UPS cargo plane crash. Louisville Kentucky

[onetrack]

You have to remember that the aircraft was 34 years old, and had done over 92,000 hrs. Despite being fully rebuilt in 2006 when converted to a freighter (MD-11F), it was still a 1991 aircraft build - and it was due to be phased out of service shortly, due to age and hours/cycles.

 

Corrosion in two separate areas of structural members of the hull, was found in the Sept 2025 maintenance check, and along with a crack in a stringer near the centre wing upper fuel tank, these problems resulted in the lengthy repair, when the aircraft was out of service for over a month in Sept and Oct. This was a very old and very tired aircraft, and it should've been retired 10 years ago, especially with its known design faults.

[jackc]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

You have to remember that the aircraft was 34 years old, and had done over 92,000 hrs. Despite being fully rebuilt in 2006 when converted to a freighter (MD-11F), it was still a 1991 aircraft build - and it was due to be phased out of service shortly, due to age and hours/cycles.

 

Corrosion in two separate areas of structural members of the hull, was found in the Sept 2025 maintenance check, and along with a crack in a stringer near the centre wing upper fuel tank, these problems resulted in the lengthy repair, when the aircraft was out of service for over a month in Sept and Oct. This was a very old and very tired aircraft, and it should've been retired 10 years ago, especially with its known design faults.

Maybe this latest incident may bring an airframe end of life determination ? 

Which will see the early models end up out of service? 
 

[johnm]

be interesting to know what airframe life should be on these big birds - assuming if they are maintained in accordance with manufacturers regimes (and you have deep pockets) .......... they can fly indefinitely

 

WW2 B17's and Avro Lancasters are examples of that ............ assuming these are still maintained to manufacturers regimes ?

[facthunter]

That's not right.   There are Planes at HARS and DARWIN that flew there but will never fly again. Nev

[danny_galaga]

On 25/11/2025 at 6:25 AM, johnm said:

be interesting to know what airframe life should be on these big birds - assuming if they are maintained in accordance with manufacturers regimes (and you have deep pockets) .......... they can fly indefinitely

 

WW2 B17's and Avro Lancasters are examples of that ............ assuming these are still maintained to manufacturers regimes ?

I doubt that any B 17 has done 92,000 hours though. And it wasn't pressurised. Obviously you'd still have to watch for things like corrosion of course but in the grand scheme of things there's a lot less to catastrophically go wrong. 

[onetrack]

No B-17 would have ever achieved any more than 2,000-3,000 hrs TT. "The Swoose" is the oldest B-17 preserved, and has probably done less than 2000 hrs. It was built in 1941, and started suffering from cracked wing spars and corrosion by 1944.

 

The B17G "Nine-O-Nine" that was recently destroyed in a crash, had done under 1200 hrs. They weren't built to last, just built fast, to fight a war, and to be quickly destroyed.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swoose#:~:text=The Swoose is a Boeing,oldest B-17 still intact.

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:05 AM by onetrack

[facthunter]

I think Plenty of B17's have high hours. Didn't they have them Airborne 24/7 AND practicing stressful manoeuvres as well.   Everything has a useful life beyond which it's scrap.  The More turbulence it encounters Heavy Landings, pressurisation cycles etc the shorter the Life. It also depends on the Materials used in the construction.  The stability of the Alloys used and the anti corrosion care at the Build stage. Nev 

[facthunter]

 It's worth Having a Look at the One at Darwin. It appears to be Made of Bit's of everything and not a NEW fully developed from scratch effort. Nev

[johnm]

to add ? to the discussion - my point was 92000 hours equates to 10.50 years flying 24 hours a day / 365 days a year 

• thats a sound recomendation for that planes maintenance regime .......... and I'm guessing for that the manufacturer
  • or does the manufacturer have no say in it after a period
• a plane that takes it's final flight to a museum .......... also must be a product of sound maintenance (be it temporary maintenance)
• so if you owned a Lancaster or a B17 - if you have the money - that plane could fly for another 100 years ?
• why not ?
• or is there something else that determines a planes life

[facthunter]

The final flight to a museum OR the wreckers is Not a revenue flight and is Probably Operating on a SPECIFIC Permit to Fly. Such a Permit is NOT a Guaranteed outcome. I think there's only about 2 Constellations flying. The cause is wing spar condition. Any thing can be rebuilt I suppose  but the Cost may be extremely Prohibitive and technically Not Feasible as the original Process may be no Longer available. Strengthening  Modifications may have been done that can't be repeated. Nothing is forever. Metal Fatigue Is hard TO DETERMINE. You don't race tired engines. Aeroplanes are Kept safe by TIMELY Inspections and Notifications of  adverse findings World wide to pick up other similar possible failures Before they Happen .The worst Planes to Be flying are the Highest Hours Plane of any  Particular type. You are then in unchartered territory. Nev

[onetrack]

I can recall the time when you couldn't get CoA for any aircraft that had ever been in combat, or designed for combat. In wartime, they're used and abused, and taken way beyond structural recommendations as they're thrown around the sky.

They're shot up, patched, crashed and rebuilt - multiple times. They patched sections of one airframe onto another - and the LAME's worked in dreadful conditions, often with inadequate tools, and certainly using secondhand parts and components.

 

In WW2 they worked in atrocious conditions, sandstorms, new fresh-made (and often, still unfinished) runways, they took off in deep mud, they spent all their life in the open, alongside the oceans, on decks of ships (from new), and the average airframe life in WW2 was probably 3-4 years.

[johnm]

all to true - but they got this bird to 92000 hours - there must be something more to this ................ if you got the plane to 92000 hours there must have been an expectation that she was safe to say 95 - 100000 hours

 

which begs the question - what flying aircraft has the most flying hours (might not be something an owner (assuming an airline)) may wish NOT to reveal)

[onetrack]

John - A 33-year-old Boeing 747-400, registration HL7413, operated by Asiana Airlines Cargo, holds the record for the most hours flown by any Boeing aircraft: 149,645 hours. Converted from passenger service to freighter in 2007, this aircraft continues to fly key transpacific cargo routes.
Second on the list is Cargojet’s 767-300ER (C-FCAE) with 147,861 hours, followed by Delta Air Lines N171DN 767-300ER, still flying passengers with over 145,622 hours.

 

The B747 and B767 are amongst the best of the very well built (or perhaps "overbuilt") aircraft ever produced. Of course, the venerable Douglas DC-3 is also up amongst the long-lived list of aircraft, but their piston engines are possibly their weak point for ensuring longevity. A lot of DC-3's crashed simply due to engine failure. Jet engines reliability is one of the reasons why the B747 and B767 airframes can last for so long.

[facthunter]

Your first line is an assumption. johnm  (which I do not agree is accurate and o/t the fighters didn't DO lots of hours and are stressed for HIGH "G" and the Pilot has a chute. Nev

[facthunter]

 Those Planes do LONG legs too at High altitudes in smooth air. Be interesting to Know the Hours of the Ex Qantas B 747 at HARS as is the ORION there which T ABOT sent  on a prolonged search for the Malaysian Airlines Plane. Both Planes are grounded as they are out of Airframe Hours. Ie FATIGUED. Widespread corrosion will  ground a plane but you Can't SEE Fatigue or FIX it. Nev

[johnm]

Bl**dy incredible ................ good to hear from an engineer that works on those big birds

 

thats 4500 hours per year for HL 7413 - no pilot could ever clock up those hours (per year)

 

Mr google reckons a 747 burns 14000 ltrs / hour - based on 149000 hours that 2 trillion litres of fuel

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

John - A 33-year-old Boeing 747-400, registration HL7413, operated by Asiana Airlines Cargo, holds the record for the most hours flown by any Boeing aircraft: 149,645 hours. Converted from passenger service to freighter in 2007, this aircraft continues to fly key transpacific cargo routes.
Second on the list is Cargojet’s 767-300ER (C-FCAE) with 147,861 hours, followed by Delta Air Lines N171DN 767-300ER, still flying passengers with over 145,622 hours.

 

The B747 and B767 are amongst the best of the very well built (or perhaps "overbuilt") aircraft ever produced. Of course, the venerable Douglas DC-3 is also up amongst the long-lived list of aircraft, but their piston engines are possibly their weak point for ensuring longevity. A lot of DC-3's crashed simply due to engine failure. Jet engines reliability is one of the reasons why the B747 and B767 airframes can last for so long.