Good day guys'n'gals! What defines the end of an airplane? (Other than the obvious reasons of accidents, crashes and what not) The reason of the question is that I see bone-yards full of relatively new frames in comparison to many very old frames with thousands of hours in operation and have even gone into multiple conversions between passenger, cargo and private configuration. I have had to pass on many great deals, (at least in my opinion), just because of the plane's age compared to many I see scrapped by airlines and such. Add to that; has any of you heard of a recovery of scraped frame back into any form of operation? We can also extend the conversation a bit and talk about equipment and their relation and/or contribution to the subject. Thanks for the effort. JF Rocks! Cheers, P.s.: Did a search and scroll around on the subject, yet if I missed a similar thread or posted to the wrong forum, please accept my apology and straighten my mess up! Thanks.
Well I suppose it might have to do with more people with that kind of disposable income around. Back then you had to stick with aircraft and ride the usefulness out of them. These days as soon as something appears remotely inefficient especially with high-fuel bills people and companies get rid of aircraft even if they still have lots of operational life in them left. Another thing too, especially in the business jet side of things is that, its a ego, leisure, and showoff tool. Whatever, is hot at the time, and you can afford it, you get one!
Light aircraft usage is generally calculated in hours, but usually pressurized planes are measured in cycles. If we're talking alloy based airframes, certainly metal fatigue is a consideration, which isn't as simple as hours or cycles. I think it's more an issue of turbulent air, hard landings and operating environment; scenarios not often recorded. A hangered plane is likely to be in better condition than one that has sat on the tarmac. One that has a high ratio of landings per flight hour has probably seen much more abuse than one that has relatively few landings per flight hour. And one flown by many pilots has a greater potential for problems than one that has been flown by only a few. If those pilots hold higher ratings and have a lot of flight time behind them, the plane probably was handled more gently than one flown by low time pilots. (generally speaking) Planes in dry climates usually don't have corrosion issues. In contrast, a plane that has lived by the sea will usually show signs. The engine of a hot desert plane has probably contended with a harsher operating environment than one operated in a more moderate climate. The resurrection of downed warbirds over the years is proof these planes can fly well beyond their intended lifespan. Many of them were built for a few hundred cycles. 60-70 years later, these birds still fly with well over 10k, 20k and 50k hours. Of course, just about every rivet and every sheet of metal has been replaced!
