ac greatest % of life in the air

[patrick mitchel]

What ac has spent the greatest % of it's life in the air- excluding the ac
that crashed on it's first flight. Thanks Pat

[[email protected]]

Which SINGLE a/c or which TYPE a/c?

[Dick Latshaw]

"patrick mitchel" > wrote in message >...
> What ac has spent the greatest % of it's life in the air- excluding the ac
> that crashed on it's first flight.

I'll vote for the C141A/B. I know that when they were new at
Charleston, we used to turn them around in a couple of hours and send
them back to SEA.

Regards,
Dick

[patrick mitchel]

Dick Latshaw > wrote in message
om...
> "patrick mitchel" > wrote in message
>...
> > What ac has spent the greatest % of it's life in the air- excluding the
ac
> > that crashed on it's first flight.
>
> I'll vote for the C141A/B. I know that when they were new at
> Charleston, we used to turn them around in a couple of hours and send
> them back to SEA.
>
> Regards,
> Dick

single ac- I recall reading of a 747 that had spent some remarkable portion
of it's time in the air, earning it's keep- I believe it was a Braniff plane
and the article was in "flying" magazine Pat

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:32:47 -0800, "patrick mitchel"
> wrote:

>What ac has spent the greatest % of it's life in the air- excluding the ac
>that crashed on it's first flight. Thanks Pat
>


My guess would be some commercial aircraft somewhere

[Leslie Swartz]

C-141 a/B a total slacker compared to almost *any* commercial aircraft.

In 1993 we did a study using AFMC and NTSB/FAA flying hours/calendar hours
to build reliability and maintainability models . . . the absolute *worst*
commercial liner was at least a full order of magnitude higher utilization
than the absolute *best* utilized military aircraft.

Steve Swartz

Well, o.k., 7.3 times higher; not quite an order of magnitude but pretty
damn high


"Dick Latshaw" > wrote in message
om...
> "patrick mitchel" > wrote in message
>...
> > What ac has spent the greatest % of it's life in the air- excluding the
ac
> > that crashed on it's first flight.
>
> I'll vote for the C141A/B. I know that when they were new at
> Charleston, we used to turn them around in a couple of hours and send
> them back to SEA.
>
> Regards,
> Dick

[Martin]

> My guess would be some commercial aircraft somewhere

Ditto. Commercial aircraft only generate money when their landing
gear is retracted. So there is a large incentive to keep them flying.

On the other hand, most military aircraft actually get relatively
little flying time, except in times of war. This is why the KC-135
tanker fleet is scheduled to fly for at least another 10 years (over
50 years total) and why the B-52 will also be flying into the
forseeable future.

Martin

[WaltBJ]

C124? Old Shaky had to spend a lot of time in the air, it was so slow!
Walt BJ

[Regnirps]

"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

<< C-141 a/B a total slacker compared to almost *any* commercial aircraft.

In 1993 we did a study using AFMC and NTSB/FAA flying hours/calendar hours
to build reliability and maintainability models . . . the absolute *worst*
commercial liner was at least a full order of magnitude higher utilization
than the absolute *best* utilized military aircraft. >>

Did this include the 60's and 70's? They went overhead in three's all day every
day for years. I don't recall if they were coming from McChord or Ft. Lewis.
Maybe both. I caught a ride on one at McChord in about '70. Great airsick
machines when loaded with guys sideways in the webbing benches and just a
couple of tiny windows and a pilot who likes to lose altitude by slipping.
Everybody was fine till the last couple of minutes :-)

-- Charlie Springer

[David Bromage]

patrick mitchel wrote:
> What ac has spent the greatest % of it's life in the air- excluding
the ac
> that crashed on it's first flight.

Depends how you define the start of its life. Is it the day it's rolled
out of the factory, first flight, delivery to customer or first flight
"in service"? There are instances of RAF fighters being shot down on
their first day of squadron service but not on the first sortie of the day.

Also depends how you define the end of life. There also a few wartime
instances of aircraft being damaged on their first flight and limping
back to base, and while not actually crashing they cannibalised for
parts almost immediately.

Cheers
David

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
"patrick mitchel" > wrote:

>What ac has spent the greatest % of it's life in the air- excluding the ac
>that crashed on it's first flight. Thanks Pat

Back in the '60s, SAC was very proud of one of the Looking Glass
KC-135's that was the high time aircraft in the USAF at something like
2700 hrs. That was about 75% of the time a 707 would get in one year.

Move forward to the 90's and the AA 767's going from DFW to Europe and
back daily were averaging about 20 hours aloft out of each 24.

On a slightly different tack, I recall a 727 with about 27000 hrs total
and one of the three engines was original and had never been off the
airframe.

--
Ron

[OXMORON1]

Walt wrote:
>C124? Old Shaky had to spend a lot of time in the air, it was so slow!

Except when it broke down on Wake or Lajes or Goose Bay. It never broke in
Spain, HI, Japan, Germany or home.

Slow? Slow? Not compared to a C-47.
I once got a groundspeed of 270 knots in Shakey!

Oxmoron1
MFE and deaf as a stone
On second thought Lajes wasn't a bad place to break down.

[Leslie Swartz]

20 years of data 1970-1990

Generally speaking, military aircraft rust out before they wear out; vice
versa for civil fleet.

Main result of the finding was that R&M models for civil fleet were pretty
much N/A for military.

Basically a similar missioned/similar sized civil aircraft clocks 5-10
flight hours per flight hour for military aircraft over the same period.

This may have changed, now that ANG/AFRES optempo has increased so much.
But I doubt if they are anywhere near equal yet.

Steve

"Regnirps" > wrote in message
...
> "Leslie Swartz" wrote:
>
> << C-141 a/B a total slacker compared to almost *any* commercial aircraft.
>
> In 1993 we did a study using AFMC and NTSB/FAA flying hours/calendar hours
> to build reliability and maintainability models . . . the absolute *worst*
> commercial liner was at least a full order of magnitude higher utilization
> than the absolute *best* utilized military aircraft. >>
>
> Did this include the 60's and 70's? They went overhead in three's all day
every
> day for years. I don't recall if they were coming from McChord or Ft.
Lewis.
> Maybe both. I caught a ride on one at McChord in about '70. Great airsick
> machines when loaded with guys sideways in the webbing benches and just a
> couple of tiny windows and a pilot who likes to lose altitude by slipping.
> Everybody was fine till the last couple of minutes :-)
>
> -- Charlie Springer
>

[[email protected]]

(OXMORON1) wrote:

>Walt wrote:
>>C124? Old Shaky had to spend a lot of time in the air, it was so slow!
>
>Except when it broke down on Wake or Lajes or Goose Bay. It never broke in
>Spain, HI, Japan, Germany or home.
>
>Slow? Slow? Not compared to a C-47.
>I once got a groundspeed of 270 knots in Shakey!
>
>Oxmoron1
>MFE and deaf as a stone
>On second thought Lajes wasn't a bad place to break down.

Yes..always liked Lajes...great NCO's Club...honkin big rare
steak, bottle 'a Mateuse(sp)...then hit the bar...get
stinko...honk up the steak, stagger back to quarters...wake up
with a big head and dread the fast approaching 18 hour low level
patrol on the way home.

Thank *God* I'm retired...

:)

BTW, what's MFE? (and I'm deaf as a post too)
--

-Gord.

[Yeff]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:56:26 GMT, Gord wrote:

> Yes..always liked Lajes...great NCO's Club...honkin big rare
> steak, bottle 'a Mateuse(sp)...then hit the bar...get
> stinko...

Stinko - now there's a term I always thought was unique to Japan. Hadn't
thought of it in years.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[OXMORON1]

Gord asked:
>BTW, what's MFE?

Middleaged Flatulence Emitter, more pc than Old Phart.

Yes Lajes was nice, 24 hour club, dinner at 0300, breakfast at 1500, then 90
knot crosswinds on in to Rota or back to Norfolk. The cliffs on the islands
made great radar returns even for an APS-42 at 8000ft

Oxmoron1
MFE

[[email protected]]

Yeff > wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:56:26 GMT, Gord wrote:
>
>> Yes..always liked Lajes...great NCO's Club...honkin big rare
>> steak, bottle 'a Mateuse(sp)...then hit the bar...get
>> stinko...
>
>Stinko - now there's a term I always thought was unique to Japan. Hadn't
>thought of it in years.
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com

No, common in Canada, not that I did it often. Matter of fact I
wasted one talent that I have in that regard. I *never* suffer
from hangovers, never. Doesn't matter what I do, I feel fine in
the morning...disgusting isn't it?...

Some friends hate me for it.
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

>Ron Parsons > wrote:

>Back in the '60s, SAC was very proud of one of the Looking Glass
>KC-135's that was the high time aircraft in the USAF at something
like
>2700 hrs. That was about 75% of the time a 707 would get in one year.

>Move forward to the 90's and the AA 767's going from DFW to Europe
and
>back daily were averaging about 20 hours aloft out of each 24.

>On a slightly different tack, I recall a 727 with about 27000 hrs
total
>and one of the three engines was original and had never been off the
>airframe.

At least it could still remain aloft on its other two engines if that
one old JT-8D engine happened to quit. Some of the Cessna 210's that
I've hauled bags of checks in had more than 14,000 hrs. logged on the
airframe
and engine failures at the most inopportune time were almost to be
expected.
I seriously considered purchasing NVG's so I could see where I was
going
when the engine quit at night and still have various dirt roads and
cow pastures programmed into my GPS that were to be used in the event
of
an engine failure.

[[email protected]]

(OXMORON1) wrote:

>Gord asked:
>>BTW, what's MFE?
>
>Middleaged Flatulence Emitter, more pc than Old Phart.
>
>Yes Lajes was nice, 24 hour club, dinner at 0300, breakfast at 1500, then 90
>knot crosswinds on in to Rota or back to Norfolk. The cliffs on the islands
>made great radar returns even for an APS-42 at 8000ft
>
>Oxmoron1
>MFE

Thanks... :)
--

-Gord.

[Ron]

>No, common in Canada, not that I did it often. Matter of fact I
>wasted one talent that I have in that regard. I *never* suffer
>from hangovers, never. Doesn't matter what I do, I feel fine in
>the morning...disgusting isn't it?...
>
> Some friends hate me for it.
>--

We will let you know how we feel about it, tomorrow morning :)


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
(Mike Marron) wrote:

>>Ron Parsons > wrote:
>
>>Back in the '60s, SAC was very proud of one of the Looking Glass
>>KC-135's that was the high time aircraft in the USAF at something
>like
>>2700 hrs. That was about 75% of the time a 707 would get in one year.
>
>>Move forward to the 90's and the AA 767's going from DFW to Europe
>and
>>back daily were averaging about 20 hours aloft out of each 24.
>
>>On a slightly different tack, I recall a 727 with about 27000 hrs
>total
>>and one of the three engines was original and had never been off the
>>airframe.
>
>At least it could still remain aloft on its other two engines if that
>one old JT-8D engine happened to quit. Some of the Cessna 210's that
>I've hauled bags of checks in had more than 14,000 hrs. logged on the
>airframe
>and engine failures at the most inopportune time were almost to be
>expected.
>I seriously considered purchasing NVG's so I could see where I was
>going
>when the engine quit at night and still have various dirt roads and
>cow pastures programmed into my GPS that were to be used in the event
>of
>an engine failure.

Actually the other two were like 26,000 and 22,000 but had been moved
from one a/c to another at some point.

--
Ron

[WaltBJ]

I recall reading in Av Week maybe 10 years ago that some 707s had over
90,000 hours - article stated that the airframe was designed for
75,000, and FAA was taking a good look at the high-time birds.
Walt BJ

[Indrek Aavisto]

" wrote:

> Yeff > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:56:26 GMT, Gord wrote:
> >
> >> Yes..always liked Lajes...great NCO's Club...honkin big rare
> >> steak, bottle 'a Mateuse(sp)...then hit the bar...get
> >> stinko...
> >
> >Stinko - now there's a term I always thought was unique to Japan. Hadn't
> >thought of it in years.
> >
> >-Jeff B.
> >yeff at erols dot com
>
> No, common in Canada, not that I did it often. Matter of fact I
> wasted one talent that I have in that regard. I *never* suffer
> from hangovers, never. Doesn't matter what I do, I feel fine in
> the morning...disgusting isn't it?...
>
> Some friends hate me for it.
> --
>
> -Gord.

Stompin' Tom Connors had a famous song about thinking no more of Inco and
getting stinko on a Sudbury Saturday night.

Cheers,


--
Indrek Aavisto
Sudbury, Ontario

"Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult" W. S. Churchill

[[email protected]]

Indrek Aavisto > wrote:

>
>
" wrote:
>
>> Yeff > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:56:26 GMT, Gord wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes..always liked Lajes...great NCO's Club...honkin big rare
>> >> steak, bottle 'a Mateuse(sp)...then hit the bar...get
>> >> stinko...
>> >
>> >Stinko - now there's a term I always thought was unique to Japan. Hadn't
>> >thought of it in years.
>> >
>> >-Jeff B.
>> >yeff at erols dot com
>>
>> No, common in Canada, not that I did it often. Matter of fact I
>> wasted one talent that I have in that regard. I *never* suffer
>> from hangovers, never. Doesn't matter what I do, I feel fine in
>> the morning...disgusting isn't it?...
>>
>> Some friends hate me for it.
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>Stompin' Tom Connors had a famous song about thinking no more of Inco and
>getting stinko on a Sudbury Saturday night.
>
>Cheers,

See?...our most prestigious and well respected people know the
'Language of our Forefathers'.

:)
--

-Gord.

[The Raven]

"patrick mitchel" > wrote in message
...
> What ac has spent the greatest % of it's life in the air- excluding the ac
> that crashed on it's first flight. Thanks Pat

Probably the Rutan Voyager. I don't believe it flew much before or after the
around the world non-stop flight. That would mean it spent most of it's
operational in the air.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[The Raven]

"patrick mitchel" > wrote in message
...
> What ac has spent the greatest % of it's life in the air- excluding the ac
> that crashed on it's first flight. Thanks Pat

Oh, if you meant "military" then whatever had the shortest single flight
that survived. That would make it very close to 100%.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.