3 ms·
> It isn't safe to keep operating the same airplanes for decades. Me, crying while flying a 50 year old Cessna 172. Oh, luckily you are wrong this time: most
by AdrianB1 3y ago
> It isn't safe to keep operating the same airplanes for decades.
Me, crying while flying a 50 year old Cessna 172.
Oh, luckily you are wrong this time: most planes at top airlines are replaced with more competitive ones, not because they depleted the airframe. The rest is replaceable - airplanes replace engines more often than some people change their socks and everything else is either regularly checked or replaced based on a strict schedule.
- dralley 3y agoUnlike a 172, an airliner is in near constant use, and subject to much more serious stresses, like heavy turbulence, storms, the temperatures at 35k feet, and pressurization. Replacing the airframe with a more competitive one is part of it, but part of the competitiveness is that you reach a point where you're having to do much more inspections and maintenance than a new plane.
- WalterBright 3y agoA Boeing airliner is designed for 62,000 flying hours. After that, the airframe will no longer be reliable. Fatigue damage is pretty hard to detect. Also, corrosion creeps in. For comparison, a car's life expectancy is maybe 3,000 hours or so. Airframe quality is way, way higher than car quality.
- kelnos 3y agoAirframe life is rated in hours of flight, not in years. So your 50 year old Cessna might still have plenty of hours left in it; I bet planes like that aren't in the air as much as commercial airliners. Also note that the GP pointed out that it depends on what the plane is made out of, so older construction from 50 years ago can have more longevity in a way that more recently-built planes will not.
- AdrianB1 3y agoI responded to someone who said it is not safe to fly airplanes for decades. I don't think they meant "decades equivalent of flight hours", but the decades since manufacturing date.