Highest time airframe ever
My understanding is that it's not the airframe itself that is the principal reason for retirement (and it not having any operational secondhand value), but all the fittings, the wiring especially, the control runs, the need for cabin refreshes, the IFE becoming outmoded, etc. This becomes cumulative over many of these items as time passes, and progressively impacts on dispatch reliability. It particularly applies where some of the hundreds of initial suppliers of these smaller components have gone out of business over the years, and spares and support for them becomes increasingly expensive or difficult.
Obviously these maintenance and inspection requirements go far beyond primary structure. While this part didn't get much press, TWA 800 was (at the time) one of the highest time aircraft ever - over 100,000 hours - which no doubt contributed to the wiring issues that are believed to have causing the fuel tank explosion.
At some point, the additional costs related to the extra maintenance and higher fuel burn make it uneconomical to keep flying an old aircraft instead of investing in something newer. OTOH, lots of seriously old DC-3s, 727s, 737-100/200, DC-10s, and 747-100/200/SP are still plying the skies - either in specialized roles (I was just in Las Vegas, there is a 747SP parked there that is apparently used by one of the big casinos to ferry in some of the high roller types), or operating in areas where the labor costs are low and regulatory oversight is rather lax...
Last edited by tdracer; 28th Apr 2019 at 01:19. Reason: fixed some typos
Gnome de PPRuNe
I got the impression that DC-3 was rather overbuilt which has contributed to its longevity - still a few in commercial operation at, what, 85 years since first flight? Most remaining airframes must be circa 80 years old, albeit the commercially operated may be Basler conversions. Think I noted an R-1830 powered survey DC-3 transiting through UK on FR24 earlier this year.
The DC3 was very over built because back in those days aircraft designers didn't know how cheap they could go and still be safe. By the 1960s more was known about stress and fatigue in metals which enabled newer designs to be made lighter and to cost less while still meeting requirements.
Old airframes are often suitable for low utilisation specialised roles such as water bombing, oil slick dispersal, engine test platforms etc. The capital cost is very low, spares are usually still cheaply available, lots of down time is available for the increased maintenance and with low hours being flown, the higher fuel consumption isn't significant.
The January issue of "Airliner World" had a story about a B737-200 being operated in the freight role in the Philippines, it only operated between Cebu and the capital Manila with a round trip time of under three hours, most of the day was spent on the ground where maintenance was available and the basic analogue flight deck was perfectly up to the task.
Old airframes are often suitable for low utilisation specialised roles such as water bombing, oil slick dispersal, engine test platforms etc. The capital cost is very low, spares are usually still cheaply available, lots of down time is available for the increased maintenance and with low hours being flown, the higher fuel consumption isn't significant.
The January issue of "Airliner World" had a story about a B737-200 being operated in the freight role in the Philippines, it only operated between Cebu and the capital Manila with a round trip time of under three hours, most of the day was spent on the ground where maintenance was available and the basic analogue flight deck was perfectly up to the task.
I got the impression that DC-3 was rather overbuilt which has contributed to its longevity - still a few in commercial operation at, what, 85 years since first flight? Most remaining airframes must be circa 80 years old, albeit the commercially operated may be Basler conversions. Think I noted an R-1830 powered survey DC-3 transiting through UK on FR24 earlier this year.
https://www.daksovernormandy.com/home/
Drain Bamaged
I got the impression that DC-3 was rather overbuilt which has contributed to its longevity - still a few in commercial operation at, what, 85 years since first flight? Most remaining airframes must be circa 80 years old, albeit the commercially operated may be Basler conversions. Think I noted an R-1830 powered survey DC-3 transiting through UK on FR24 earlier this year.
A Basler conversion with PT-6s?
Gnome de PPRuNe
You may be right - looking through a list of surviving airframes, C-FTGI rings a bell. It's not listed as a Basler conversion but photos show that it is! Page is 5 years out of date though.
Yes, the Transport Canada register lists it with turboprops. It was the 51st Basler conversion, done in 2008.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Dee Sea
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And,, The winner is,,,,,,,,:
The International Space Station.
Umpteen hours.
Slightly under powered, borderline glider
No slot restrictions.
Still going strong!
regards
Cpt B
Space Cadet at Large
Umpteen hours.
Slightly under powered, borderline glider
No slot restrictions.
Still going strong!
regards
Cpt B
Space Cadet at Large
BluSd
The question is highest time "airframe" - the ISS can't be considered an 'airframe' because it's not capable of operating in the atmosphere - and would in fact fail catastrophically if it did. The ISS isn't even the highest time 'spaceframe' as there are numerous other spacecraft that have more hours.
The ISS can lay claim to being the highest time continuously occupied spacecraft.
The question is highest time "airframe" - the ISS can't be considered an 'airframe' because it's not capable of operating in the atmosphere - and would in fact fail catastrophically if it did. The ISS isn't even the highest time 'spaceframe' as there are numerous other spacecraft that have more hours.
The ISS can lay claim to being the highest time continuously occupied spacecraft.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer
Right You are.
I was just in a silly mood.
On another slight drift, I was interested to know how many engines a say 110 000 hrs aircraft like a Jumbo or any twin would have used in such a lifetime.
Or how long does a basic engine last.
I see some of our 737-800s with say 20 000 hrs pop up with a new one ever so often, but our Teck Log does not have specific airframe time or engine time recorded for us drivers.
Regards
Cpt B
PS
An old one here is ca 13 years old,
I was just in a silly mood.
On another slight drift, I was interested to know how many engines a say 110 000 hrs aircraft like a Jumbo or any twin would have used in such a lifetime.
Or how long does a basic engine last.
I see some of our 737-800s with say 20 000 hrs pop up with a new one ever so often, but our Teck Log does not have specific airframe time or engine time recorded for us drivers.
Regards
Cpt B
PS
An old one here is ca 13 years old,
Some airlines like to part company with their aircraft whilst they’re still fairly young figuring that the increased passenger appeal, greater efficiency, reduced maintenance and higher dispatch reliability will offset the higher price of a new aircraft.
However an airline in a third world country may be unable to afford to buy new, passengers are very price sensitive and local labour for maintenance is cheap, in which case buying second hand makes sense.
Back in the old days when engineering was cheap in Hong Kong, Cathay Pacific could buy a used aircraft and overhaul it to as good as new standard at a considerable saving versus buying new.
Iran is under sanctions but has plenty of oil so buying older types which no one else wants because of the fuel consumption, such as the A340 is worthwhile.
However an airline in a third world country may be unable to afford to buy new, passengers are very price sensitive and local labour for maintenance is cheap, in which case buying second hand makes sense.
Back in the old days when engineering was cheap in Hong Kong, Cathay Pacific could buy a used aircraft and overhaul it to as good as new standard at a considerable saving versus buying new.
Iran is under sanctions but has plenty of oil so buying older types which no one else wants because of the fuel consumption, such as the A340 is worthwhile.
"First Run" engines generally go between 10,000 and 20,000 hours before getting overhauled the first time (assuming they don't get lots of short cycles - cycles are even harder an engines than they are on airframes). Some real long haul engines can go 30,000 hours first run, due to the low cycle counts. Overhauled engines don't get that close to 'zero time', so their time on wing before the next overhaul is considerably shorter than first run engines - often as little as half as long. Obviously the burner and high turbine take the brunt of the abuse, but compressor blades wear and abrade and even fan blades benefit from the occasional TLC. I recall seeing engines that were well over 60,000 hours since new, obviously overhauled several times. At some point, it becomes a question of what constitutes the original engine - rotating components are often life-limited parts, and must be replaced (and the original scrapped) after so many cycles. Further, components get swapped between engines - particularly some of the newer modular designs, where instead of rebuilding the engine, they simply swap out a module - for example a turbine - with one that's been overhauled and return the engine to service. After a while it becomes like that old farmer's axe - the handle has been replaced 4 times, and the axe head five times, but it's still the old farmer's axe
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: west coast
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3C engine in service with Malev has just established a new all-time world record for initial time on wing. Earlier this month, the engine reached 40, 538 hours and 17,405 cycles without a single shop visit, surpassing the previous record of 40,531 hours set in 2000.
CFM56-3 engines are part of the best-selling CFM56 engine family, which is produced by CFM International (CFM), a 50/50 joint company between Snecma Moteurs (Safran Group) and General Electric Company.
The engine was part of the original installation on a new Boeing 737-500 delivered to Hapag-Lloyd in December 1990; Malev has been leasing the aircraft since 1999. During its in-service life, the engine has undergone routine inspections but has remained trouble free. Malev plans to remove the engine for overhaul in September, so the ultimate record will be established at that time.
CFM56-3 engines are part of the best-selling CFM56 engine family, which is produced by CFM International (CFM), a 50/50 joint company between Snecma Moteurs (Safran Group) and General Electric Company.
The engine was part of the original installation on a new Boeing 737-500 delivered to Hapag-Lloyd in December 1990; Malev has been leasing the aircraft since 1999. During its in-service life, the engine has undergone routine inspections but has remained trouble free. Malev plans to remove the engine for overhaul in September, so the ultimate record will be established at that time.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard that DC-8’s aren’t life limited. There are some CRJ-200’s that must be approaching 150,000. Bombardier builds a rugged, economical and reliable machine. Just kidding...
Engines last at long longer than you might think - obviously overhauled multiple times.
"First Run" engines generally go between 10,000 and 20,000 hours before getting overhauled the first time (assuming they don't get lots of short cycles - cycles are even harder an engines than they are on airframes). Some real long haul engines can go 30,000 hours first run, due to the low cycle counts. Overhauled engines don't get that close to 'zero time', so their time on wing before the next overhaul is considerably shorter than first run engines - often as little as half as long. Obviously the burner and high turbine take the brunt of the abuse, but compressor blades wear and abrade and even fan blades benefit from the occasional TLC. I recall seeing engines that were well over 60,000 hours since new, obviously overhauled several times. At some point, it becomes a question of what constitutes the original engine - rotating components are often life-limited parts, and must be replaced (and the original scrapped) after so many cycles. Further, components get swapped between engines - particularly some of the newer modular designs, where instead of rebuilding the engine, they simply swap out a module - for example a turbine - with one that's been overhauled and return the engine to service. After a while it becomes like that old farmer's axe - the handle has been replaced 4 times, and the axe head five times, but it's still the old farmer's axe :}
"First Run" engines generally go between 10,000 and 20,000 hours before getting overhauled the first time (assuming they don't get lots of short cycles - cycles are even harder an engines than they are on airframes). Some real long haul engines can go 30,000 hours first run, due to the low cycle counts. Overhauled engines don't get that close to 'zero time', so their time on wing before the next overhaul is considerably shorter than first run engines - often as little as half as long. Obviously the burner and high turbine take the brunt of the abuse, but compressor blades wear and abrade and even fan blades benefit from the occasional TLC. I recall seeing engines that were well over 60,000 hours since new, obviously overhauled several times. At some point, it becomes a question of what constitutes the original engine - rotating components are often life-limited parts, and must be replaced (and the original scrapped) after so many cycles. Further, components get swapped between engines - particularly some of the newer modular designs, where instead of rebuilding the engine, they simply swap out a module - for example a turbine - with one that's been overhauled and return the engine to service. After a while it becomes like that old farmer's axe - the handle has been replaced 4 times, and the axe head five times, but it's still the old farmer's axe :}
my older brother bought a motorcycle when he was 16, and I got it when he left the house at 18, modified it a bit, and passed it onto my little brother 2 years later. He modified it more, drove it for another few years, I crashed and repaired it, and when he sold it we found out the only original parts were the fuel tank and the front fender....
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
86583
That Malev record is quite something.
No doubt the CFM engines are the best and most successful Turbo Fan engines ever.
No doubt due to the fact that GE and SNECMA had a damd good starting point,AND I am sure they had a sort of internal competitive quality assurance:
If a Yankee and a Frenchman can agree on something it is most probably a good product! No offence, I hope.
No doubt the CFM engines are the best and most successful Turbo Fan engines ever.
No doubt due to the fact that GE and SNECMA had a damd good starting point,AND I am sure they had a sort of internal competitive quality assurance:
If a Yankee and a Frenchman can agree on something it is most probably a good product! No offence, I hope.
3C engine in service with Malev has just established a new all-time world record for initial time on wing. Earlier this month, the engine reached 40, 538 hours and 17,405 cycles without a single shop visit, surpassing the previous record of 40,531 hours set in 2000.
CFM56-3 engines are part of the best-selling CFM56 engine family, which is produced by CFM International (CFM), a 50/50 joint company between Snecma Moteurs (Safran Group) and General Electric Company.
The engine was part of the original installation on a new Boeing 737-500 delivered to Hapag-Lloyd in December 1990; Malev has been leasing the aircraft since 1999. During its in-service life, the engine has undergone routine inspections but has remained trouble free. Malev plans to remove the engine for overhaul in September, so the ultimate record will be established at that time.
CFM56-3 engines are part of the best-selling CFM56 engine family, which is produced by CFM International (CFM), a 50/50 joint company between Snecma Moteurs (Safran Group) and General Electric Company.
The engine was part of the original installation on a new Boeing 737-500 delivered to Hapag-Lloyd in December 1990; Malev has been leasing the aircraft since 1999. During its in-service life, the engine has undergone routine inspections but has remained trouble free. Malev plans to remove the engine for overhaul in September, so the ultimate record will be established at that time.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen a number of CFM56-5B3 (33k rating) on A321 with 40k+ FH, some even close to 45k - first run without shop visits.
