is just not safe!?

[fernytickles]

Yesterday EAA's 1929 Ford Tri-Motor was flying around here as the pilots did their annual recurrent training so that they are all ready to fly it on its summer tours and during AirVenture. And I'm 100% sure this is not the oldest aircraft to be flying.

So long as the maintenance is top notch, and the pilot(s) are current in type, the planes can go on flying for a long time.

[The500man]

I don't think age has anything to do with it. There are a fair few vintage aircraft still flying. How well an aircraft is looked after will depend on the owner, if a club hands you the keys to a shabby looking aircraft, check it over and if you don't like the look of it, don't fly it.

As a pilot you should feel comfortable checking an aircraft before flying it and determining whether it's airworthy. If it looks shabby then that may well be an indication of how well looked after it is, however poor upholstery for example, isn't going to alter the aircrafts performance.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Yer fit to flaye as long a thiy sign of y're medicccal

[airborne_artist]

There's an aircraft based in the next village that was made over seventy years ago. Goes well, looks great.

It's R4118 (http://www.hurricanedisplay.com/history/) ;)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I really wouldn't worry about age, I would worry about condition.

If the aeroplane is dirty, the seats are ripped, there are visible loose wires from the instrument panel, then you've got good grounds to question how well the engineering is looked after also.

If it's clean, complete, the visible maintenance is tidy, the paperwork's up to date, and it's 50 years old, the odds are it's as safe as if it had just left the factory.

G

[airborne_artist]

the odds are it's as safe as if it had just left the factory


It could in fact be safer, as the ADs will have been implemented.

[ADB25]

What does 'ADs' stand for.

Sorry, waving my novice flag! :)

[Jan Olieslagers]

Meseemeth it stands for "Airworthiness Directive" - a mandatory modification, correction, or inspection.

But the unsanctioned use of codes and abbreviations is indeed confusing, to say the least.

[Pilot DAR]

TO reiterate what has been said, condition has a lot more importance than years in service.

One thing to bear in mind is that aging aircraft have "experience" in service. That means that information as to their shortcomings has had time to be analysed, and circulated throughout the industry. Once a shortcoming is reported by Service Difficulty Report (SDR), the regulatory agency will circulate that information, and prudent maintainers will include extra scrutiny on that new "trouble spot". If more are detected, and reported, more serious action (AD) could result.

It is your responsibilty as the pilot to be satisfied within your skill set that the aircraft appears airworthy. I agree that an aircraft which looks chronically poorly maintained may be worth a pass.

As for mandatory retirement, strucutral components of large aircraft, and very certainly helicopters tend towards this means of assuring airworthiness. If, however, a person wishes to buy an aircraft, and retire it, they are certainly welcomed to do that. It would seem that most owners would rather maintain and fly it though.

In 2005, I undertook a major structural modification on a 1979 Cessna 207, with 19,800 airframe hours, with a lot of that Grand Canyon tours. This well maintained aircraft was in excellent condition (I got to know it's structure very well over six months of having it in pieces). I found one small crack in primary structure, which would seem to have been there for a long time, A recurring inspection program was developed, and there was never a need to replace or repair, other than stop drilling. It's poor paint, and faded windows, which appeared to indicate a tired aircraft, were the only negatives about it.

Appearance can be an indication of conditon, but not always. If you're really interested, have a good read through the last few years of maintenance entries, if they are available to you in a logbook. Those are a very good indication of the conditon of an aircraft.

And how old were those three aircraft which over flew the Royal wedding?

[IO540]

And how old were those three aircraft which over flew the Royal wedding?

Old indeed :)

But what is not obvious is how much money is required to keep them flying. You have to be a millionaire (by that I mean having millions actually spare to play with) for each of those planes. The big one, even more.

Look at a Spitfire close up and you see the evidence of probably several man-hours of maintenance for every hour it flies. They have to be flown carefully and at low engine power to make them last. Nobody is going to do dogfights with them - well nobody in the UK. Americans can afford it :)

That is the real issue with old planes. You can buy them cheap (sometimes astonishingly cheap) but you then pile the money in every year, every service on which something is discovered. Not always of course; some are very well preserved, but in most cases.

And a prebuy check on something say 30 years old needs somebody well familiar with the actual type and somebody who is working for you :)

[Rod1]

Manufactures sometimes decide on how old is too old by fatigue life. This is more closely linked to flying hours but when you run out of life the aircraft is usually scraped or subjected to a very expensive rebuild. The Bulldog is an example, as is the Vulcan.

For a C of A machine the cost of maintenance will increase over time until it becomes a large proportion of the hull value. If you are lucky, at that point the aircraft may be transferred to a permit. An example of this is the Auster. The cost and lack of certified spares meant many were dismantled and stored but a recent transfer to permit has seen a lot of refurbishment projects started using “fit for purpose” uncertified parts and enthusiast labor. Had this not happened then the type would eventually have been reduced to a tiny number of cherished examples operated by very rich owners.

Another issue is an old airframe which is not well looked after. A PA28 140 which has been “sweated” will get to the stage that it is more expensive to get it through a C of A than the aircraft is worth. In the UK there are an increasing number corroding away quietly never to fly again.

Most of the above are reflections on the economic life of an airframe, but this is linked to airframe age to some extent.


Rod1

[IO540]

For a C of A machine the cost of maintenance will increase over time until it becomes a large proportion of the hull value.

I never knew that a CofA makes an airframe susceptible to corrosion and wear.

Clearly it is time for me to do some research on non-CofA aircraft. They must have some really clever technology there :)

But seriously, what actually happens is that, with a properly built and regularly maintained (and lubricated) airframe, you would expect maybe 15 years before you get a) corrosion and b) wear on pricey airframe parts like brackets with built-in bearings. At that point, the unscheduled maintenance starts to get significant.

The point can be deferred by good maintenance which means good lube (which most maintenance companies don't do because it involves dismantling things like control linkages, cleaning them and greasing them, but dropping some oil on the outside is so much easier and works for "long enough") and possibly a regular ACF50 treatment. Hangarage obviously helps. Relatively regular operation also helps; hangar queens tend to be full of trouble although I have not worked out why this should be on things like avionics.

[Flyingmac]

What does 'ADs' stand for.



List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical abbreviations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation,_aerospace_and_aeronautical_abbreviations)

[aogjim1]

Look into the Ageing Fleet and Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for detailed REQUIREMENTS. Give the Small Airplane Directorate in Kansas City for some good information. and make sure your mechanics/inspectors are using an APPROVED Maintenance Plan as required by the FAA.

We engineers call this Crack Growth and others call it safety by inspection.

BTW, I am a FAA DER delegated to approve Major Repair data concerning Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, ICA.

[PA28181]

It's the aging fleet of pilots that's more of a concern, as flying does seem to attract the "Baby Boomers" and young blood are either not interested or haven't the means to do it.

[surely not]

I think the reason why youngsters are not following into aviation is because of the flying schools who continue to operate old and shabby 1960-70's aeroplanes. I often go to Shoreham for a cup of coffee and a cake and there are two schools there who have bothered to update with modern aircraft, with modern looks and modern equipment, namely DA40, DA42 and Tecnam P2008 and they seem to be doing better than the others.

They are offering training in nice new aeroplanes for costs that are comparable with the knackered looking C150/152 of other operators.

The iPad generation expect glass cockpits and some style. Increasingly they can get this in the VLA/LSA and microlight aircraft at a fraction of the cost. A look at how many active Ikarus C42, Evektor EuroStar etc are flying shows that there are plenty of people flying for fun from grass strips.

You don't see Driving Schools offering lessons in 1960's cars so why does aviation training continue to think it is acceptable/desireable to use 1960' aeroplanes?

[ChickenHouse]

If you are able airmen, glascockpit and shiny blinkyblinky screen may appeal you, but for the joy of flying I prefer legacy planes, best tin can C1xx's ...

[piperarcher]

You don't see Driving Schools offering lessons in 1960's cars so why does aviation training continue to think it is acceptable/desireable to use 1960' aeroplanes?

Driving schools dont use 1960's cars because they barely pass MOT's, are not very comfortable (no driving schools is going to be using a Jag XJS), cannot have dual controls, are not very economical, probably have a 'choke' which is not a term referred to in any driving school manual, and probably dont start in cold temperatures.

Now, you could say a lot of that applies to a flying school PA28 / Cessna (especially the bit about "dont start in cold temperatures"), but the reality is that except the glass cockpit types, even modern planes are built with the same engines, instrumentation and avionics as the "old" ones. Meaning these old planes meet the requirements of the training manuals (which some will say are WWII training standards, and that might be true) and unless you progress straight onto glass, what you learn on, will be very similar to what you do your flying on post-PPL.

[B19]

Well my 1974 Beech B19 Sport is certainly up in age. Over the past 20 years that I have owned it I have done a lot of work to keep is in good condition. If you can afford to hanger the plane out of the weather that's money well spent. I am an A&P and do the work myself, I don't think I could afford to own a plane this old if I had to pay someone to maintain it.


As far as hours on the airframe its all about how well you fly it (no hard landings, proper airspeed in turbulence an such), and how well you maintain it.


Take Care :)

[ChickenHouse]

1974? That is brand new and barely worn in ...