Jump to content

Recommended Posts

was thinking this morning about a few prop engined airframes that have really stood the test of time.

 

* the good old DC-3 or C47. First flown in commercial use in 1936! There was an extended fuselage version known as the Super DC-3. Also turbo prop conversions from several re-manufacturers. They are still flying a few here and there, and I calculate 85 years young. Russia built about 6,000 on license, and Japan simply copied it and used it till 1945. May well have been the single most successful design ever when you look at airframes like the F14 that are now made into beer cans.

 

* the C130 is another fine example. The turbo prop engines were on the test stands in late 1952, and seems like the first delivery was in 1954. Last I heard they were still building them.  Will this air frame see the 80 year mark? I like to think so. Another airframe that has really tested the idea of time.

 

* the P3 Orion/ Lockheed Electra/ and a couple other designations. Still out there flying after roughly 60 years, and maybe even more than that.

 

* I have to bring in another grand design tat has constantly been up graded and seems to live on forever. Of course that's got to be the B52 bomber. They don't make them anymore, but they still fly them daily. Boeing has the single largest CNC machine center in the world that is actually Airforce property. It is used to make new wing spars for the B52 and the 747 airliner. I do believe this machine will see 80 years of service. That's a very impressive stat!

 

    Now we get into the new stuff. Will the F15 fly another 20 years? It's getting close to sixty years young right now. Guess we can ask the same question about the F16 as well. They both are from a similar time frame of development. The A10 Warthog is right in there with them; I might add. I heard once that they still built Cessna 172's (true?). If so; then here's another one for you to ponder. They still fly a few C46's way up north, and I find that impressive. They just retired the last F111 (TFX) bombers a year or two ago, and that design goes almost sixty years. I find that impressive. And one cannot ever forget the F4 Phantom! Japan retired their last one recently. Very close to sixty years if nobody else if flying them, but somebody probably still is. 

 

Guess they don't make them like they used to!

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one which will probably be around forever is the 737 .. the first flight was in 1967.  There are just so many of them that they will be in service in some form or another for a long time, even after production ends. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kurt H. said:

Another one which will probably be around forever is the 737 .. the first flight was in 1967.  There are just so many of them that they will be in service in some form or another for a long time, even after production ends. 

most correct Sir. I also forgot the Mig's! The Mig21 is still in use in a lot of places as well as the Mig23 and Mig27. I don't know of anybody flying the Douglas A4 anymore, but it seemed to have a long life span. Also; one must never forget the Boeing 707 / KC135 / EC135, and many other variants still flying. Guess that list could really be long when you start to really think about it. 

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A-4 is still being used as an aggressor and target tow plane in civi hands on military contracts. Might still be in use in Argentina and Brazil. Of course the F-4 Phantom is still around, Turkey, Greece, (maybe) South Korea and Iran.

And Canada is about to hit 40 years on the CF-18, the way things are going its the "new Sea King"> Be another 40 years before the government replaces them.

Edited by phantom
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, phantom said:

The A-4 is still being used as an aggressor and target tow plane in civi hands on military contracts. Might still be in use in Argentina and Brazil. Of course the F-4 Phantom is still around, Turkey, Greece, (maybe) South Korea and Iran.

And Canada is about to hit 40 years on the CF-18, the way things are going its the "new Sea King"> Be another 40 years before the government replaces them.

looks like Canada is bound and determined to get their money's worth out of those airframes. 

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Beechcraft Bonanza-1947

 

Cessna 150-1957

 

Piper J2 "Cub"-1936

 

Taylorcraft B-1938

 

 Remarkable how many of them are still out & about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WymanV said:

Beechcraft Bonanza-1947

 

Cessna 150-1957

 

Piper J2 "Cub"-1936

 

Taylorcraft B-1938

 

 Remarkable how many of them are still out & about.

the first commercial flight for the DC-3 was in 1936, and the Piper J2 may be slightly older, but on the other hand does anybody use one daily? I have a Beechcraft Bonanza fly out of the airport near me regularly, but never thought of it being anything that old (but it is). I also have a Stearman close by, but once again it is just flown about one time every six or eight weeks. The guy who sells Mazdas in my area owns a P51, and flies it regularly, and at least he uses it for his business travel (Roush). There are actually quite a few Piper J3's out there and in use regularly, and these would be early 1940 something. I still see nothing even slightly neighboring the DC-3/C47 or C46 airframes for the length of the life span. Which I find amazing. 

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Helmsman said:

Antonov An-2. First flight in 1947. Still used and might be produced in China as Y-5.

I actually thought they used them in WWII, but also found I was wrong. What about the Polish crop duster (identity escapes me)? 

 

The C123 was used for quite awhile, but nowhere the length of the airframes posted here. Even the original TU95 Bear and TU142 are long in the tooth, but still not in this league. Most all C123's are scraped and melted down due two Agent Orange contamination. I honestly figured the C141 and C5  would have had a life span close to the B52.

I see Russian and U.S. airframes, but surely there are some French and British airframes to toss in to the group. 

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChesshireCat said:

 

    Now we get into the new stuff. Will the F15 fly another 20 years? It's getting close to sixty years young right now. Guess we can ask the same question about the F16 as well. They both are from a similar time frame of development. The A10 Warthog is right in there with them; I might add. I heard once that they still built Cessna 172's (true?). If so; then here's another one for you to ponder. They still fly a few C46's way up north, and I find that impressive. They just retired the last F111 (TFX) bombers a year or two ago, and that design goes almost sixty years. I find that impressive. And one cannot ever forget the F4 Phantom! Japan retired their last one recently. Very close to sixty years if nobody else if flying them, but somebody probably still is. 

 

 

Now that the Air Force has received their first F-15EX, it looks like we will have several more decades of Eagles in action.  The F-16 fleet is planned to be in service until the late 2040s , and now the Air Force is considering more, as new build block 70s, so that too will be around quite a while.

 

Seeing the Blue Angles this year will be shock, as I'm still getting over the idea that all F-18 Hornets (legacy) are now retiring, but I think we still have a lot more history with fourth generation aircraft (and I hope the Thunderbirds keep their F-16s for as many years as possible.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could add the DH Chipmunk, first flew in 1946, there are still 2 of them on the strength of the RAF, flown by the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. Many also still fly in civilian hands. Still a fair number of DH Tiger Moths still flying as well, first flew in 1931.

 

-----------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, barkin mad said:

You could add the DH Chipmunk, first flew in 1946, there are still 2 of them on the strength of the RAF, flown by the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. Many also still fly in civilian hands. Still a fair number of DH Tiger Moths still flying as well, first flew in 1931.

 

-----------

 

the Chipmunks are for shows only, and are not used regularly like the DC-3 airframe. Even the Stearman is for shows and recreational use. Of course there is the DeHavland Beaver and some others out there. I've really been surprised that the C130 has not been thru a major redesign to seriously upgrade the wings and engines. They are capable of nearly twice the horse power they now use. Still it's a well known and proven design that has few if any bugs left in it. The Boeing 707 has been re-engined a couple times, and just keeps going and going. The one that surprised me as to how short lived it was, is the A7. There again, it was capable of much more power, and had a state of the art gunnery system

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBMF Chipmunks are seldom seen at shows, more's the pity. They are used to give pilots tail dragger experience (keeps hours & stress off the Spits etc) they are also used for transport purposes & recces of new venues. So they do earn their keep. I thought the C-130J uses totally different engines to the originals. It's a modern day Dakota/C-47/DC-3. Be interesting to see what will replace the C-130 in future years (if ever) I think they will be flying for decades yet.

 

-----------------

 

Edited by barkin mad
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 8:38 PM, ChesshireCat said:

I've really been surprised that the C130 has not been thru a major redesign to seriously upgrade the wings and engines.

It has, it's the J model; if that's what you mean. Or are you speaking to the Legacy Fleet being redesigned and upgraded?  It looks like a duck and quacks like one...but it's not the same duck.

 

6 hours ago, barkin mad said:

I thought the C-130J uses totally different engines to the originals.

They are different, much better performance.

 

 

6 hours ago, barkin mad said:

I think they will be flying for decades yet.

The J is a very robust aircraft, the life expectancy is no different than the legacy fleet Herc. The J life span is in her infancy stage right now.

 

Cheers

 

AFM

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, barkin mad said:

The BBMF Chipmunks are seldom seen at shows, more's the pity. They are used to give pilots tail dragger experience (keeps hours & stress off the Spits etc) they are also used for transport purposes & recces of new venues. So they do earn their keep. I thought the C-130J uses totally different engines to the originals. It's a modern day Dakota/C-47/DC-3. Be interesting to see what will replace the C-130 in future years (if ever) I think they will be flying for decades yet.

 

-----------------

 

The C130's all use an Allison T56 turbo prop engine in one form or another. Very little external difference from the first to whatever is current. I might add that Rolls Royce owns the Allison Engine Company now (well a little more than 70% of it). They own it all but a small foundry and for some reason G.M. owns whatever is left. The foundry is actually Defense Department Property, and takes a seriously high top secret classification just to get in there. The actual C130 airframe has had very little redesign done to it, but a constant stream of upgrades. Seems like there are two lengths now. So there's still a lot that can be done to that old Herc.

 

Just a note on the Chipmunk. Besides feeding my cats with chipmunks, we seem to have one flying out of the local airport. I've seen it many times. Guess we can really say it's another airframe that has no time limits. Seems to be very good at aerobatics I might add. That Stearman is just beautiful! Year before last all the canvas was replaced with new yellow and blue paint. I've been promised a serious walk around, and quite possibly a ride in it! I'll build him an ICM Stearman just for that ride alone!!! 

 

The one airframe that I honestly thought would go for a long time, but didn't seem to was the C7 Cariboo. It used about two thirds the run way that the C130 needed, and seemed to be very reliable. I imagine there are still a few flying out there, but nowhere near what I'd have thought. Be interesting to see how long the European replacements for the C130 last. I also look for the C17 to have a very long life span. 

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AlienFrogModeller said:

It has, it's the J model; if that's what you mean. Or are you speaking to the Legacy Fleet being redesigned and upgraded?  It looks like a duck and quacks like one...but it's not the same duck.

 

They are different, much better performance.

 

 

The J is a very robust aircraft, the life expectancy is no different than the legacy fleet Herc. The J life span is in her infancy stage right now.

 

Cheers

 

AFM

Turbo prop engines are rated in shaft horse power for engineering reason. Think the Airforce uses the 3300 SHP engine right now. They've had 5800 SHP engines in the test cells for at least fifteen years now, and with a major transmission redesign could probably get 7500 SHP. I can't see them ever going past 4500 horse power, but can see them adding two or four ram jets like the C123 did. Still kind of amazing in this day and age that a 1954 airframe design is still in production, when we see them gone in 25 years. I wonder is the C130J is new manufacture or rebuilt older airframes? Plus you know as well that if they have a C130J in house, there's at least two more designs on the drawing board.  I don't have any inside ins with Rolls Royce anymore as they've all retired or croaked. Plus I'm kinda hyper critical of the way they run their business. 

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ChesshireCat said:

I wonder is the C130J is new manufacture or rebuilt older airframes?

All new and improved over the older version. the years of flying had brought lessons learned to the new manufactured frame.

 

10 hours ago, ChesshireCat said:

Think the Airforce uses the 3300 SHP engine right now.

Currently the rated SHP is 4637.

 

It is not necc always to have the most SHP. The Dowty blade system contributes in many ways: Fuel efficiency, range and power at multiple PLA. Due to this combination of new engines (relative to the older Legacy powerplant) the fuel efficiency, range speed all have dramatically increased. With a new airframe, avionics, and other systems onboard to make this more robust and efficient wrt to payload, delivery accuracy, scheduled maint etc (the list is not exhaustive), this airframe will be the backbone of the transport fleet for many years to come.

 

Again the time reference is relative to the Legacy fleet and when I mention new or newer, this model of the Herc is just that. The J model has been around since 1998 IIRC and was an internal investment design by Lockheed and was not a requirement request by any military fleet.  In my eyes, as a technician, maint manager and user of this aircraft, it is new, when I was involved in bringing them into service for the RCAF, they were spankin' new; I was there for all 17 ac deliveries. I had the privilege to visit the historic manufacturing plant in Marietta, GA. And I can say they are brand new...

 

Cheers

 

AFM

Edited by AlienFrogModeller
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AlienFrogModeller said:

All new and improved over the older version. the years of flying had brought lessons learned to the new manufactured frame.

 

Currently the rated SHP is 4637.

 

It is not necc always to have the most SHP. The Dowty blade system contributes in many ways: Fuel efficiency, range and power at multiple PLA. Due to this combination of new engines (relative to the older Legacy powerplant) the fuel efficiency, range speed all have dramatically increased. With a new airframe, avionics, and other systems onboard to make this more robust and efficient wrt to payload, delivery accuracy, scheduled maint etc (the list is not exhaustive), this airframe will be the backbone of the transport fleet for many years to come.

 

Again the time reference is relative to the Legacy fleet and when I mention new or newer, this model of the Herc is just that. The J model has been around since 1998 IIRC and was an internal investment design by Lockheed and was not a requirement request by any military fleet.  In my eyes, as a technician, maint manager and user of this aircraft, it is new, when I was involved in bringing them into service for the RCAF, they were spankin' new; I was there for all 17 ac deliveries. I had the privilege to visit the historic manufacturing plant in Marietta, GA. And I can say they are brand new...

 

Cheers

 

AFM

you are quite correct in the power comment. With the current wing system the 4600 hp seems almost an over kill. Just hard to believe that the grand old design just keeps going on and on! Way back in the early eighties Allison did a good bit of experimenting with ten and twelve bladed props, but never saw any on a C130 type of airframe. The idea was to increase fuel range and reduce harmonics. This tells me they rotated at a slower speed while moving more air. The only serious difference between the 3300 horse power engine and the 5800 horse power engine was the fuel delivery system and two or four servo valves if I remember correctly. Future development will be at a stand still soon as all the test cells are being removed (major task) and the Plant Eight engineering building will be torn down for a new building (that one doesn't make sense). You'd have thought they'd have started in Plant five, as that's a very old WWII plant with wood beams. Still it's 63 acres under one roof (a good place to get lost in).

Never liked going in there much as I got lost every time I went. I spent most of my time on land based warfare equipment and commercial equipment. Can't see how Roll Royce makes a dime! When they took over, they had two businesses that they were the world's sole supplier in. The price was theirs to put in place. Then they also had the single largest gear cutting operation in the world. Promptly got rid of that; when it made more money than the aircraft business. And there was yet another they got rid of that was a serious money maker. 

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChesshireCat said:

Never liked going in there much as I got lost every time I went.

HAHA, still the memories that old building must have...we could talk for hours if we could. Love hearing those types of stories. I almost got lost at the C-130J plant...was very interesting to see. Loved it in there. I got the opportunity to sign my name inside one of our Hercs while on the assy line.


Cheers

 

AFM

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, AlienFrogModeller said:

HAHA, still the memories that old building must have...we could talk for hours if we could. Love hearing those types of stories. I almost got lost at the C-130J plant...was very interesting to see. Loved it in there. I got the opportunity to sign my name inside one of our Hercs while on the assy line.


Cheers

 

AFM

Oh Wow! I've been inside a lot of plants over the years. Some were impressive and many were crude. Lima Ohio was pretty neat (M1 Tank) and I got the tour that the regular tour never do. Actually been in there three times. Was treated very well in there. Warren Tech was the neatest place I've been in. I saw race cars, production cars and even NASCAR cars that were two years out. I was building the world's largest robotic cell, and really was lost half the time. They sent me up there every Tuesday morning on the corporate jet to learn what I could about artificial intelligence. They were also learning from me as everybody had an interest in that cell concept. I did get to go in the Warren Tank Assembly Plant for an hour or two. The greatest event was just setting in the mid engine Cadillac sports car. It had a 740 hp V12 engine in it, and looked like it was right out of Italy. The C8 uses that chassis, but they were too cheap to have them build the V12 engine for them. The Corvette is ugly compared to that Cadillac! 

      Auto assembly plants are boring. I only went in there to see what they were doing with their robotics. I've been in most of the G.M. plants and some of Ford and Chrysler's. Honda and Toyota as well. We all trade non guarded data all the time. I was instructed to never reveal any gear cutting data or metalurgy even to G.M. plants. Took me ten minutes to know why! They're all good people just trying to make a good living. Add to this, I had the right to ask for a tour in any outside vendor we used. That was always good for a big steak dinner, as they all wanted to sell me something. 

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

and another grand old airframe I over looked, and is still in use to this very day. That'd be the old Beechcraft Kansas of course.  I think I read that they have added a new pair of engines to them as the original engines were getting hard to find. Was kind of surprised the the Lockheed Ventura series didn't last this long

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I've had an "interesting" flight in an AN-2 when I was a kid. It was a pretty nicelly kept up example, though a bit old at that time. So I guess it's just as it is with cars, up untill a point it's just a question of how much work, time and money are You willing to put in them. Loved an article on the company that bought DC'3's, re engining them and converting them to water bombers.

But if we are talking types, I love the C-130 example. If the cargo size doesn't change, there is no need for replacement type. You get a proven design, probably proven procedures too. So do You really need anything new? I mean, some C-130J's are not that old, right? And the older type can get replaced. Similar, but not the same with fighters. If the mission doesn't change, or the required capabilities (stealth, payload, new ecm stuff) what reason is there to seek replacement except the cost and maintanence time? I guess wanting to keep the edge. Or in case of my neck of the woods some rather nasty ejection seat problems and some other "minor" stuff.

I guess newly manufactured F-15's or F-16's, with all the possible bells and whistles still could be relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took my son to an airshow some 18 years ago and we took a flight in a Bell 47, same model I had

watched on TV when I was about 6 years old in 1959 or so. That Bell 47 is STILL flying! jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...