Old Aircraft - How much longer can they fly?

[gajunkie]

In light of the C210 that went down in the Kimberley this morning. It raises the question, how much longer will CASA let these sh*t boxes fly for.

If it was a 30 year old car they would have been scraped long ago. How much longer do we use the excuse that the industry has no money to upgrade the fleets and rely on the exceptional skill of pilots like the fella this morning to keep them in the air.

Will we still be flying these in 50 years, 60 years, 70 years....where do we draw the line.

Interested in your comments.

[astroglide]

yep same engine for 30 years...................:}

[Sunfish]

Permit me to suggest that if the design is still in use after 30 years, then it is obviously successful. Provided the aircraft is properly maintained it should last a very long time indeed.

How many Cirrus (Cirri?) are going to be around in 30 years time? Plastic(FRP) is rather hard to repair and still maintain original strength.

[Engineer]

If aircraft are well maintained and preventive engineering carried out to ensure safe operating conditions then age is not a concern.

Consider those vintage aircraft from the two World Wars that still grace the skys :ok:

[gajunkie]

Im not suggesting for a second that the design is inadequate, in fact Cessna designed great aircraft. However like any mechanical thing it wears out. Even the best maintained old machines wear out and at sometime its just time to put them to bed for good. The other trouble is (and not for a second suggesting this is the cause of todays accident) when you have an old machine inadequately maintained, flying around. We all know operators doing this, just no one says anything in case we rock the boat. But back to the point, how long do we fly these old aircraft before they finally suffer fatigue, structural or engine failure. How many times can we rebore that old engine.....

[Chimbu chuckles]

Rebore that old engine?

Dude they are still building those engines....it's not a R985 for god sake?

The only part of these 'old aeroplanes' that is original in the basic airframe...if you keep that corrosion free they can not only fly on for another 30 years but look as good as new while they do so.

[Laikim Liklik Susu]

It's been quoted before, but...

"Lady, you want me to answer you if this old airplane is safe to fly? Just how in the world do you think it got to be this old? "


Nuff said.

[gassed budgie]

As suggested above, it's purely a function of maintenence. As long as the aircraft is maintained as it should be, the aircraft can be flown indefinately. The 172 I currently operate has recently had a rather large sum of money spent on it. It got the ham, cheese and tomatoe. Paint, intereior, engine, the works. It looks better now than it did when it first rolled out the factory door in 1978.
I would still expect it to be operating satisfactoraly in 20 years time, when it will nearly be 50 years old.
The maintenence organisation is the key. Some a very ordinary, most are satisfactory (no better or worse than anyone else) and a very few are exceptional. These are the operators that one must seek out and identify. Happy hunting.
And what will we be flying in 20 to 30 years time?
I reckon the bulk of the GA fleet will be made up of the same Cessna's and Piper's we are flying today. There's nothing on the horizon to replace them.

[gajunkie]

All fair comments, I'll go back into my cave !!

Cheers :ok:

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Sunfish:

There are heaps of old gliders and boats out there made of old style fibreglass still in service.

Composite or Metal, as long as it is looked after, it will last.

The only hard bit about repairing composites as I understand is that there are not enough LAMEs out there qualified on the repairs and that the repair materials have a limited shelf life vs Alclad that can be stored for longer periods.

Go the old 210! - New engine and avionics technology may be the 11:59 savior for a lot of these G.A. veterans.

300hp benz turbo diesel & glass cockpit conversions would still be cheaper than a new C206 or re-born C210.

New 'glass' C206 is about AUD$650,000 vs clapped out C210 with full re-furb (40k), engine conversion (100k-150k) and avionics upgrade (50k-100k)

There is still lots of life in the old girls.

[jarjar]

Rich-Fine-Green is absolutely right, why would you pay all that money for a new aircraft that does the same job as the old one, especially when it costs half the amount to refurb the old one.

I believe Australias "unique" and remote population distribution would make it had to justify the cost of upgrading to new aircraft. As many have already said if the maintenance of these old girls are kept up to scratch then there should be no problem. On the other hand there are operators out there whose maintenance practices are a little suspect.

[John Citizen]

These old aircraft will continue to fly for a long time as long as :
- dodgy operators still use them
- dodgy operators expect/pressure pilots to fly them with defects
- dodgy pilots fly them with defects and don't write up defects
- dodgy LAME's don't maintain them properly using the excuse "it's a 30 year old plane..."

[Ultralights]

There's nothing on the horizon to replace them.

obviously you havnt been looking hard enough!

Just have a look at the RAA fleet, many of they types there can be registered VH! but who wants all that extra cost!

the 4 seat jabiru series, cruises at 120Kts, 4 seats..... the Cirrus line.....

[Rich-Fine-Green]

it goes back to the circular problem of not charging enough for the aircraft.

Enough of a reserve needs to be there for either full refurb or replacement over a 10 year period.

(not enough is charged to pay or keep good Pilots either but that's another story).

[Howard Hughes]

the 4 seat jabiru series, cruises at 120Kts, 4 seats..... the Cirrus line.....
None of which haul 500kg's for 4 hours @ 160 knots and cost under $200,000, not yet anyway...

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

PS: I do realise these aircraft cost less than $200k, but of the new generation aircraft, nothing with this sort of capacity cost less than 1/2 mil.

[bushy]

John Citizen
Are you the "dodgy" one, or is it everybody else?

[Continental-520]

Yep, for sure!

Even if the insurance company write it off, be sure that Phil T will buy the wreck back and rebuild it in his hangar and send it straight back in to commercial service until its next bingle...just like what happened with the last one.

So, yes, there's plenty of life left in these girls.

520.

[tinpis]

Forgive the slight change of topic but did someone refurbish the Shrikes that were sitting against the fence years ago in Darwhine?
I believe the corrosion from over water flying may have been to much ??
What a bloody superb little plane they are.

And who got the Duke?

[rmcdonal]

Just a quick Q. How well do the new “Plastic Planes” handle the dirt and gravel strips? I’m not having having a go at the Cirrus or any other plane (in fact I would love to be flying one) just curious as to the damage caused by the rocks and other bush strip related problems on the lighter airframes and mostly lower wing designs. As I am assuming we are talking about the bush fleet.

Im not lost, Im just not found.

[Pinky the pilot]

Are'nt there a few B52s still flying with the USAF or NASA or whatever that are pushing 40 years old and still going? Seem to remember an article in some Aviation Journal to that effect.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[InTransit]

520,

Of course that "last one" is yet to see the light of day, and probably won't for quite some time. The problem with the whole situation is that PT is like a chook without a head, has no time to do anything let alone rebuild one, and now two aircraft. Old warwick took a LONG time to get out of the hanger, and it was only a minor issue!

;)

[Continental-520]

In which case, is it really such a good idea that he's doing his own hundred hourly's and AD's, etc, especially now with a larger fleet, how is there enough time to get those things done properly when time is so tight?

Would think you'd need a team of at least 3 engineers, one licensed of course to get a C210 through a proper/thorough hundred hourly in one working day.

520.

[Rich-Fine-Green]

HH:

Off the Cirrus Design Website:

SR22-G2 Base Price: US$334,700
Cruise Speed: 185 KTAS
Maximum Payload: 1,150 pounds
Maximum range cruise: over 1,000 nm


Not bad performance for the same fuel burn as a C210.

4 seats with 522Kg payload - higher speed and less maintenance.

Hmmmm - Maybe I was wrong about refurbishing the older girls.....
http://cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/gallery/avionics/SR22GTS-cockpit.jpg
http://cirrusdesign.com/aircraft/gallery/srgts/sr22gts-1.jpg

[flyby_kiwi]

I think the reasons we wont see then end of some of the older GA types is also that they are generally of a tried and proven design. As much as the likes of the SR22 looks like a great a/c is simply hasnt proven itself over the decades like the C210's and Bonanzas (bar the v-tail).
Then there are those types for which there are not really any replacements out there such as the larger twin pistons ie a PA31, C421 and on a larger scale the likes of such a/c as the CV580 now about 50years old.

[rmcdonal]

Flyby Kiwi
The PA31 are allready being replaced by the Caravan in some roles, on the east coast they are trading up for the turbine version over the twins for frieght.
Caravan not a bad machine, can handle the tough strips

[Howard Hughes]

4 seats with 522Kg payload - higher speed and less maintenance

RFG,

These are great figures, however these aircraft are designed to be flown by owner operators and to be operated on long, comfortable cross country flights. They are not designed for the 30 sectors a day that goes on in some parts of the country, I do realise neither was the 210, however it does perform this task quite well (ie: Groote to Bickerton islands, 6 minute flight time).

But still the C-210, can carry 500kg of payload with enough fuel for 4 hours, the 522 for the cirrus includes the weight of fuel. With 2 less seats you are still going to have to make 2 trips, to move the same as you can in the venerable C-210.

Whilst I would give my left gonad for a Cirrus or any of the other new high performance singles, I don't think that too many operators will be willing to do the same. I for one eagerly await the arrival of the Eclipse Jet, see here (http://www.eclipseaviation.com/) what a fantastic replacement this would be for the ageing fleet of 6 place piston aircraft, especially for sectors of 2 hours or more so readily seen in outback Australia. Sadly once again I think operators will be slow to uptake this new technology, why? perceived cost!! Whilst these aircraft are significantly dearer to buy, I think operators fail to see the decrease in ongoing costs, ie: fuel consumption, maintence, etc... as well as the added benefits of passenger appeal.

Quite frankly I'm with you on this one RFG, unfortunately the operators are not as yet. But when they do join us in the new millenium, I'll be out of the regionals and back into GA in a flash.
(like you said earlier, provide the whole pay thing is right)

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

PS: If you get your hands on one of theses machines, can I come for a fly?